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

December 21, 2017

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

          Theresa Buchanan, Judge

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Liam O'Grady, United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.'s motion for the construction of 14 disputed patent claim terms and a declaration of indefiniteness of two claim terms, all encompassed in a family of related patents with substantially similar specification. Specifically, Adobe seeks construction of claims 1, 4, 8. and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5, 369.702 (L702); claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5, 680, 452 0452); claim I of U.S. Patent No. 5, 717, 755 ('755); and claims 1, 3, 14. and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5, 898, 781 ('781). The parties fully briefed the matter and the Court held a Markman hearing on October 27. 2017.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY[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 L"78I Patent") (collectively, the "DCOM Patents"), The DCOM Patents articulate a multi-level encryption method and system that allows encrypted Hies 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 matter has been extensively litigated before this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Through these appeals, many of the claims in the representative patents have been construed. In 2013, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals construed a number of the terms in the context of a 35 U.S.C. § 112 challenge. TecSec, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Much. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336 (2013) ("TecSec I”), The Federal Circuit construed the terms "multi-level multimedia security", "system memory means", "digital logic means", as well as other "means-plus-function" terms. Id. at 1344-1350. With respect to the "means" terms, the Federal Circuit found that § 112 was not implicated because the "[t]he defendants have failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the # 702 Patent specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for the fourteen computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations." Id. at 1349. Rather, the "specification disclose[d] the specific software products and how to use those products to implement the claimed functions[.]" Id. Rejecting the notion that the examples amounted to "black box" software disclosures, the Federal Circuit found that "the examples here provide detailed prose that shows how the specific software products operate to implement the claimed functions." Id.

         In 2016, the Federal Circuit construed a number of additional terms in the representative patents in an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment on non-infringement. TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., 658 Fed.App'x 570 (2016) (''TecSec II”). The Federal Circuit construed terms for "selecting a label", "label", and "object-oriented key manager*.[2] The Federal Circuit determined that "selecting a label for the object' in the DCOM patents should be given its plain meaning, without a requirement that the label exist prior to being selected." Id. at 578. The Federal Circuit construed the word "label" consistent with the express definition of that term set forth in the specification of the '702 Patent. Id. at 579. Further, the Federal Circuit found that "[t]he district court's construction of "label/ with which we agree, is broad enough to encompass a label which identifies different classes or groups of users authorized to access the object." Id. at 580.

         The Federal Circuit also "construe[d] the term "object-oriented key manager' to mean "a software component that manages the encryption of an object by performing one or more of the functions of generating, distributing, changing, replacing, storing, checking on, and destroying cryptographic keys.7" Id. at 582. The Federal Circuit rejected Adobe's argument that it did not infringe the "object-oriented key manager." Id. The court found that it could not "conclude as a matter of law that Adobe is entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement" because "Adobe's Acrobat products include a security handler in the form of a software module which implements various aspects of the encryption process and controls access to the contents of encrypted documents." Id.

         The following are a list of claim terms and prior constructions relevant to the instant motion:

Claim Terms

Prior Construction

"multi-level multimedia security"

"security achieved when encrypted objects are nested within other objects which are also encrypted, possibly within other objects, resulting in multiple layers of encryption."

"object-oriented key manager"

"a software component that manages the encryption of an object by performing one or more of the functions of generating, distributing, changing, replacing, storing, checking on, and destroying cryptographic keys.

"object"

"Any distinct, separate entity"

"access authorization"

"authorization to access an object"

"label"

"a series of letters or numbers, separate from but associated with the sending of an object, which identified the person, location, equipment, and/or organization which is permitted to receive the associated object" and "broad enough to encompass a label which identifies different classes or groups of users authorized to access the object"

"labelling"

''attaching a label"

"display header"

"a header for making visually perceptible to a user"

"selecting a label"

"given its plain meaning, without a requirement that the label exist prior to being selected"

         To this prior construction, the instant motion seeks to add claim construction for the following terms and claims:

1) "multi-level multimedia security'';
2) the steps of method claims;
3) "object-oriented";
4) "determining access authorization based on the object label" / "determining access authorization based on the first object label'1;
5) "limiting object access, subject to label conditions" / "limiting object access, according to the label conditions" / "limits access to an encrypted object" / "limits access to the encrypted object";
6) "decrypting the object if access authorization is granted" / "decrypting the first object if access authorization is granted";
7) "allowing access to the first object only if access authorization is granted";
8) "working in conjunction with";
9) "labelling comprises creating a display header";
10) "header array";
11) "accessing an object-oriented key manager" / "selecting an object to encrypt" / "selecting a label for the object" / "selecting an encryption algorithm";
12) "means for embedding a first object within a second object";
13) "digital logic" / "logic" / "logic means", "electronically connected", "accepts inputs" / "disposed to accept inputs from"; and
14) "encryption algorithm module" / ''object labelling subsystem" / "decryption algorithm module" / "object label identification ...

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.