`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00324
`JURY TRIAL
`
`DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2
`III. THE FRAUD REDUCTION PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT
`MATTER ............................................................................................................................ 3
`A. Background of the Fraud Reduction Patents and Their Exemplary Claims ........... 3
`B. Step One: The Fraud Reduction Patents are Directed to an Abstract Idea ............. 6
`C. Step Two: The Fraud Reduction Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept ............... 10
`IV. THE AUTHENTICATION PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT
`MATTER .......................................................................................................................... 12
`A. Background of the Authentication Patents and Their Exemplary Claims ............ 12
`B. Step One: The Authentication Patents are Directed to an Abstract Idea .............. 15
`C. Step Two: The Authentication Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept .................. 18
`V. NO ADDITIONAL FACT FINDING IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS
`MOTION........................................................................................................................... 20
`VI. DISMISSAL WITH PREJDUCE WARRANTED ........................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`Cases
`Affinity Labs v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................12, 19
`Affinity Labs v. DirectTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................11
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................2
`AuthWallet, LLC v. Block, Inc.,
`602 F. Supp. 3d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), aff'd sub nom. In re AuthWallet, LLC,
`No. 2022-1842, 2023 WL 3330298 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023) ................................................10
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................................................3
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01650, 2015 WL 5260506 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015),
`aff’d, 669 F. App’x 575 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........................................................................8, 9, 17
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................10
`Coho Licensing LLC v. Glam Media, Inc.,
`2017 WL 6210882 (N.D.Cal., 2017) aff’d sub nom. Coho Licensing LLC v.
`Oath Inc., 710 F. App’x. 892 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................19
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................2, 9, 16
`Data Engine Tech. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................................6
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................9, 11, 16, 20
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................2, 7, 16, 17
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`Electronic Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................18
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC,
`204 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (D.N.M. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Front Row Techs., LLC
`v. MLB Adv’d Media, L.P., 697 F. App’x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................8
`GeoComply Sols. Inc. v. Xpoint Servs. LLC,
`No. 22-1273, 2023 WL 1927393 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023) .........................................................8
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................20
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Circ. 2017) ...................................................................................... passim
`Legate v. Livingston,
`822 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................20
`Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. NCAA,
`751 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................3
`Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corp.,
`726 F. App’x 797 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................19
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................18
`NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd.,
`547 F. Supp. 3d 977 (D. Nev. 2021), aff’d, 2022 WL 1513310
`(Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022) ...........................................................................................................8
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................2, 17, 18
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................3, 19
`Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.,
`484 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D. Del. 2020), aff’d, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20789 (Fed.
`Cir. July 14, 2021) ...................................................................................................................19
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.,
`931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................7, 16
`Umbanet, Inc. v. Epsilon Data Mgmt., LLC,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Tex. 2017), aff’d, 745 F. App’x
`168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................................17
`United States v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp.,
`355 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................20
`WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`854 F. App’x 367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................17, 18, 19
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... passim
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Term Definition
`Apple Defendant Apple Inc.
`Carbyne Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
`’512 U.S. Patent No. 10,929,512
`’105 U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`’138 U.S. Patent No. 11,514,138
`’010 U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010
`’656 U.S. Patent No. 10,713,656
`’886 U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886
`Fraud Reduction Patents The ’010, ’656, and ’886 patents
`Fraud Reduction Claims Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13-14, 17, and 21-22 of
`the ’010 Patent; claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and
`16-19 of the ’656 Patent, and claims 1-2,
`4-7, 9-11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 of the ’886
`Patent
`Authentication Patents The ’512, ’105, and ’138 patents
`Authentication Claims Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 19, and 22-25
`of the ’138 Patent, claims 1, 9, 11, 18, 28,
`and 35 of the ’105 Patent, and claims 1-4,
`10-14, and 20-21 of the ’512 Patent
`Asserted Patents The ’512, ’105, ’138, ’010, ’656, and ’886
`patents
`Recited Claims The Fraud Reduction Claims and
`Authentication Claims
`’010 FH Excerpt from the File History to U.S.
`Patent No. 9,972,010
`’886 FH Excerpt from the File History to U.S.
