IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,620,252
Granted Patent B2
US 12,620,252 · App. 18/179,635 · Granted May 5, 2026

Information source detection using unique watermarks

Inventors: Sanjay Krishnan (Hinsdale, IL); David Wong (Los Gatos, CA); Chad Voss (Seattle, WA); Troy Batterberry (Kirkland, WA); Clayton Huthwaite (Chesterfield, VA); Colin Saunders (San Francisco, CA); Stephen Bianamara (Seattle, WA); Parker Beck (Kenmore, WA)
Assignee: EchoMark, Inc.
G06V30/418G06V10/751
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,620,252
App. No.
18/179,635
Granted
May 5, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Document source detection uses unique copies to identify sources of leaked documents. The unique copies are generated from an original document and include a unique watermarking of one or more perturbations to a feature of the original document. An artifact, such as a photo or copy, is derived from one of the unique copies, the unique copy from which it was derived is identified. To identify the unique copy, unique copy keypoints in the unique copies are matched to artifact keypoints in the artifact to align the artifact with a location within the unique documents. Pixel regions in the unique copies that include perturbations are used to identify corresponding pixel regions in the artifact. Pixels in these regions are compared to identify the unique copy from which the artifact was derived, thus identifying a possible source of the leaked document.

Claims (56)

1 . A system comprising:

at least one processor; and

one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions thereon that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:

receiving an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document;

identifying artifact keypoints within the artifact, the artifact keypoints being identified for features that are reproduced between the artifact and the unique copy;

matching the artifact keypoints to unique copy keypoints within the unique copy;

comparing a first pixel region of the unique copy with a second pixel region of the artifact, the second pixel region of the artifact being located within an area of the artifact that corresponds to the first pixel region in the unique copy, the second pixel region of the artifact being determined from matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints; and

outputting an indication that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on comparing the pixels of the first pixel region with the pixels of the second pixel region.

2 . The system of claim 1 , wherein identifying artifact keypoints comprises:

identifying corner locations formed by content within the artifact; and

associating the identified corner locations of the artifact as the artifact keypoints.

3 . The system of claim 1 , wherein matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints comprises:

identifying pixel neighborhoods comprising pixels surrounding the artifact keypoints and the unique copy keypoints; and

vectorizing a feature of the pixels in the pixel neighborhoods, wherein the artifact keypoints are matched to the unique copy keypoints based on a vector distance between feature vectors of the pixels within the pixel neighborhoods of the artifact keypoints and feature vectors of the pixels within the pixel neighborhoods of the unique copy keypoints.

4 . The system of claim 3 , wherein the vectorized feature comprises a pixel intensity gradient.

5 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising performing a rigid transformation to limit an orientation of the artifact relative to the unique copy, wherein the matching is based on the rigid transformation.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the unique copy is included as part of a set of unique copies derived from the original document, and the operations further comprise:

selecting a subset of unique copies from the set of unique copies based on matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints;

comparing pixel regions of each unique copy in the subset with corresponding pixel regions of the artifact; and

selecting the unique copy from the unique copies within the subset based on comparing the first pixel region with the second pixel region, wherein the indication is output in response to selecting the unique copy.

7 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the first pixel region of the unique copy is identified by a bounding box of an area in the unique copy comprising a perturbation made from the original document.

8 . A method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:

generating a set of unique copies of an original document;

identifying unique copy keypoints in the unique copies of the set of unique copies;

identifying pixel regions of pixels within the unique copies, the pixel regions comprising perturbations made from the original document;

determining an artifact is derived from a unique copy of the set of unique copies based on artifact keypoints matching the unique copy keypoints of the unique copy and a comparison of a first pixel region of the unique copy to a second pixel region of the artifact, the second pixel region of the artifact corresponding in location to the first pixel region in the unique copy, wherein the artifact keypoints correspond to features that are reproduced between the artifact and the unique copy; and

outputting an indication that the artifact is derived from the unique copy.

9 . The method of claim 8 , wherein identifying unique copy keypoints comprises:

identifying corner locations formed by content within the unique copies; and

associating the identified corner locations of the unique copies as the unique copy keypoints.

10 . The method of claim 8 , further comprising:

identifying pixel neighborhoods comprising pixels surrounding the unique copy keypoints and the artifact keypoints;

vectorizing a feature of the pixels in the pixel neighborhoods; and

matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints based on a vector distance between feature vectors of the pixels within the pixel neighborhoods of the artifact keypoints and feature vectors of the pixels within the pixel neighborhoods of the unique copy keypoints.

11 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the vectorized feature comprises a pixel intensity gradient.

12 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising performing a rigid transformation to limit an orientation of the artifact relative to the unique copy, wherein the matching is based on the rigid transformation.

13 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising:

selecting a subset of unique copies from the set of unique copies based on matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints;

comparing pixel regions of each unique copy in the subset with pixel regions of the artifact; and

selecting the unique copy from the unique copies within the subset based on comparing the first pixel region with the second pixel region, wherein the indication is output in response to selecting the unique copy.

