Infringement action filed 16 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and closed 25 Oct 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
The Open Text Products and Webroot Products · Webroot utilizes over 500 classifiers operating in parallel across URLs,…to recognize patterns, determine reputations and accurately categorize internet objects · forming a candidate sequence of character blocks from the plurality of character blocks, the candidate sequence of character blocks representing a candidate match for a search term
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:22-cv-01063, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.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.
A malware classifier uses features of suspect software to classify the software as malicious or not. The classifier uses a pattern classification algorithm to statistically analyze computer software. The classifier takes a feature representation of the software and maps it to the classification label with the use of a trained model. The feature representation of the input computer software includes the relevant features and the values of each feature. These features include the categories of: applicable software characteristics of a particular type of malware; dynamic link library (DLL) and function name strings typically occurring in the body of the malware; and other alphanumeric strings commonly found in malware. By providing these features and their values to the classifier, the classifier is better able to identify a particular type of malware.
A pure adversarial optical character recognition (OCR) approach in identifying text content in images. An image and a search term are input to a pure adversarial OCR module, which searches the image for presence of the search term. The image may be extracted from an email by an email processing engine. The OCR module may split the image into several character-blocks that each has a reasonable probability of containing a character (e.g., an ASCII character). The OCR module may form a sequence of blocks that represent a candidate match to the search term and calculate the similarity of the candidate sequence to the search term. The OCR module may be configured to output whether or not the search term is found in the image and, if applicable, the location of the search term in the image.
The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
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
"This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal. Dkt. 49. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to counsel of record and to close this civil action. It is SO ORDERED."
Case 1:22-cv-01063 · E.D. Va. · closed 25 October 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.
1:22-cv-01063 is a patent infringement action brought by Trend Micro, Inc. against Open Text, Inc., filed on 16 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case closed on 25 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-01063?
US8161548B1 (“Malware detection using pattern classification”), assigned to INCORPORATED, TREND M, currently active; US8045808B2 (“Pure adversarial approach for identifying text content in images”), assigned to INCORPORATED, TREND M, currently active; US8505094B1 (“Detection of malicious URLs in a web page”), assigned to INCORPORATED, TREND M. The record also lists The Open Text Products and Webroot Products, Webroot utilizes over 500 classifiers operating in parallel across URLs,…to recognize patterns, determine reputations and accurately categorize internet objects and forming a candidate sequence of character blocks from the plurality of character blocks, the candidate sequence of character blocks representing a candidate match for a search term.
How was case 1:22-cv-01063 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: "This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal. Dkt. 49. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to counsel of record and to close this civil action. It is SO ORDERED."
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:22-cv-01063 take?
404 calendar days, from filing on 16 Sep 2022 to closure on 25 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01063?
Allan M. Soobert, Anna Balishina Naydonov, James Vincent Razick, Michael J. Songer, Philip Ou and Yar R. Chaikovsky are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Trend Micro. Brian Eutermoser, Britton Frederic Davis, Christopher Charles Campbell and Jeffrey D. Mills appear for defendant Open Text.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-01063 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01063 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.