`Patent No. 11,526,886
`Brief Corrected Principal And Response Brief
`For Defendant/Cross-Appellant T-Mobile
`USA, Inc. at 58-59, Prism Technologies
`LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Nos. 16-2031,
`16-2049 (Fed. Cir.) (filed Sept. 22, 2016)
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Exhibit Document
`Ex. A U.S. Patent No. 10,929,512 (attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint)
`Ex. B U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105 (attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint)
`Ex. C U.S. Patent No. 11,514,138 (attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint)
`Ex. D U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010 (attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint)
`Ex. E U.S. Patent No. 10,713,656 (attached as Exhibit E to the Complaint)
`Ex. F U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886 (attached as Exhibit F to the Complaint)
`Ex. G Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010, retrieved
`from the website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Ex. H Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886, retrieved
`from the website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Ex. I Corrected Principal And Response Brief For Defendant/Cross-Appellant
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. at 58-59, Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., Nos. 16-2031, 16-2049 (Fed. Cir.) (filed Sept. 22, 2016)
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Carbyne asserts six patents that claim patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101. Each Recited Claim1 is analogous to claims the Federal Circuit has determined are abstract
`in controlling cases, and none recites anything inventi ve—such as new components, or
`technological improvements to conventional components—that might transform them into reciting
`patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, the Recited Claims are written in functional terms, setting
`forth a desired result instead of a particular solution for achieving that result. To the extent the y
`recite tangible components at all, the Recited Claims recite only conventional components
`performing only their conventional functions ( e.g., processors accessing data). Accordingly, the
`Court should dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
`The Asserted Patents fall into two technical groups, neither of which is patent-eligible:
`Fraud Reduction: The ’010, ’656, and ’886 patents are directed to the abstract idea of
`collecting, receiving, and analyzing information about a user to enable a transaction. The claims
`are indistinguishable from, and indeed broader than, the claims the Federal Circuit found patent-
`ineligible in Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., which were directed to “collect[ing] and
`examin[ing] data to authenticate the user’s identity.” 10 F.4th 1342, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`(“USR”). The claims here recite the same abstract steps as those in USR, namely collecting and
`receiving biometric information from a user and examining whether to proceed with a transaction
`based on the collected information. The claims here also similarly contain no inventive concept,
`as they describe merely implementing the abstract idea on conventional computer systems.
`Authentication: The ’138, ’105, and ’512 patents are directed to the abstract idea of
`facilitating access to resources based on authenticating a user’s identity. They are indistinguishable
`
`1 Definitions may be found in the Table of Abbreviations. Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`from those held ineligible in Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., which were directed
`to “control[ling] access to . . . computer resources by authenticating identity data.” 696 F. App’x
`1014, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential). Indeed, they recite the same steps as in Prism, i.e.,
`receiving identity data and a n access request, determining if access is authorized, and enabling
`access if so. They also lack an inventive concept, reciting only generic components and functions.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216-17
`(2014). Courts apply a two-step framework to “distinguish[] patents that claim . . . abstract ideas
`from those that claim patent-eligible application of those concepts.” Id. at 217. At step one, courts
`determine whether the claims “are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. This requires
`“looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole,’” to determine if they are directed
`to excluded subject matter. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (citation omitted). “The inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to ‘a specific means
`or method’ for improving technology or whether they are simply directed to an a bstract end -
`result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. , 855 F.3d 1322 , 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ( citation
`omitted). A claim that can be performed mentally or analogized to brick -and-mortar concepts
`likely is directed to an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
`1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding claim directed to fraud detection for electronic interactions an
`“unpatentable mental process”); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc. , 839 F.3d 1089 , 1094
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding f raud detection claims “merely implement an old practice in a new
`environment”). Software claims may be abstract if “[t]hey do not claim a particular way of
`programming [to accomplish the claimed functionality], but instead merely claim the resulting
`systems” or if the y “are not directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate.”
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`At step two, courts remove the abstract idea from the claim and search the remainder for
`an “inventive concept sufficient to transform ” the abstract idea into a patent -eligible application.
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( citation omitted) . There is nothing inventive about implementing an
`abstract idea using “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the
`industry,” id. at 225 (alteration in original) , or limiting the abstract idea to a “particular
`technological environment,” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation omitted).
`Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law which courts may resolve on a motion to
`dismiss. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC , 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) . “[I]n ruling on a
`12(b)(6) motion, a court need not ‘accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject
`to judicial notice or by exhibit,’ such as the claims and the patent specification.” Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Amended pleadings are subject to the same
`standard of legal sufficiency. Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. NCAA, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014).
