`
`IN THE UNITED ST
`ATES 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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR
`LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`TABLE OF
` CONTENTS
`I. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 1
`II. THE FRAUD PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER ........................... 2
`A. Background of the Fraud Patents and Their Exemplary Claims ............................. 2
`B. Step One: The Fraud Patents are Directed to an Abstract Idea ............................... 3
`C. Step Two: The Fraud Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept ................................... 7
`III. THE AUTHENTICATION PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT
`MATTER ............................................................................................................................ 9
`A. Background of the Authentication Pate nts and Their Exemplary Claims .............. 9
`B. Step One: The Authentication Patents are Directed to an Abstract Idea .............. 10
`C. Step Two: The Authentication Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept .................. 13
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ . 15
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF
` AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`Cases
`Affinity Labs v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`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
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................7
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................................................2
`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) ...................................................................5, 6, 12, 13
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`113 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ..............................................................................................14
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................7, 13
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................1, 6, 7, 12
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................12, 15
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
`815 F. App’x 529, 533 (Fed Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................6
`Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................13
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................4, 11
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`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 (F
`ed. Cir. 2017) ................................................5
`GeoComply Sols. Inc. v. Xpoint Servs. LLC,
`No. 22-1273, 2023 WL 1927393 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023) .........................................................5
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................15
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................5, 9, 15
`Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd.,
`110 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ..............................................................................................11
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................4, 12, 14
`NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd.,
`547 F. Supp. 3d 977 (D. Nev. 2021),
`aff’d, 2022 WL 1513310 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022) ...................................................................5
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`696 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................10, 11, 12
`Q Techs., Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.,
`21-CV-00779, 2024 WL 1146150 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2024) ...................................................2
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................1, 12, 13
`Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.,
`484 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D. Del. 2020),
`aff’d, 2021 WL 2944838 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) .................................................................15
`Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.,
`931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................11
`Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ passim
`WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`854 F. App’x 367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................12, 14, 15
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................................4, 11
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`TABLE OF
` ABBREVIATIONS
`Term Definition
`Apple Defendant Apple Inc.
`Carbyne Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
`’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 Patents The ’010, ’656, and ’886 patents
`Fraud Claims Claims 1, 6, and 9 of the ’010 Patent;
`claims 1 and 8 of the ’656 Patent, and
`claims 1, 12 and 14 of the ’886 Patent
`Authentication Patents The ’105 and ’138 patents
`Authentication Claims Claims 1, 7-8 and 25 of the ’138 Patent
`and claims 1, 9, 14 and 35 of the ’105
`Patent
`Asserted Patents The ’105, ’138, ’010, ’656, and ’886
`patents
`Asserted Claims The Fraud 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 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF
` EXHIBITS
`Exhibit Document
`Ex. A Deposition Transcript of Markus Jakobsson, Volume 1 (July 9, 2024)
`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 Respons e 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)
`Ex. J Openin g Expert Report of Dr. Edward Dunstone on Invalidity
`Ex. K Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Eric Cole on Validity
`Ex. L Exhibit G to Carb yne’s Final Infringement Contentions
`Ex. M Deposition Transcript of Dr. Mark Jones, Volume 1 (Oct. 1, 2024)
`Ex. N Appendix A to Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Mark Jones on Validity
`Ex. O Openin g Expert Report of Dr. Seth Nielson on Invalidity
`Ex. P Appendix H to Openin g Expert Report of Dr. Mark Jones on Infringement
`Ex. Q Openin g Expert Report of Dr. Mark Jones on Infringement
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`The Asserted Claims are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Three
`patents are directed to detecting fraud in electronic transactions through the use of collected data
`(biometrics and/or location). The Federal Circuit found analogous claims “collect[ing] and
`examin[ing] data to authenticate the user[]” in transactions directed to abstract ideas. See Universal
`Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“USR”). Two patents
`are directed to limiting access to data to authorized users, again using biometric data. The Federal
`Circuit again found analogous claims “directed to the abstract idea of co llecting and examining
`data to enable authentication” to be patent ineligible. Id. at 1352. No Asserted Claim recites an
`inventive concept. They use conventional computer component s for conventional functions.
