Defendant
4 cases as defendant.
Symantec Corp. was a global software company founded in 1982. In November 2019, the company's enterprise security business and the Symantec brand itself were acquired by Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ: AVGO) for $10.7 billion in cash. The remaining consumer-focused business was subsequently renamed NortonLifeLock Inc., which later merged with Avast and is now known as Gen Digital Inc. (NASDAQ: GEN). Gen Digital is co-headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, and Prague, Czech Republic, and its portfolio includes the brands Norton, Avast, LifeLock, Avira, and AVG.
Historically, Symantec provided a wide range of security, storage, and systems management solutions for both consumers and enterprises. Following the 2019 acquisition, the Symantec brand, now operated as the Symantec Enterprise division of Broadcom, focuses exclusively on enterprise security solutions. Its offerings include endpoint and network security, information protection, and cybersecurity services for corporate and government clients. The former consumer division, now Gen Digital, provides cyber safety solutions directly to consumers, including antivirus software, identity theft protection, and privacy tools.
The company's patent litigation posture, based on available data, is that of an operating company defending its products. The tracked case list shows Symantec Corp. as a defendant in one case and a plaintiff in none. This pattern is typical of a technology company being targeted by a patent assertion entity, rather than initiating patent litigation itself.
The single tracked case is Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Symantec Corp. et al., filed in 2008 in the Central District of California. The plaintiff, Uniloc, is a well-known non-practicing entity (NPE) that has filed numerous patent infringement lawsuits against technology companies. The patent in a related Uniloc case against Microsoft concerned software product activation and anti-piracy technology. The most significant business context for Symantec is its 2019 split, which effectively created two separate entities from the original company structure.
A jury initially found infringement, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision on September 30, 2016. The Federal Circuit held the asserted claim of the patent invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This was a consolidated action where Intellectual Ventures I LLC sued several cybersecurity companies for infringement. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,460,050 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
The case was terminated and dismissed on September 15, 2010, likely due to a settlement between the parties.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,073,142 were invalid because they were directed to the abstract idea of filtering email without adding an inventive concept.