Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Authentic8 Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Touchpoint Projections Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Authentic8, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01804, E.D. Va., 10/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in the district, including a physical office, employees, and substantial revenue generation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Silo Web Isolation Platform infringes a patent related to securing network communications by remotely rendering web content and transmitting a safe version to a user’s browser.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the risk of malware delivered through web browsing by isolating the user's computer from direct contact with potentially malicious web code.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 Priority Date
2015-08-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 Issues
2025-10-17	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712, "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY," issued August 25, 2015.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of malware being delivered to a user's computer through normal internet browsing, where visiting even legitimate but compromised websites can lead to infection (’712 Patent, col. 1:24-36). Conventional anti-virus software is not always effective against sophisticated hacks that operate at low levels of a computer's architecture (’712 Patent, col. 4:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention interposes a remote "security module" between the user's computer and the internet (’712 Patent, Fig. 1). This module receives potentially malicious web data, "renders" it into a safe format like a "pixilated image," and then re-packages this safe data into a "new browser readable code set" (e.g., an XML page with CSS layers) to send to the user's browser (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:55-65). This process effectively strips out malicious executable code while preserving the user's ability to interact with the web content through overlaid links or data fields (’712 Patent, col. 16:26-40).
  • Technical Importance: This remote rendering approach provides security by ensuring that no original, potentially harmful code from an external website is ever executed on the user's local device, thereby neutralizing a primary vector for malware attacks (’712 Patent, col. 7:13-19).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Providing a remote software rendering application.
    • Intercepting a user's browser command intended for an internet data source.
    • Receiving responsive data from the internet data source.
    • Automatically rendering all received responsive data into an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" such that no original browser executable code will be executed at the user computer.
    • Overlaying the pixilated image data with a "secure browser readable code set layer" comprising interactive elements like links, input fields, video, or audio.
    • Sending the combined browser readable code set to the user's browser.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The Silo Web Isolation Platform ("Silo") (Compl. ¶29).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint alleges Silo is a remote browser isolation system that executes all web content on Authentic8’s cloud servers instead of the user's local device (Compl. ¶29).
  • When a user interacts with the internet, the request is routed to the Silo platform, where the browsing session occurs in a remote, isolated environment (Compl. ¶29).
  • The user's computer allegedly receives only a "pixel-based video stream of the session," and no website code is executed locally (Compl. ¶29). The complaint includes a screenshot of Defendant's Herndon, Virginia office, which it alleges is a physical business location from which Defendant offers its services (Compl. ¶8; Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶34, 37). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the Silo platform performs the patented method by acting as a remote container for browsing sessions (Compl. ¶29). The core of the infringement allegation is that Silo executes web content on its own cloud servers (the remote "rendering application"), and in doing so, prevents malicious website code from running on the end-user's device (Compl. ¶29). The complaint alleges that the resulting "pixel-based video stream" sent to the user corresponds to the "interactive pixilated image" and "secure browser readable code set" recited in the claims of the ’712 Patent (Compl. ¶29, 36).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused "pixel-based video stream" constitutes a "secure browser readable code set layer" as claimed in the ’712 Patent. The patent specification describes this "code set" as potentially being an "xml page with CSS layers," which is structurally different from a video stream (’712 Patent, Abstract). The analysis will question whether a stream of pixels can be considered a "code set" with an "overlay" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the user's computer receives a "pixel-based video stream," but claim 1 requires rendering data into an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" and overlaying it with a "secure browser readable code set layer" containing elements like links or input fields. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused "video stream" is not merely a passive display but is constructed with the specific layered and interactive properties required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "secure browser readable code set"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the final, safe product delivered to the user. The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused "pixel-based video stream" meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s description of a re-packaged "xml page with CSS layers" may be significantly different from a video stream.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "code set" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that any data structure readable by a browser, including one that renders a video stream, qualifies. The patent’s purpose is to prevent execution of original code, a function that a video stream arguably achieves (’712 Patent, col. 16:26-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and detailed description repeatedly provide the example of "an xml page with CSS layers" as the resulting code set (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:54-57). This specific embodiment could be used to argue that the term requires a structured, file-based format, not a continuous stream of pixel data. Claim 1 also requires this "code set" to be a "layer" containing specific functional components (links, fields), which may further limit the term's scope.

• The Term: "interactive pixilated image as a layer"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the base element created by the remote rendering process, onto which interactive elements are overlaid. The defendant may argue that its "pixel-based video stream" is a single, undifferentiated stream, not a distinct "layer" that is separate from an interactive overlay.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "layer" could be interpreted functionally to mean any visual base upon which user interaction is mapped, even if it is technically part of a single video stream. The patent focuses on the outcome—the user can interact with what appears to be a webpage—which could support a broader functional definition (’712 Patent, col. 16:30-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 distinguishes between the "pixilated image as a layer" and the "secure browser readable code set layer" that is overlaid upon it. This suggests a two-part structure. The specification’s discussion of using CSS layers to add interactivity on top of a rendered base image reinforces this structural distinction, potentially narrowing the term to exclude a monolithic video stream (’712 Patent, col. 8:54-57).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Authentic8 aids and abets its customers' direct infringement by providing instructions and supplying the Silo platform with the knowledge and specific intent that users will practice the patented method in a "normal and customary way" (Compl. ¶47-48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but it alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" and has made no effort to design around the patent's claims (Compl. ¶13, 51). This appears to lay the groundwork for a post-suit willfulness claim.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. Definitional Scope: A central issue will be whether the accused "pixel-based video stream" can be construed as the claimed "secure browser readable code set." The case may turn on if this patent term, described in the specification with examples like "an xml page with CSS layers," is broad enough to cover a modern video-streaming approach to browser isolation.
2. Structural Equivalence: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused Silo platform creates the specific multi-layered structure required by claim 1—an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" that is distinct from an overlaid "code set layer." A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused product's architecture reflects this claimed structure or utilizes a fundamentally different, monolithic technical approach.