Venadium LLC v. Alliant Energy Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Venadium LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Alliant Energy Corporation (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Media Litigation Firm, P.C.
• Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00880, W.D. Wis., 11/20/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant is a Wisconsin corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district where a portion of the alleged infringement occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s corporate website infringes a patent related to methods for controlling software functionality using digitally signed authorization messages.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses secure software distribution, specifically for "shareware" models, using public-key cryptography to manage user rights and prevent unauthorized use.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff asserts it is the owner and assignee of all rights to the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1997-10-30	'549 Patent Priority Date
2001-12-11	'549 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-20	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,330,549 - "Protected Shareware"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,330,549, "Protected Shareware", issued December 11, 2001.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of protecting computer software from unauthorized use in distribution models like "shareware," where programs are distributed freely. It notes that traditional copy-protection is disfavored and simple encryption is insufficient because the decryption key must also be widely distributed, creating a security risk (ʻ549 Patent, col. 1:11-27, col. 2:1-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where an "executable computer program" contains embedded "protective code" (ʻ549 Patent, col. 3:17-24). This code limits the program's functionality until it receives an "authorization message" from a trusted source, such as a "billing agency" (ʻ549 Patent, col. 3:32-34, Fig. 1). The message is digitally signed using a secret key, and the program contains the corresponding public key to authenticate the message before enabling full functionality (ʻ549 Patent, col. 2:40-49). The system also includes an "integrity self-check" to ensure the protective code itself has not been tampered with (ʻ549 Patent, col. 2:50-56).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for monetizing informally distributed software by enforcing usage rights through cryptographic verification rather than through physical dongles or unpopular copy-protection schemes (ʻ549 Patent, col. 8:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core method.
• Independent Claim 1: A method for protecting a computer program, comprising the steps of:
  • inhibiting a functional feature until the user computer receives a digitally signed authorization message from an authorized party;
  • providing the program's protective code with access to the corresponding public checking key;
  • running an embedded integrity self-check to confirm the program is in an "anticipated state";
  • communicating the authorization message to the user computer;
  • applying the public key to authenticate the message; and
  • enabling the functional feature if the message is authenticated and the integrity check confirms the program's state.
• The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories, which may include the assertion of other independent or dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is Defendant's website, identified by the URL https://www.alliantenergy.com/ (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific features or functions of the accused website that are alleged to infringe. It generally alleges that Defendant infringes by "making and using (including testing) its Accused Product with the sales and offering for sale of its products and services" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the website's technical operation or market context beyond its identification as Defendant's corporate website.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's narrative infringement allegations are confined to a statement that a person of ordinary skill would understand the infringement theory by reading the complaint, the patent, and an accompanying "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶14). As Exhibit B was not included with the filed complaint provided for this analysis, it is not possible to construct a claim chart or detail the specific infringement theory. The complaint itself contains no allegations mapping any feature of the accused website to any element of a patent claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the general nature of the allegations and the subject matter of the patent, the primary dispute will likely center on whether the accused website practices the claimed method at all.
  • Scope Questions: A foundational question is whether a public corporate website falls within the scope of a "computer program" or "protected shareware" as contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification appears to describe a standalone, executable program distributed to end-users, which raises the question of whether a client-server web architecture is covered (ʻ549 Patent, col. 1:11-16, col. 3:15-18).
  • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the complaint can demonstrate that the accused website performs the specific functions required by the claims. This includes identifying a specific "authorization message" distinct from standard web protocols (e.g., HTTPS handshakes), a specific "public checking key" used to authenticate it, and an "integrity self-check" routine as described in the patent (ʻ549 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "computer program" / "protected shareware"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because the accused instrumentality is a website, whereas the patent is titled "Protected Shareware" and its background focuses on executable programs. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether a website is considered a "computer program" within the meaning of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "computer program" is broad, and a website is operated by various computer programs on both the server and client side.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to "executable computer programs," "shareware," and the distribution of such programs to an "end user," suggesting a self-contained application rather than a distributed web service (ʻ549 Patent, col. 1:11-16, col. 2:18-24). The patent's abstract describes controlling functionality of "shareware," reinforcing a narrower context.

• The Term: "authorization message"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method of controlling software access. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff will need to identify a corresponding "authorization message" within the operation of the accused website. Defendant will likely argue that standard web communications do not meet the specific characteristics of this term as described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes it as a message that is "digitally signed by an authorized party," which could arguably encompass various forms of secure digital communication (ʻ549 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 1 depict a specific message flow where a "billing agency" issues a digitally signed message to authorize the program's execution, often in response to a payment or usage report (ʻ549 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:25-40). This suggests a purpose-built transaction to unlock software features, not a general-purpose security protocol like a web session cookie or TLS certificate.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a separate count for willful infringement but alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "since at least the date that Defendant was served with a copy of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16). This allegation forms a basis for potential post-filing willful infringement and enhanced damages. The prayer for relief also seeks a judgment that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief D).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's claims, which are rooted in the context of protecting distributable "shareware" applications on a user's computer, be construed to cover the operation of a public, client-server based corporate website?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: assuming the definitional scope can be met, what evidence will show that the standard operation of the accused website includes the specific, multi-step cryptographic process recited in the claims, including the receipt of a purpose-built "authorization message" and the execution of an "integrity self-check"? The complaint's lack of factual allegations on this point suggests it will be a primary focus of discovery and dispositive motion practice.