Eastern District of Virginia Grants Summary Judgment of Noninfringement to Adobe

May 21, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

TecSec filed its patent infringement lawsuit in February 2010 against 13 separate defendant groups, including Adobe, IBM, SAP AG, Cisco Systems, Oracle, EBay and PayPal, asserting infringement of 11 patents with a total of 380 claims in the field of computer encryption. Earlier in the case, the court stayed proceedings against all defendants except IBM.

After lengthy discovery, including IBM’s production of 7 million pages of documents, 40 depositions and 55 customer subpoenas, IBM moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that TecSec’s claims failed as a matter of law because the products did not perform every step of the asserted method patents and that it never sold products that used the entire system claimed by the patents. The court granted IBM’s motion in March 2011. The court’s summary judgment was appealed and then affirmed in part on appeal.

Adobe then moved for summary judgment in October 2014. In granting the motion, the court held that Acrobat’s Adobe software does not infringe TecSec’s patents because Adobe generates encryption dictionaries differently. Specifically, the court held, “TecSec has not raised a genuine dispute of material fact establishing that Acrobat performs the required ‘selecting’ step because it is undisputed that a user of Acrobat does not select the encryption dictionary.”

TecSec, Inc. v. IBM Corp., case number 10­dv­00115 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.