21 Anti Virus Companies accused of Patent violation

# Dec. 30

Information Protection and Authentication of Texas LLC vs. Symantec Corp. et al

Marshall-based IPAT claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,311,591 and U.S. Patent No. 5,412,717. The patents deal generally with computer system security methods and products using program authorization information data structures.

IPAT alleges defendants Symantec, Microsoft, AVG Technologies, Check Point Software, Comodo Group, ESET, F-Secure, Iolo Technologies, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, Mircoworld, Netveda, Norman Data, Novell, PC Tools, PWI, Sophos, Sunbelt, Trend Micro, Velocity Micro and Webroot are infringing the '591 and '717 Patents.

“Each defendants’ activities have been without authority or license from IPAT,” the complaint states. “IPAT is entitled to recover from the defendants the damages sustained by IPAT as a result of the defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs.”

IPAT alleges one or more of the defendants’ acts of infringement have been willful, so the plaintiff is seeking treble damages as well as attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief.

Sam Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff with attorneys from The Davis Firm in Longview and Ward & Olivio in New York.

The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.

Case No. 2:08-cv-484-TJW-CE

From here :


Greetz, Red.

Links to the two patents so you can read them and see what is being complained about.



If you ask me, the company that filed these patents should produce evidence that it actually has software that does this. And also, those patents are not very specific and seem general. They are a bunch of bullocks and should be challenged.

Not the comodo group…

But a patent is a patent, will be interesting to see the follow ups. :o

Quote form the patent application

... such that [b]when the system monitor runs the program[/b] .....

The patent definition appears to centre around a piece of software (“system monitor”) that uses a pre-defined list of permissions and when the system monitor runs a program that has an association with a permissions list, the system monitor enforces the permissions.

This may not be applicable to AVs, Firewalls and HIPS, as they are not the applications that are running the program that is being monitored, controlled or restricted.

Ewen :slight_smile:

My question would be how can anyone claim a patent on AV protection (The suite lists nearly all AV companies). Surely unless actual code (of theirs) was used, anyone else can create their own code to do similar (programming is all about ideas, some ideas overlap). Wouldn’t they as plaintiff have to prove something valid of theirs was used/stolen before the suite will be carried to court?

That’s what I wondered. I think the person that owns this patent filed for it just to have something generic, and then when all these companies make millions do they then sue. I think the patent holders do not have a single bit of code that does what their patent says. All the companies should pull their products and say there is no more protection against baddies because of this lame person, then that person would be hated by the world and then they would give up the fight.

I guess the intention is likely to claim IP on realtime scanning technologies.

associating the program authorizing information data structure with at least one program to be executed by said computer system to thereby protect the computer user from operations that might be performed by said at least one program, whereby the program authorizing information is available to be monitored when its associated program is executed.

Federal Trade Commision: Patent Reform, Part II
Patent troll
Allied Security Trust