DCT

2:25-cv-00094

Authentixx LLC v. Numerica Credit Union

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00094, E.D. Wash., 03/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Washington and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe a patent related to methods for authenticating electronic content to prevent online fraud.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of "phishing," where malicious actors use fraudulent websites and emails to impersonate legitimate entities and steal user information.
  • 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. The patent was originally assigned to Secure Axcess LLC and subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Authentixx LLC.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 '863 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2017-12-08 '863 Patent Application Filing Date
2019-07-16 '863 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 - System and method for authenticating electronic content

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863, "System and method for authenticating electronic content," issued July 16, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risk of consumers being defrauded by malicious actors who create deceptively similar copies of legitimate websites or emails to steal personal information. Consumers may have difficulty distinguishing authentic content from fraudulent content, as logos and other branding can be easily copied. (’863 Patent, col. 1:25-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user request for electronic content (e.g., a web page) is intercepted. An authentication server retrieves the requested content and inserts a unique "authenticity stamp" or "authenticity key" before sending it to the user. A corresponding software plug-in on the user's computer verifies this marker and displays it, providing the user with a visual confirmation that the content is genuine and from the trusted source. (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-22).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide a layer of security independent of the user's ability to recognize a fraudulent URL or design, by creating a verification mechanism between a trusted server and a client-side plug-in. (’863 Patent, col. 3:41-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" of the '863 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • storing an authenticity stamp in a preferences file accessible by designated servers;
    • creating an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
    • receiving a client request for a web page;
    • creating formatted data for the web page;
    • receiving a request for the authenticity key;
    • sending the formatted data to the client;
    • providing the authenticity key for manipulation to determine the preferences file location;
    • manipulating the key to find the file;
    • locating and retrieving the authenticity stamp from the file; and
    • enabling the display of the authenticity stamp with the web page.
  • The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities only as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide any description of the accused products or their specific functionality. It states that charts comparing the patent claims to these products are included in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶13), but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the '863 Patent but provides no specific facts explaining how. It incorporates by reference claim charts in an unfiled Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). Without these charts or a description of the accused products, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "authenticity stamp"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core visible element of the invention that provides assurance to the user. Its construction will determine what types of indicators can satisfy this limitation, directly impacting the scope of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is central to whether an accused system provides the specific type of user-facing verification required by the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp as potentially including "graphics only, text only or a combination thereof" and an "unlimited number of variations" (’863 Patent, col. 3:17-21), which could support a broad definition covering many types of visual indicators.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, and arguably more complex, examples, such as a "computer-generated fractal design" or a stamp comprising "personal information relating to the user's account" (e.g., last transaction date or account balance). (’863 Patent, col. 3:45-53; col. 5:1-6). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these more sophisticated embodiments that provide a higher level of security than a simple static image.

  • The Term: "preferences file"

    • Context and Importance: The location, accessibility, and content of this file are central to the claimed method's architecture. The claim requires a server-side creation of a key to locate this file, but a client-side manipulation of that key to find it and display its contents. The interplay between the server and client with respect to this file will be a critical point in the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the file as being in a "file location accessible by one or more designated servers," which could be read to mean a file stored on a server or a network location. (’863 Patent, col. 14:48-50).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description suggests the preferences file is stored locally on the "user's computer" or "user's 110 file system" and that its location is "not readily known to the plug-in 114." (’863 Patent, col. 6:38-41; col. 11:47-52). This suggests a client-side file, raising the question of how it is "accessible by" the server as recited in the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a judgment that Defendant has infringed "directly and indirectly" (Compl. ¶19.B). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. The prayer for relief asks that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which can be a basis for awarding attorney's fees (Compl. p. 6, ¶E.i.). However, the complaint pleads no facts to support a finding of either pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct that might render the case exceptional.

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

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is the complaint's lack of factual detail. A primary question is whether the plaintiff can substantiate its conclusory infringement allegations with specific evidence detailing how the accused products perform the steps of the asserted method claims, a burden that will need to be met in infringement contentions.
  • Definitional Scope: A central substantive issue will be one of claim construction. The viability of the case will likely depend on whether the term "authenticity stamp" is construed broadly to cover any security indicator, or more narrowly to require the specific types of dynamic or personalized markers described in the patent's embodiments.
  • Architectural Mismatch: A key technical question for the infringement analysis will be whether the accused system’s architecture matches the specific client-server interactions recited in the claims, particularly concerning the creation of an "authenticity key" by a server to locate a "preferences file" that is manipulated on the client computer.