14 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the first pixel region of the unique copy is identified by a bounding box of an area in the unique copy comprising a perturbation made from the original document.

15 . One or more computer storage media storing computer readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:

matching artifact keypoints to unique copy keypoints, the artifact keypoints identified in an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document, the artifact keypoints corresponding to features that are reproduced between the artifact and the unique copy, the unique copy keypoints identified in the unique copy;

identifying a first pixel region of pixels in the unique copy, the first pixel region comprising a perturbation made from the original document;

identifying a second pixel region of pixels in the artifact, the second pixel region identified based on the pixels of the second pixel region having a location within the artifact that corresponds to the first pixel region of the unique copy based on matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints; and

outputting an indication that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on the first pixel region compared to the second pixel region.

16 . The media of claim 15 , further comprising identifying the artifact keypoints and the unique copy keypoints, the artifact keypoints and the unique copy keypoints identified by:

identifying corner locations formed by content within the unique copy and the artifact;

associating the identified corner locations of the artifact as the artifact keypoints; and

associating the identified corner locations of the unique copy as the unique copy keypoints.

17 . The media of claim 15 , wherein matching the artifact keypoints to the unique copy keypoints comprises:

identifying pixel neighborhoods comprising pixels surrounding the artifact keypoints and the unique copy keypoints; and

vectorizing a feature of the pixels in the pixel neighborhoods, wherein the artifact keypoints are matched to the unique copy keypoints based on a vector distance between feature vectors of the pixels within the pixel neighborhoods of the artifact keypoints and feature vectors of the pixels within the pixel neighborhoods of the unique copy keypoints.

18 . The media of claim 17 , wherein the vectorized feature comprises a pixel intensity gradient.

19 . The media of claim 15 , further comprising performing a rigid transformation to limit an orientation of the artifact relative to the unique copy, wherein the matching is based on the rigid transformation.

