Infosecurity.US

Reports, last week of a patent suit (filed on 2008/12/30) targeting Microsoft Corporation (NasdaqGS: MSFT), Symantec Corporation (NasdaqGS: SYMC) and twenty other companies as co-defendants (including anti-virus application vendors and firewall  manufacturers), by Patent Holder Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT). The company, a smallish Texas concern, had been granted patents by the United States of America Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the 1990s focused on OS, Application and Data Permissions and Integrity thereof.

The full defendant list is as impressive as it is long: Symantec Corp. Microsoft Corp., AVG Technologies USA, Inc., CA, Inc., Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., Comodo Group, Inc., ESET, LLC,, F-Secure, Inc., iolo technologies, LLC, Kaspersky Lab, Inc., McAfee, Inc., MicroWorld Technologies, Inc., NetVeda, LLC,  Norman Data Defense Systems, Inc., Novell Inc., PC Tools, Inc., PWI, Inc., Sophos, Inc., Sunbelt, Software, Inc., Trend Micro Incorporated, Velocity Micro, Inc. and Webroot Software, Inc.

The patents in question (US Patent 5,412,717 and US Patent 5,311,591) can be downloaded via the two previous links, or via a search at the USPTO. More information appears after the jump.

Infosecurity.US Researched Legal Data:

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

Plaintiff:    Information Protection And Authentication Of Texas, LLC
Defendant:    Symantec Corp., Microsoft Corp., AVG Technologies USA, Inc., CA, Inc., Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., Comodo Group, Inc., ESET, LLC, F-Secure, Inc., iolo technologies, LLC, Kaspersky Lab, Inc., McAfee, Inc., MicroWorld Technologies, Inc., NetVeda, LLC, Norman Data Defense Systems, Inc., Novell Inc., PC Tools, Inc., PWI, Inc., Sophos, Inc., Sunbelt Software, Inc., Trend Micro Incorporated, Velocity Micro, Inc. and Webroot Software, Inc.

Case Number:    2:2008cv00484
Filed:    December 30, 2008
Court:    Texas Eastern District Court
Office:    Patent Office [ Court Info ]
County:    Harrison
Presiding Judge:    Judge David Folsom
Presiding Judge:    Judge T. John Ward
Referring Judge:    Magistrate Judge Charles Everingha
Nature of Suit:    Intellectual Property – Patent
Cause:    Federal Question
Jurisdiction:    Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:    35:271 Patent Infringement
Available Case Documents
Date Filed    #    Document Text
December 30, 2008    1    COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 05400000000001817930.), filed by Information Protection And Authentication Of Texas, LLC.

(Attachments: # Exhibit A, # Exhibit B, # Civil Cover Sheet)(Davis, William) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/2/2009: # 4 Complaint for 08-484, # 5 Exhibit A – for 08-484, # 6 Exhibit B – for 08-484, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet for 08-484) (ch, ).

—

From the Ars post: “Microsoft, Symantec, more sued over OS permissions patent“

“Microsoft, Symantec, and 20 other companies have been sued by a small Texas firm for patent infringement. The firm was granted patents in the mid-’90s over systems for governing application and data permissions, as well as ensuring application integrity, and is now seeking to bar the companies from making use of the patents. And some monetary damages would be nice, too…The firm, Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT), owns two patents cited in its complaint, the latest of which is US patent 5,412,717, which was filed in May 1992 and granted on May 2, 1995. This is a continuation of a previous patent, US number 5,311,591, granted in May, 1994. Titled “Computer system security method and apparatus having program authorization information data structures,” the former patent essentially describes a system of authorization and permissions when executing applications and processing user data. In IPAT’s patent, a system monitor “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 builds 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…”