`III. THE FRAUD REDUCTION PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
`A. Background of the Fraud Reduction Patents and Their Exemplary Claims
`The Fraud Reduction Patents—a family that shares the same title, inventor, assignee, and
`specification—are directed to “[t]echniques for reducing fraud.”2 ’010 at Abstract; see also Compl.
`¶ 54 (alleging these relate to “preventing or reducing fraud in electronic transactions”). These
`“Fraud Reduction” patents, Compl. ¶ 2, identify a non -technological problem : “ Fraudulent
`transactions are an ongoing problem .” ’010 at 1:19 -29. To address this problem, these patents
`propose non-technological solutions that increase “the likelihood (either real or . . . perceived . . .)
`that the fraudulent act will be detected.” Id. at 4:4 5-48. To reduce fraud, the patents describe
`capturing biometrics, such as a fingerprint or photograph, to ensure that the user is authorized to
`
`2 The Fraud Reduction Patents ’ specifications are id entical other than cross -references to each
`other. All citations in this section are to the ’010 specification.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`engage in the transaction. Id. at 6:39-45; 8:55-63. Location information can also be captured. Id.
`at 10:10-12. Figure 9, copied below, “illustrates an embodiment of a process for reducing fraud:”
`Claim 9 of the ’010 is illustrative of the Fraud Reduction Claims and recites:
`9: A method, comprising:
`receiving a virtual likeness of a face of an account holder;
`associating, in a data store, the virtual likeness of the face of the account holder
`with an account of the account holder;
`rendering, in an interface, the virtual likeness of the face of the account holder;
`rendering a transaction icon associated with an electronic transaction, wherein the
`transaction icon is rendered in the interface with the virtual likeness of the face
`of the account holder;
`receiving an indication of an action taken by a user, the action comprising a user
`interaction with the transacti on icon rendered in the interface with the virtual
`likeness of the face of the account holder;
`capturing contextual information associated with the electronic transaction, the
`captured contextual information comprising captured biometric information
`associated with a user;
`performing a fraud detection analysis of the captured contextual information
`associated with the electronic transaction, wherein performing the fraud detection
`analysis comprises determining, based at least in part on the captured biometr ic
`information, that the user is alive; and
`based at least in part on both the user interaction with the transaction icon rendered
`in the interface with the virtual likeness of the face of the account holder and
`performing the fraud detection analysis comp rising determining that the user is
`alive based at least in part on the captured biometric information, completing the
`electronic transaction.
`’010, cl. 9. 3 In sum, the claim recites receiving and storing information (a virtual likeness, an
`
`3 The independent claims of each patent recite substantively similar limitations, respectively
`reciting either a system, method, or computer readable medium. Compare ’010, cl. 1, 17 with ’010
`cl. 9; compare ’656, cl. 1, 19 with ’656, cl. 10; compare ’886, cl. 1, 11 with ’886, cl. 6.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`indication of an action, biometric information); displaying information (virtual likeness and icon);
`analyzing information (a fraud detection analysis); and a result (completing a transaction). The
`’656 and ’886 independent claims are similar, except that they also recite capturing location
`information, and the ’656 recites storing biometric information instead of a virtual likeness . E.g.,
`’656, cl. 10; ’886, cl. 6. The Fraud Reduction Claims use only functional language directed to the
`abstract idea of receiving/storing, displaying, and analyzing information, and nothing in this
`ordered combination of elements provides additional inventive concept to the abstract idea.
`Importantly, t he claims do not recite how to perform the purportedly inventive fraud
`detection analysis. Rather, the claims recite merely an input to that analysis—i.e., biometric (and,
`for the ’656 and ’886, location) information—and the output of that analysis—i.e., a determination
`that a user is alive . But the claims are silent on how anyone would conduct that analysis and do
`not tether it in any meaningful way to the recited components . As explained below, the
`specification’s sole reference to detecting “aliveness” is silent on how that process is performed.
`The fraud detection limitation is directed to a result, rather than a specific means of achieving it.
