Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glasswall Solutions Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

November 29, 2017

GLASSWALL SOLUTIONS LIMITED, and GLASSWALL IP LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
v.
CLEARSWIFT LTD., Defendant.

          ORDER

          Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Clearswift, Ltd.'s (“Clearswift”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiffs Glasswall Solutions Limited and Glasswall (IP) Limited (collectively, “Glasswall”) oppose the Motion[1]. Dkt. # 12. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 8.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Glasswall asserts two patents in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 869, 283 (“'283 patent”) and 9, 516, 045 (“'045 patent”). Both are entitled “Resisting the Spread of Unwanted Code and Data” and relate to virus-protection software. The ‘283 patent and the ‘045 patent purport to improve upon prior art by providing “an entirely different approach to protection against unwanted code.” Unwanted code and data can include computer viruses, spyware, malware, etc. Both patents teach methods or systems of receiving an electronic file, determining the data format, parsing the content data to determine whether it conforms to the predetermined data format, and if so, regenerating the parsed data to create a regenerated electronic file. ‘283 patent, Abstract; ‘045 patent, Abstract. Both patents have essentially identical specifications. Dkt. # 12 at 9.

         Independent Claim 1 of the ‘283 patent claims:

         A method for processing an electronic file to create a substitute electronic file containing only allowable content data, the method comprising:

receiving an electronic file containing content data encoded and arranged in accordance with a predetermined file type;
determining a purported predetermined file type of the received electronic file and an associated set of rules specifying values or range of values of allowable content data;
determining at least an allowable portion of the content data that conforms with the values or range of values specified in the set of rules corresponding to the determined purported predetermined file type;
extracting, from the electronic file, only the at least an allowable portion of content data;
creating a substitute electronic file in the purported file type, said substitute electronic file containing only the extracted allowable content data;
forwarding the substitute regenerated electronic file only if all of the content data from within the electronic file conforms to the values or range of values specified in the set of rules; and
forwarding the incoming electronic file if a portion, part or whole of the content data does not conform only when the intended recipient of the electronic file has pre-approved the predetermined file type when associated with the sender of electronic file.

         Dependent Claims 2-6 impose further specific limitations on the determination of known, acceptable file content. Claim 7 imposes the scrambled format file isolation limitation, while Claim 8 provides that the scrambling be in “bit reversed order.” Independent Claims 15-17 and 19-23 claim as either a method, computer readable medium product ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.