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: 3:25-cv-00867, 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 place of business in the district, specifically an office in Herndon, Virginia. The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website showing this office location to support its venue contention.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Silo Web Isolation Platform infringes a patent related to securing network communications by remotely rendering web content into a safe format before transmitting it to a user's computer.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the cybersecurity domain of remote browser isolation (RBI), a method for protecting end-users from web-based malware by executing browsing activity in a remote, contained environment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was originally assigned to Everis, Inc. and subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

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 Issued
2025-10-17	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 - "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712, "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY," issued August 25, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As internet browsers became more robust and capable of handling complex data and executable code, the risk of users receiving malicious code ("malware") through normal web browsing increased significantly (’712 Patent, col. 1:64-2:4; Compl. ¶¶19-20). Traditional anti-virus software was not always sufficient to protect against sophisticated attacks that could evade detection (’712 Patent, col. 4:1-15).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "security module" that is interposed between a user's computer and the internet (’712 Patent, Fig. 1). This remote module intercepts requests from the user's browser, retrieves the requested web data from the internet, and then processes it to neutralize potential threats. The core of the solution is to "render" the potentially unsafe web data into a "pixilated image" and then re-package that image, along with interactive elements like links or input fields, into a new, safe "browser readable code set" (e.g., an XML page with CSS layers) to be sent to the user's browser (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:50-56). This process prevents malicious executable code from ever reaching the user's computer (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a method of browser isolation, aiming to protect the user's local machine by executing and processing potentially dangerous web content in a remote, disposable environment, a departure from host-based security models that run on the user's device.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶35, 46).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’712 Patent is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
  • Providing a remote software rendering application.
  • Intercepting a command from a user's browser 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."
  • "Overlaying" the pixilated image data with a "secure browser readable code set layer" comprising interactive elements (e.g., a link, fillable user input data field, video, or audio).
  • Sending the combined browser readable code set to the user's browser.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Silo Web Isolation Platform" ("Silo") (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes Silo as a "remote browser isolation system" (Compl. ¶29).
• The system allegedly works by executing all web content on remote cloud servers rather than on the user's local device. When a user interacts with the web, the request is routed to the Silo platform, which runs the browsing session in a remote environment (Compl. ¶29).
• According to the complaint, the user's computer "only receives a pixel-based video stream of the session, and no website code is executed on the local device" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint supports its venue allegations with a screenshot from Defendant's website showing its physical office location in Virginia (Compl. ¶8, Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities practice the technology claimed in the ’712 Patent and references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B to support this allegation (Compl. ¶¶34, 36-37). However, Exhibit B was not provided with the complaint.

The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is that the Silo Web Isolation Platform performs the patented method by "connecting the user's browser to the internet via a remote container for the purposes of data communication with internet data sources" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint alleges that the Silo platform executes web content on its own servers and delivers a "pixel-based video stream" to the user, thereby isolating the user's local device from potentially malicious website code (Compl. ¶29). This remote processing and delivery of a visual stream is alleged to satisfy the elements of at least claim 1 of the ’712 Patent (Compl. ¶36).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "pixel-based video stream" allegedly delivered by the Silo platform constitutes an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" that is "overlaid" by a "secure browser readable code set layer," as required by Claim 1. The complaint does not specify the technical mechanism by which interactivity (e.g., clicking links, entering data) is achieved in the accused system.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system "overlays" a layer with interactive elements on top of a base "pixilated image"? The distinction between rendering a single, interactive data stream versus creating a base image layer and then adding a separate interactive layer on top of it may be a critical technical issue for the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically rendering... all received responsive data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer defined by pixilated image data"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's security mechanism. The infringement case may depend on whether the "pixel-based video stream" (Compl. ¶29) generated by the accused Silo platform meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether "interactive pixilated image" requires a specific data structure or can be construed more broadly to cover various forms of remote display streaming that preserve user interactivity.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the output as a "functional facsimile" of the original content, suggesting the focus is on the outcome of secure interactivity, not a specific format (’712 Patent, col. 7:8-14). The patent also discusses rendering video into a "series of rendered base images," which could support interpreting "image" to include video-like streams (’712 Patent, col. 8:42-43).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes a process of creating a "rendered base image" and then adding separate "layers" on top, for example using CSS (’712 Patent, col. 8:53-56). The detailed description of sub-modules for rendering a "base layer" (151) and separately handling links (152) and images (154) could suggest a multi-step, multi-layer process, potentially narrowing the scope away from an integrated video stream (’712 Patent, Fig. 2).

• The Term: "overlaying... with a secure browser readable code set layer"

• Context and Importance: This term works in tandem with the "rendering" limitation and defines how interactivity is added back into the secured content. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product's method for enabling user interaction with the "pixel-based video stream" constitutes an "overlay."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the layer broadly as comprising "at least one of a link, a fillable user input data field, an embedded video, or an embedded audio," suggesting any mechanism that adds these functionalities back could qualify (’712 Patent, col. 16:29-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses adding "additional layers as standard CSS layers as is readable by currently conventional browsers" (’712 Patent, col. 8:54-56). This could be used to argue that the term requires a specific web technology (like CSS layering) rather than any method of transmitting user input and output in a remote session.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant aids and abets end-users by "providing instructions to consumer end-users" to use the accused services in their normal and customary way (Compl. ¶¶47-48). The complaint alleges Defendant acts with knowledge and the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement. It alleges knowledge of infringement only "at least as of the service of the present complaint," which would only support a claim for post-filing, not pre-filing, enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶13, 33).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "interactive pixilated image as a layer," which is described in the patent specification in the context of static images and CSS layers, be construed to cover the "pixel-based video stream" allegedly generated by the accused remote browser isolation platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: How does the accused Silo platform technically enable user interaction with its remote browsing session? The case will likely require a deep technical dive to determine if that mechanism constitutes "overlaying... a secure browser readable code set layer" as claimed, or if it represents a different, non-infringing technological approach to the same problem.