DCT

3:17-cv-00886

Venadium LLC v. Trek Bicycle Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00886, W.D. Wis., 11/20/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because the Defendant is a Wisconsin corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to methods for controlling software functionality based on receiving a secure authorization message.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is a form of digital rights management (DRM) for software, commonly known as "protected shareware," which allows developers to distribute software freely but restrict full functionality until a user receives authenticated permission to proceed.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this matter. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned. The patent-in-suit issued from a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), a procedural path that was available at the USPTO prior to 2003.

Case Timeline

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

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

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

  • Issued: December 11, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge faced by software suppliers in receiving compensation for their work when software is distributed informally, as in the "shareware" model. Conventional solutions like physical "dongles" or copy protection were seen as burdensome and unpopular with legitimate users (ʼ549 Patent, col. 1:10-36). The goal was to create a built-in protection mechanism that could enforce payment without unduly restricting distribution (ʼ549 Patent, col. 2:18-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "protected shareware" system where an executable program contains embedded "protective code." This code controls the program's functionality based on digitally signed authorization messages from a trusted source, such as a "billing agency." The program itself contains the public key needed to verify the digital signature on the authorization message, ensuring its authenticity before enabling advanced features. The system also includes an "integrity self-checking routine" to ensure the protective code has not been altered or bypassed by the user (ʼ549 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:56-4:8). Figure 1 illustrates this ecosystem, showing communication between the user's computer (1), a billing computer (15), and a billing agency (13).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for software-based digital rights management (DRM) that did not rely on physical hardware, aligning with the rise of internet-based software distribution where informal, user-to-user sharing was common (ʼ549 Patent, col. 1:49-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is the broadest method claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Inhibiting at least one functional feature of a computer program from running on a user computer until it receives an authorization message.
    • The authorization message must be digitally signed by an authorized party using a secret signing key.
    • Providing the embedded protective code with access to the corresponding public checking key.
    • Running an integrity self-check on the computer program to confirm it is in an "anticipated state."
    • Communicating the authorization message to the user computer.
    • Applying the public checking key to authenticate the message.
    • Enabling the functional feature if the message is authenticated and the integrity check confirms the program's anticipated state.
  • The plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to modify its infringement theories and assert other claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant's e-commerce website for bicycles and related products (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical features or functions of the website alleged to be infringing. The infringement allegations are contained in a referenced exhibit that was not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's website directly infringes the ’549 Patent (Compl. ¶12). However, it states that its infringement contentions are detailed in "Exhibit B," which is not provided in the filed document (Compl. ¶14). The complaint’s narrative theory is limited to the conclusory statement 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). Without Exhibit B, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a server-hosted e-commerce website falls within the scope of the patent's term "computer program," which the specification repeatedly frames in the context of distributable, executable "shareware" that a user installs on a local machine (ʼ549 Patent, col. 1:10-14, col. 2:20-24). The infringement theory will need to map the architecture of a website to the patent's described system of a program with inhibited features.
  • Technical Questions: The plaintiff’s theory, as presumably detailed in the missing Exhibit B, would need to identify what specific functionality of the Trek website is "inhibited" and later "enabled" by an "authorization message." A further technical question is how the accused website performs an "integrity self-check" as required by the claim, a feature the patent describes as a way to detect if the program code itself has been altered (ʼ549 Patent, col. 4:1-8).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"computer program"

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to the accused website hinges on this term's scope. Practitioners may focus on whether this term, as used in the patent, is limited to locally installed, executable software or is broad enough to encompass a server-side web application.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and not explicitly defined with limitations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title is “Protected Shareware,” and the background is exclusively concerned with the distribution model for executable programs that are informally shared and installed by end-users ('549 Patent, Title; col. 1:10-14, col. 1:49-59).

"inhibiting via the embedded protective code at least one functional feature"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the plaintiff must demonstrate that a feature of the accused website is actively disabled by code until an authorization event occurs. This raises the question of whether standard website access control (e.g., requiring a login to view an account page) meets the claimed limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not require a specific method of inhibition, potentially allowing for a range of access control mechanisms.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this as "protective code which interacts with the existing state of the runtime environment for the program" and is "embedded" within it, suggesting a mechanism internal to the program itself rather than an external gatekeeper ('549 Patent, col. 3:17-24).

"integrity self-check"

  • Context and Importance: This is a required step of the claimed method. Its construction is important because the patent describes it as a way to ensure the program code has not been "altered" or "compromised," for example, by computing a "check sum" over the code ('549 Patent, col. 4:1-17). It is unclear how this concept applies to a server-hosted website where the end-user cannot alter the code.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the check is to confirm the program is in an "anticipated state," which could be argued to encompass more than just code alteration checks ('549 Patent, col. 8:63).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly links the self-check to preventing the protective code from being "bypassed or overridden" and finding if its "integrity... has been compromised," which points toward a defense against tampering with local code ('549 Patent, col. 4:1-8).

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint 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 supports a claim for post-suit willful infringement. No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge. The prayer for relief also seeks a judgment that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle the plaintiff to attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "computer program", as described in a patent focused on distributable "shareware" from the late 1990s, be construed to read on a modern, server-hosted e-commerce website? The resolution of this question will likely determine whether the patent is applicable to the accused instrumentality.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: assuming the scope question is resolved in the plaintiff's favor, what factual evidence will be presented to show that the accused website performs the specific technical steps of the claims? In particular, the case may turn on whether standard user authentication and access control on a website can be equated to the patent's "digitally signed... authorization message" and whether any function on the website performs the claimed "integrity self-check."