Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

May 23, 2017

Tecsec, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Adobe Systems Inc., et al., Defendants.

          Hon. Theresa Buchanan, Judge

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          LIAM O'GRADY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 864), and Motion to Strike portions of the Declaration of Mark Jones. (Dkt. No. 871). Defendant seeks judgment as a matter of law that Plaintiffs asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motions.

         I. Background[1]

         Plaintiff TecSec, Inc. accuses the Defendant of infringing on four of Plaintiff s related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 369, 702 (the "'702 Patent"); 5, 680, 452 (the "'452 Patent"); 5, 717, 755 (the "'755 Patent"); and 5, 898, 781 (the "'781 Patent") (collectively, the "DCOM Patents"). The DCOM Patents articulate a multi-level encryption method and system that allows encrypted files to be nested within other encrypted files. See Dkt. No. 869, Exh. 1 ("'702 Patent") at 4:25-28. "In addition to multi-level encryption, the DCOM Patents further limit access by using labels in the form of a field of characters attached to the encrypted files." Dkt. No. 869, at 11.

         The parties agree that claims 1 and 8 in the '702 Patent are representative of the asserted method and system claims, respectively, for purposes of an analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 1 of the '702 Patent describes:

         A method for providing multi-level multimedia security in a data network, comprising the steps of:

A) accessing an object-oriented key manager;
B) selecting an object to encrypt;
C) selecting a label for the object;
D) selecting an encryption algorithm;
E) encrypting the object according to the encryption algorithm;
F) labelling the encrypted object;
G) reading the object label;
H) determining access authorization based on the object ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.