Secure Matrix LLC v. H-E-B Grocery: Authentication Patent Case Transferred in 185 Days
Secure Matrix LLC filed a patent infringement action against Texas grocery giant H-E-B over US8677116B1, covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. Before reaching the merits, the Western District of Texas granted H-E-B’s motion to transfer to the San Antonio division, finding it clearly more convenient — ending the Waco-division phase in under six months.
Authentication patent hits a venue wall before merits are reached
On March 21, 2025, Secure Matrix LLC filed suit against H-E-B Grocery Company, LP in the Waco division of the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of US8677116B1 — a patent directed at systems and methods for authentication and verification. H-E-B is one of Texas’s largest regional grocery chains, and the complaint signals that Secure Matrix contends its patented authentication technology is deployed or implicated in H-E-B’s digital or in-store systems.
The case closed on September 22, 2025 — not on the merits, but on venue grounds. H-E-B moved to transfer the case (Docket No. 20) to the San Antonio division of the same district, arguing it was clearly more convenient. The court agreed, granted the transfer, and stayed all pending case deadlines. The litigation now continues in San Antonio; no ruling on infringement, validity, or damages has been issued.
A 185-day resolution at the venue stage suggests H-E-B moved swiftly to challenge the plaintiff’s chosen forum, consistent with defendants’ broader strategy of contesting Waco-division filings following shifts in Texas Western District venue jurisprudence. The public record does not reveal whether the parties have since reached any agreement in the transferred venue, or whether substantive proceedings have commenced in San Antonio.
Filing to Case Transferred in 185 days
185 days from filing to transfer order — resolved at venue stage, well before trial
Transferred to San Antonio: what the venue ruling means for both parties
What a transfer order actually does — and doesn’t do
A transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the case to a more convenient forum within the federal system — it does not dismiss or resolve the claims. The court found H-E-B met the high ‘clearly more convenient’ standard. All case deadlines were stayed pending transfer, meaning the litigation clock pauses at the originating court and restarts in San Antonio. No merits ruling — on infringement, validity, or damages — was issued.
Venue transfer, not dismissalSecure Matrix must now litigate in San Antonio
For Secure Matrix, the transfer represents a strategic setback. PAEs and assertion entities often prefer the Waco division for its historically fast docket and plaintiff-friendly scheduling. The San Antonio division operates under different caseload dynamics and judicial temperament. Secure Matrix’s claims remain alive, but the forum advantage it likely sought at filing has been removed. Counsel must now rebuild case strategy for the new venue.
Claims survive; forum advantage lostH-E-B wins the venue battle — but litigation continues
H-E-B secured a meaningful procedural win: its home-turf San Antonio division is generally considered more convenient for a San Antonio-headquartered company. Witnesses, documents, and operational evidence are more likely situated there. However, the transfer does not end the infringement claims — H-E-B must still defend on the merits in the new venue. The ‘clearly more convenient’ finding does signal the court found genuine ties to San Antonio over Waco.
Venue won; merits litigation ongoingTransfer signals continued venue scrutiny for Texas patent filings
This outcome is consistent with a broader trend of Texas Western District courts scrutinising intra-district venue selection, particularly where plaintiffs file in Waco against defendants with stronger ties to other divisions. For companies operating authentication or digital identity systems in Texas, this case suggests that defendants with genuine San Antonio nexus can successfully force intra-district transfers. Forum selection at filing remains a critical tactical decision in Texas Western District patent actions.
Venue scrutiny intensifying in TX-WFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Secure Matrix LLC | Company | Authentication technology patent assertion entity — holder of US8677116B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | H-E-B Grocery Company, LP | Company | H-E-B Grocery Company, LP — major Texas-based regional grocery and retail chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth L. Flannery | Attorney | Counsel for H-E-B Grocery Company, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lindsay Volpenhein Cutie | Attorney | Counsel for H-E-B Grocery Company, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for H-E-B Grocery Company, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing H-E-B Grocery Company, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive: it finds H-E-B met the demanding ‘clearly more convenient’ standard under § 1404(a) and transfers the case to the San Antonio division. Critically, the order stays all non-reached deadlines pending transfer, meaning no case schedule survives into the new venue — proceedings must be reinitiated in San Antonio. The phrasing ‘clearly more convenient’ tracks Fifth Circuit precedent requiring more than mere convenience; it suggests the court found meaningful factual connections tying this dispute to San Antonio rather than Waco.