`The asserted dependent claims add minor features that do not change the character of t he
`independent claims. These dependent claims recite merely display of additional information (’010
`cls. 5-6, 13-14; ’656 cls. 7-8, 16-17; ’886 cls. 4-5, 9-10); collection of additional information (e.g.,
`user location, audio, photographs) (’010 cls. 21-22; ’886 cls. 4, 9, 14, 20); the origin of collected
`information (virtual likeness provided by the recipient of a transaction) (’656 cls. 4, 13);
`information that is not required (a password ) (’656 cl. 9 , 18 ); a qualification that the recited
`transaction involves a payment (’886 cls. 2, 7); and determining whether a face is detected in
`captured images—without any recitation of how that determination is performed (’886 cls. 12, 18).
` During prosecution of the ’010, the examiner rejected the pending claims six times under
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`§ 101, and applicant overcame these rejections only by adding the step of determining whether a
`user is “alive.” Ex. G (’010 FH) at 8.4 Later, during prosecution of the ’886, the same examiner
`rejected the pending claims under § 101 even though they recited the “alive” determination,
`allowing the claims only once the limitation of capturing location data was added. Ex. H (’886
`FH) at 15-16, 21-23. As discussed below, neither feature saves the claims from ineligibility.
`B. Step One: The Fraud Reduction Patents are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`The Fraud Reduction Claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, receiving, and
`analyzing information about a user —namely, biometric (and, for the ’656 and ’886 , location)
`information—to enable a transaction . The Federal Circuit has held that this is an impermissibly
`abstract idea. In USR, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting a motion to
`dismiss claims directed to the abstract idea of “collect[ing] and examin[ing] data to authenticate
`the user’s identity.” 10 F.4th at 1352 (alteration in original). The USR claims were directed to the
`abstract idea of “an electronic ID device that includes a biometric sensor, user interface,
`communication interface, and processor working together to (1) authenticate the user based on two
`factors—biometric information and secret information known to the user —and (2) generate
`encrypted authentication information to send to the secure registry through a point-of-sale device.”
`Id. The claims here are even more abstract, directed merely to displaying information, receiving a
`transaction request from a user, capturing user biometric (and, for the ’656 and ’886, locat ion)
`information, and based on the captured information, completing the transaction. See id. As in USR,
`the Federal Circuit has held numerous similar claims to be abstract. E.g., FairWarning, 839 F.3d
`at 1093 (“detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment based on analyzing data . . .
`including user identifier data . . . to determine if the activity indicates improper access” directed to
`
`4 The court may take judicial notice of file histories in considering a § 101 motion to dismiss. Data
`Engine Tech. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1008 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`abstract idea); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (“collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
`certain results of the collection and analysis” directed to abstract idea).
`The claims ’ “essentially result -focused, functional character” confirms that they are
`“ineligible under § 101.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356. While certain claims recite conventional
`physical components (e.g., a processor, memory, camera) performing their conventional functions,
`that is insufficient to render the claims nonabstract. Yu, 1 F.4th at 1043 (finding “conventional
`components [that] perform only their basic functions” simply provide “a generic environment in
`which to carry out the abstract idea”) ; Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc. , 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019) (“[T]he physicality of [processing] paper checks” insufficient to salvage abstract idea).
`While the Fraud Reduction Claims require that certain information be “captur[ed]”
`(biometrics, location information) and a certain determination made (whether a user is “alive”),
`those features do not save the claims from being abstract—for several reasons.
`First, collecting and analyzing information is an abstract ineligible idea, and limiting that
`process to either specific information or a specific technological environment ( e.g., an electronic
`transaction) does not render the claims nonabstract —particularly where the claims , as here,
`implement the age -old process of capturing and analyzing information about a person before
`enabling a transaction . Elec. Power , 830 F.3d at 1353 -54 (claims directed at collecting and
`analyzing specific data within an electric power grid ineligible); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094-
`95; Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1330 (Fed. Circ. 2017).
`Second, the use of biometric data does not render a claim nonabstract. USR, 10 F.4 th at
`1353. The claims do not purport to improve upon the use of biometrics, describe a new way of
`performing biometric analyses, or claim new tools for capturing biometrics , and as in USR, there
`“is no descr iption in the patent[s] of a specific technical solution by which the biometric
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`information . . . is generated.” Id. at 1352. The claims simply recite using biometric information
`(e.g., a face) to make a determination —something humans have done for eons . See, e.g., Blue
`Spike, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 14-cv-01650, 2015 WL 5260506, at * 6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015)
`(steps “mirror[] . . . the human mind”), aff’d, 669 F. App’x 575 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
`Third, merely using location information in the ’656 and ’886 claims does not render them
`not abstract. The claims provide no new technical solution for capturing or analyzing location
`information. Using location information only in connection with a transaction is itself an abstract
`idea. See, e.g., NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd. , 547 F. Supp. 3d 977, 991 -92 (D. Nev. 2021)
`(“incentivizing gambling tailored to a user’s location” is abstract), aff’d, 2022 WL 1513310 (Fed.