20 . The media of claim 15 , wherein the first pixel region of the unique copy is identified by a bounding box of an area in the unique copy comprising the perturbation made from the original document.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 8, 2023
From: KRISHNAN, SANJAY; WONG, DAVID; VOSS, CHAD; BATTERBERRY, TROY; HUTHWAITE, CLAYTON; SAUNDERS, COLIN; BIANAMARA, STEPHEN; BECK, PARKER
To: ECHOMARK, INC.
Reel/Frame 062920/0164 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20240304018A1 · Sep 12, 2024
References Cited (102)
US 6044464A · Shamir · 2000 [cited by examiner]
US 6381367B1 · Ryan · 2002 [cited by examiner]
US 6397205B1 · Juola · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6879701B1 · Rhoads · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 7814078B1 · Forman et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7958136B1 · Curtis et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8335789B2 · Hull et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8799236B1 · Azari et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8914338B1 · Wallace et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9805099B2 · Cohen · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9971594B2 · Fox et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10452781B2 · Verma · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11120520B2 · Voynov et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11341761B2 · Evans et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11468694B1 · Al-Gharaibeh et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11593439B1 · Avadhani et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11763564B1 · Sadoughi et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11995215B2 · De et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12124518B1 · Wang et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12158929B1 · Huang et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12164664B1 · Dupont et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12326959B2 · Dhouib · 2025 [cited by examiner]
US 12348692B2 · Picard · 2025 [cited by applicant]
US 12400469B1 · De et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
US 20030009670A1 · Rhoads · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040243602A1 · Shiiyama · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040263911A1 · Rodriguez et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050154892A1 · Mihcak et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060048237A1 · Luo et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060122983A1 · King et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070260651A1 · Pedersen · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080109362A1 · Fransdonk · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080158588A1 · Haas et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080178302A1 · Brock et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080313172A1 · King et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090089754A1 · Zeidman · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090125607A1 · Rhoads · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090324100A1 · Kletter et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100037059A1 · Sun et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100220364A1 · Picard et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20120093421A1 · Kletter · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120197952A1 · Srinivasaraghavan · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20140137238A1 · Brdiczka et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140164352A1 · Denninghoff · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150033120A1 · Cooke et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150169708A1 · Song et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20180032811A1 · Yellapragada et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180157939A1 · Butt et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180260389A1 · Bahrami et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180341701A1 · Verma et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190138867A1 · Vander Aa · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190243821A1 · Duhamel et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200162236A1 · Miller · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200184212A1 · Anthony Samy · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200244459A1 · Hu · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210004582A1 · Evans et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210004583A1 · Evans et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210192204A1 · Van et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210357482A1 · Devir et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210406225A1 · Akhoury et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220366061A1 · Spivack · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220393875A1 · Shrinivasan et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230117399A1 · Jakobsson · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20230237767A1 · Su et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20240098345A1 · Kang · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240161463A1 · Rasheed et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20240161521A1 · Rasheed et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20240205349A1 · Picard · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20240232509A9 · Wolkoff et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20240289550A1 · Wu · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20250165536A1 · Wang et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
US 20250181650A1 · Wang et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
US 20250231992A1 · Wang et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
JP 2015136027A · 2015 [cited by examiner]
Machine Translation JP 2015136027 A (Year: 2015). [cited by examiner]
Benedens, Oliver. “Robust watermarking and affine registration of 3d meshes.” International Workshop on Information Hiding. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002. (Year: 2002). [cited by examiner]
Mandreoli, Federica, Riccardo Martoglia, and Paolo Tiberio. “A document comparison scheme for secure duplicate detection.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 4.3 (2004): 223-244. (Year: 2004). [cited by examiner]
Garg, Pulkit, et al. “Identifying the Leak Sources of Hard Copy Documents.” IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. (Year: 2022). [cited by examiner]
Nayak, Jijnasa, et al. “Detecting data leakage from hard copy documents.” IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. (Year: 2018). [cited by examiner]
Chandrasekaran, Madhusudhanan, Vidyaraman Sankaranarayanan, and Shambhu Upadhyaya. “Inferring sources of leaks in document management systems.” IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics. Boston, MA: Springer US… [cited by examiner]
Nikita Mazurov, “Beware of “Watermarking” If You Leak from Elon Musk's Twitter”, The Intercept, Dec. 15, 2022 (11 pages). [cited by applicant]
J. T. Brassil et al., “Electronic Marking and Identification Techniques to Discourage Document Copying”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 13, No. 8, Oct. 1995 (10 pages). [cited by applicant]
C. Xiao et al., “FontCode: Embedding Information in Text Documents using Glyph Perturbation”, ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1, Dec. 2017 (16 pages). [cited by applicant]
Apryse Software Inc., “Comprehensive document processing tools”, Accessed May 8, 2023, https://apryse.com/ (10 pages). [cited by applicant]
Opencv, “Shi-Tomasi Corner Detector & Good Features to Track”, Accessed May 8, 2023, https://docs.opencv.org/3.4/d4/d8c/tutorial_py_shi_tomasi.html (2 pages). [cited by applicant]
Apryse Software Inc., “Extracting text from PDF documents using JavaScript”, Accessed May 8, 2023, https://docs.apryse.com/documentation/web/guides/extraction/text-extract/ (15 pages). [cited by applicant]
Apryse Software Inc., “Extracting images from a PDF using JavaScript”, Accessed May 8, 2023, https://docs.apryse.com/documentation/web/guides/extraction/image-extract/ (6 pages). [cited by applicant]
Text, “pdf2Data an iText 7 add-on”, Accessed May 8, 2023, https://itextpdf.com/sites/default/files/2018-10/Whitepaper_pdf2Data_2017.pdf (9 pages). [cited by applicant]
OpenCV, “Template Matching”, Accessed May 8, 2023, https://docs.opencv.org/4.x/d4/dc6/tutorial_py_template_matching.html (4 pages). [cited by applicant]
Abdibayev et al., “Using Word Embedding to Deter Intellectual Property Theft through Automated Generation of Fake Documents”, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, vol. 12, No. 2, Article 13, Jan. 2021 (22… [cited by applicant]
Ahmed Alsayat, “Improving Sentiment Analysis for Social Media Applications Using an Ensemble Deep Learning Language Model”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2022) 47:2499-2511 (13 pages). [cited by applicant]
Lakshmipathi N, “Imdb Dataset of 50K Movie Reviews”, https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/lakshmi25npathi/imdb-dataset-of-50k-movie-reviews (accessed May 8, 2023). [cited by applicant]
Liu et al., “PEGASUS: AState-of-the-Art Model for Abstractive Text Summarization”, Google Research, Jun. 9, 2020 (7 pages). [cited by applicant]
Alzahrani et al., “Understanding Plagiarism Linguistic Patterns, Textual Features, and Detection Methods”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, vol. 42, No. 2, Mar. 2012, pp. 133-149. [cited by applicant]
Coates et al., “Identifying Document Similarity Using a Fast Estimation of the Levenshtein Distance Based on Compression and Signatures”, Available online at: <https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11496>, Jul. 21, 2023, pp. 1-11. [cited by applicant]
D'Amore et al., “Traitor-Proof PDF Watermarking”, Available online at: <https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11496>, Sep. 20, 2021, pp. 1-23. [cited by applicant]
Elhadi et al., “Webpage Duplicate Detection Using Combined POS and Sequence Alignment Algorithm”, 2009 World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, Mar. 2009, pp. 630-634. [cited by applicant]
Meuschke et al., “Improving Academic Plagiarism Detection for STEM Documents by Analyzing Mathematical Content and Citations”, 2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), Jun. 2019, pp. 120-129. [cited by applicant]
Molina, et al., “Fast Approximate Matching of Programs for Protecting Libre/Open Source Software by Using Spatial Indexes”, Seventh IEEE International Workimg Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, Sep. 20… [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/592,118, mailed on Mar. 11, 2026, 6 pages. [cited by applicant]
Raju et al., “Video Copy Detection in Distributed Environment” 2016 IEEE Second International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (BigMM), Apr. 2016, pp. 432-435. [cited by applicant]
Rakthanmanon et al., “Mining Historical Documents for Near-Duplicate Figures”, 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining, Dec. 2011, pp. 557-566. [cited by applicant]