US8677116B1 — Systems and methods for authentication and verification
US8677116B1 is a US utility patent issued under application number US13/963941, covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. Authentication patents in this class typically protect the mechanisms by which user identity is confirmed — ranging from credential validation architectures to multi-factor or token-based verification flows. The patent’s assignment to a dedicated assertion entity suggests it has been acquired for enforcement rather than internal commercialisation, a pattern common in the digital identity and access management space.
Authentication and verification technology sits at the infrastructure layer of virtually every digital consumer interaction — retail point-of-sale, mobile payments, loyalty account access, and online ordering portals. For grocery chains operating at H-E-B’s scale, these systems are mission-critical and broadly deployed. The assertion of US8677116B1 against a major retailer suggests Secure Matrix views the patent’s claims as reading on commercial authentication implementations in use across the retail sector, making the patent relevant to any company operating similar digital identity infrastructure.
Should you run an FTO against US8677116B1?
Any company operating authentication or verification systems in retail, e-commerce, or digital identity — particularly those using credential management, token-based login, or multi-factor verification — should assess their exposure to US8677116B1. This case confirms the patent is being actively asserted against major commercial operators. R&D and product teams building or procuring authentication infrastructure should treat this patent as a live risk, not a theoretical one.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to map claim language from US8677116B1 against existing prior art and competing implementations, identify design-around opportunities, and benchmark against the patent family landscape. With the litigation now proceeding in San Antonio, understanding the claim scope before substantive proceedings advance is essential for any party with potential exposure in the authentication and verification space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent infringement cases in Texas Western District
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting authentication and verification patents against retail or technology defendants in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the authentication technology IP landscape
Venue strategy is as consequential as claim construction for PAE actions in Texas Western District — this transfer confirms it.
Waco division filings face growing venue challenge risk in TX-W
H-E-B’s successful transfer motion reinforces that defendants with genuine operational ties to other TX-W divisions — particularly San Antonio — can meet the ‘clearly more convenient’ threshold. Companies sued in Waco should evaluate transfer motions early; the 185-day timeline here shows courts will resolve venue before substantive proceedings begin.
Authentication patent assertions demand early FTO analysis
US8677116B1 covers systems and methods for authentication and verification — a technology area embedded in retail checkout, loyalty programmes, and digital identity. Any company deploying authentication infrastructure in consumer-facing systems should assess exposure to this and related patents before a claim letter or complaint arrives.
Secure v H-E-B — key questions answered
Secure Matrix LLC filed a patent infringement action against H-E-B Grocery in the Waco division of the Western District of Texas, asserting US8677116B1 covering authentication and verification systems. Before any merits ruling, the court granted H-E-B’s motion to transfer the case to the San Antonio division, finding it clearly more convenient. The case closed in the Waco division after 185 days with all deadlines stayed pending transfer.
The transfer order does not dismiss or resolve Secure Matrix’s infringement claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the case moves to the San Antonio division of the same district, where litigation continues from the beginning of the case schedule. Secure Matrix must proceed in the new forum, which may present different docket dynamics and scheduling norms compared to the Waco division it originally selected.
US8677116B1 is a US patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification, filed under application US13/963941. It is significant for retail technology companies because authentication systems underpin digital checkout, loyalty programmes, mobile payments, and online account access — all core to large-scale grocery and retail operations. Active assertion of this patent against H-E-B signals that any retailer deploying similar authentication infrastructure may face exposure.
The court found H-E-B met the Fifth Circuit’s demanding ‘clearly more convenient’ standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This typically requires showing that witnesses, evidence, and operational connections are materially located in the transferee division. H-E-B is headquartered in San Antonio, which likely provided the factual basis for the court to find San Antonio clearly more convenient than Waco for this dispute.
Case 7:25-cv-00137 is closed in the Waco division of the Western District of Texas as of September 22, 2025. The matter has been transferred to the San Antonio division of the same court. All previously set deadlines were stayed pending transfer. The public record of the Waco docket does not reflect any substantive merits rulings, and the case is expected to recommence under a new scheduling order in San Antonio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.