`Cir. May 13, 2022); Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 204 F. Supp. 3d 1190,
`1268, 1273-74 (D.N.M. 2016) (authorizing “video based on a user’s location” abstract), aff’d sub
`nom. Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Adv’d Media, L.P., 697 F. App’x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-
`precedential). Verifying location is a longstanding commercial practice and method of organizing
`human activity. Nevada casinos adopted this practice when they “took steps to ensure that persons
`seeking to place wagers were ” in Nevada. GeoComply Sols. Inc. v. Xpoint Servs. LLC , No. 22 -
`1273, 2023 WL 1927393, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023).
`Fourth, the claims’ recitation of determining whether a user is “alive” does nothing to
`render the claims nonabstract . Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc . is particularly
`instructive. 815 F. App’x 526 (Fed Cir. 2020) (non -precedential). There, the Federal Circuit
`addressed claims directed to authentication and data security, where the claimed advance over the
`prior art was a recited “access checker” that permitted access to a resource only if certain specified
`conditions were met. Id. at 533 (affirming district court’s dismissal under § 101). The Court found
`that feature to be only a “functional abstraction” because the specification did not describe a
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`“technological solution” for its implementation, instead treating the feature “as a black box.” The
`same is true here. The claims here recite nothing more than the end result of determining that the
`user is alive, without specifying how that is done. The specification contains only a single sentence
`referencing this feature: “Techniques for confirming that the object being photographed is alive
`(e.g., by taking multiple photographs in rapid succession) can be employed to help make sure that
`the fraudster isn’t using camera 112 to photograph a printed picture of the legitimate user.” 8:55-
`60. Nowhere does the patent claim or describe how the photographs are used to determine
`aliveness, or any other process to determine aliveness. Rather, the patents treat this function as a
`“black box” “functional abstraction,” confirming that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.5
`The claims are also abstract because they can largely be performed via mental processes.
`Blue Spike, 2015 WL 5260506, at *5. They are analogous to longstanding commercial practices
`mentally performed by, e.g., bank tellers and notaries. For example, bank tellers assess contextual
`information (e.g., ID documents, physical appearance, and physical presence) before facilitating a
`transaction. See Cybersource, 654 F.3d at 1373 (identifying fraud based on contextual information
`“can be performed . . . in the human mind”).
`Nor do the Fraud Reduction Claims recite any “specific improvement to the way computers
`operate,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or “overcome a
`problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`Hotels.com, L.P. , 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Fraud reduction and consumer
`
`5 While the ’010 and ’656 claims recite that aliveness is determined “at least in part” on biometric
`information, they do not specify the type of biometric information, how it is used, or how the
`determination is made . As the ’886 examiner found, the specifi cation does not disclose using
`biometrics for checking aliveness. Rather, it discloses checking aliveness only by taking multiple
`photographs in succession, without specifying what to do with the photographs. E.g., ’010, 6:39-
`45 (biometrics), 8:55 -60 (aliv eness); ’886 FH at 5-6. While the ’886 add s that aliveness is
`determined by analyzing “the set of images,” this too is an unexplained black-box determination.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/24/23 Page 16 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`authentication are not unique to electronic transactions, and processes to combat those problems
`predate electronic commerce. AuthWallet, LLC v. Block, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 3d 620, 635 (S.D.N.Y.
`2022) (“Brick -and-mortar retailers who provide for coupons . . . have long faced fraud and
`verification issues”), aff'd sub nom. In re AuthWallet, LLC , No. 2022 -1842, 2023 WL 3330298
`(Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023). The claims are directed to an abstract idea for these reasons, as well.
`C. Step Two: The Fraud Reduction Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept
`Once the abstract idea is stripped from the Fraud Reduction Claims, what remains does not
`add “significantly more ” to the abstract idea —certainly nothing “sufficient to ‘transform’ the
`claimed abstract idea into a patent -eligible application.” Ali