Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Authentixx v. Lone Star Bank | Patent Lawsuit 4:23-cv-01275

Authentixx, LLC v. Lone Star Bank

4:23-cv-01275 S.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 5 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 10 Jul 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US7631191B2US10355863B2
Case no.
4:23-cv-01275
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
George C Hanks
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
5 Apr 2023 – 10 Jul 2023
Duration
96 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
System and method for authenticating a web page · System and method for authenticating electronic content
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:23-cv-01275, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7631191B2 Inactive App. US11/423340

System and method for authenticating a web page

The present invention provides for an icon with an additional level of functionality that allows a user to validate that current information (e.g., a web page) originates from the true owner of the icon and is not merely a copy. The method includes a user requesting a web page from a web site using a web browser. The web server receives the request, retrieves the web page and forwards it to an authentication server. The authentication server inserts an authenticity key into the web page, then the page (including the authenticity key) is returned to the user. If the page includes an authenticity key, the authenticity is verified at the user’s computer because the user computer includes logic (e.g., software) to verify the authenticity. During the user configuration process, the user defines an authenticity stamp which determines the format of an authenticated page.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
8 Dec 2009
Earliest priority
9 Sep 1999
Est. expiry
7 Mar 2021
Validity challenges
5 on recordIPR2014-00475 · filed by EMC CorporationCBM2015-00039 · filed by PNC Bank, NACBM2015-00009 · Other · filed by Bank of the WestCBM2015-00027 · filed by T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc.CBM2014-00100 · filed by PNC Bank, N.A.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L9/32G06F21/00H04L29/06
Prosecution counsel
MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
Examiner
ZAND, KAMBIZ
US7631191B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7631191B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US10355863B2 Inactive App. US15/835816

System and method for authenticating electronic content

The present invention provides for an authenticity marker to be embedded within web page and/or email content which allows a user to validate that the content originates from the true source of the content and is not merely a copy. The method includes a user requesting content in the form of a web page and/or email from a server using a web browser or email client. The server receives the request, retrieves the content and forwards it to an authentication server. The authentication server inserts into the retrieved content a unique fractal icon and/or information only known between the owner of the content and the user.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
16 Jul 2019
Earliest priority
9 Sep 1999
Est. expiry
6 Sep 2020
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L9/32G06F21/64H04L29/06G06F21/62H04L9/14G06F21/33G09C5/00
Prosecution counsel
MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
Examiner
SCHMIDT, KARI L
US10355863B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10355863B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a), Plaintiff Authentixx, LLC and Lone Star Bank have agreed to settle, adjust, and compromise all claims and counterclaims against each other in the above-captioned actions. The parties move the Court to dismiss in the above-entitled cause any and all claims by Authentixx against Lone Star Bank with prejudice and to dismiss any and all counterclaims by Lone Star Bank against Authentixx without prejudice. Authentixx and Lone Star Bank also move the Court to order that all costs and expenses related to this litigation (including attorney and expert fees and expenses) shall be borne solely by the party incurring same. A proposed Order accompanies this motion.”

Case 4:23-cv-01275 · S.D. Tex. · closed 10 July 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 4:23-cv-01275?

4:23-cv-01275 is a patent infringement action brought by Authentixx, LLC against Lone Star Bank, filed on 5 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 10 July 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 4:23-cv-01275?

US7631191B2 (“System and method for authenticating a web page”), assigned to AUTHENTIXX LLC, currently inactive; US10355863B2 (“System and method for authenticating electronic content”), assigned to AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists System and method for authenticating a web page and System and method for authenticating electronic content.

How was case 4:23-cv-01275 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a), Plaintiff Authentixx, LLC and Lone Star Bank have agreed to settle, adjust, and compromise all claims and counterclaims against each other in the above-captioned actions. The parties move the Court to dismiss in the above-entitled cause any and all claims by Authentixx against Lone Star Bank with prejudice and to dismiss any and all counterclaims by Lone Star Bank against Authentixx without prejudice. Authentixx and Lone Star Bank also move the Court to order that all costs and expenses related to this litigation (including attorney and expert fees and expe

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 4:23-cv-01275 take?

96 calendar days, from filing on 5 Apr 2023 to closure on 10 July 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:23-cv-01275?

Chief Judge George C Hanks presided. Isaac Philip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Authentixx. Jason Dwain Mazingo appears for defendant Lone Star Bank.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:23-cv-01275 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:23-cv-01275 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.