The Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT) has filed an infringement suit against damn-near every security vendor in the industry. The suit is based on two patents issued in 1994 and 1995, each relating to what appears to be behavior-based scanning.
Patent-troll names almost the entire security indrustry in patent suit. (IMG:J.Anderson)
The suit names the following industry players: Symantec, Microsoft, AVG, CA, Check Point Software, Comodo, ESET, F-Secure, iolo technologies, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, MicroWorld Technologies, NetVeda, Norman Data Defense Systems, Novell, PC Tools, PWI, Sophos, Sunbelt Software, Trend Micro, Velocity Micro, and Webroot Software.
What a way to start the new year. Someone (likely a lawyer) is making a killing for finding a way to name the top ten in the who’s who of the security market, as well as a few others thrown in for good measure, in a single patent suit.
The patents IPAT is suing over, namely 5,311,591 and 5,412,717, were issued almost a year apart to the day in 1994 and 1995 respectively.
Patent 5,311,591, titled "Computer system security method and apparatus for creating and using program authorization information data structures", is a "...method and apparatus are disclosed including a system monitor which limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predefined resources (e.g., data files, disk writing capabilities, etc.). The system monitor processes a data structure including a set of authorities defining that which a program is permitted to do and/or that which the program is precluded from doing…"
Patent 5,412,717, is the exact same thing. There are only minor differences between the two patents.
The suit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas -- the same place where most patent suits are filed -- makes the same claim against each of the named security vendors.
Apparently, they are all infringing on IPAT’s patents by, "...making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district [Eastern Texas] and elsewhere in the United States, hardware and/or software for protecting and/or authenticating information."
As expected, IPAT wants damages, "...in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court."
In addition, the suit is also asking for an injunction preventing all of the named vendors from further patent violations.
The comical aspect to this obvious ploy for money is that IPAT is looking to sue companies that have more than enough lawyers on hand to fight this case. Not to mention that, combined, these companies have more financial clout than IPAT will ever know.
You almost want this case to go to trial, just so IPAT is given a proper spotlight in the court of public opinion (pitchforks and torches included).
The Tech Herald has reached out for comment from a few of the named vendors. Once we have any such comments we will update this particular article.
Interested in a more interactive TTH? Join our Facebook Group Want regular updates from The Tech Herald? Follow us on Twitter
Advertising
Comment on this Story