`Accordingly, Apple respectfully requests summary judgment of invalidity under § 101.
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`Abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. 208, 217
`(2014). Courts apply a two-step fra mework 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. “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 abstract end-result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (c itation omitted). A claim that can be performed mentally
`or analogized to brick-and-mortar concepts likely is abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
`Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (findi ng 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 fraud detection cl aims “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
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`the resulting systems” or if they “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).
`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 omit ted). There is nothing inve ntive about imp lementing an
`abstract idea using “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the
`industry,” id. at 225 (alteration in original) or lim iting the abstract id ea to a “particular
`technological environment,” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation omitted).
`Although the question of whether an element or combination of elements is “well-understood,
`routine and conventional” is a question of fact that must be shown by clear and convincing
`evidence, “[s]ummary judgment must be granted when, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor
`of the non-movant, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Q Techs., Inc. v. Walmart,
`Inc., 21-CV-00779, 2024 WL 1146150, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2024) (citation omitted).
`II. THE FRAUD PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
`A. Background of the Fraud Patent Claims
`The Fraud Patents describe “[t]echniques for reducing fraud.”1 ’010 at Abstract; Ex. A at
`155:3-156:12. To address the non-technological problem of fraudulent transactions, these patents
`propose non-technological solutions to increase the real or perceived likelihood that the fraudulent
`act will be detected. ’010 at 4:45-48. The patents describe captur ing and analyzing biometrics or
`location to ensure the user may authorize a transaction. Id. at 6:39-45; 8:55-63; 10:10-12.
`’010 claim 9 (see Appx 1 for complete claim language) recites receiving and storing
`information (a virtual likeness, an indication of an action, biom etric information); displaying
`
`1 The Fraud Patents’ specifications are identical other than cross-references to each other. All
`citations in this section are to the ’010 specification. All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`information (virtual likeness and icon); analyzin g information (a fraud detection analysis); and a
`result (completing a transaction). See also ’010 cl. 1 (same). The ’656 and ’886 independent claims
`are similar, except they also r ecite capturing location informa tion, and the ’656 recites storing
`biometric information instead of a virtual likeness. E.g., ’656, cl. 1; ’886, cl. 1. The Fraud Claims
`use only functional language direct ed to the abstract idea of receiving/storing, displaying, and
`analyzing information, and nothing in this ordered combination adds an inventive concept.
`The Fraud 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 to conduct that analysis and do not tether it in any
`meaningful way to the recited components. The sp ecification is equally silent. And the asserted
`dependent claims add only minor features that do not change the character of the independent
`claims. These dependent claims recite display of additional information (’010 cl. 6; ’656 c. 8);
`collection of additional information ( e.g., photographs) (’886 c. 14); and determining whether a
`face is detected in captured images—without any r ecitation of how to perform them (’886 cl. 12).
` During prosecution of the ’010, the examiner re jected the pending claims six times under
`§ 101, and applicant overcame these rejections only by adding the step of determining whether a
`user is “alive.” Ex. G at 8. Later, during prosecu tion of the ’886, the same examiner rejected the
`pending claims under § 101 even though they recited the “alive” determinati on, allowing the
`claims only once th e limitation of capturing lo cation data was added. Ex. H at 15-16, 21-23. As
`discussed below, neither feature saves the claims from ineligibility.
`B. Step One: The Fraud Patents are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Collecting,
`Receiving, and Analyzing Data before Authorizing a Transaction
`The Fraud Claims are directed to the abstra ct idea of collecting, receiving, and analyzing
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`information about a user—namely, biometric (and, for the ’656 and ’886, location) information—
`to enable a transaction, in other words, “collect[ing] and examin[ing] data to authenticate the user’s
`identity.” USR, 10 F.4th at 1352. The claims here are even more abstract than those in USR, which
`recited a “device that includes a biometric sens or, user interface, communication interface, and
`processor” to “(1) authenticate the user based on two factors—biometric information and secret
`information”—and “(2) generate encrypted auth entication information to send to the secure
`registry through a point-of-sale device.” Id. Here, as in USR, the claims are abstract because they
`“recite ‘conventional actions in a generic way’” such as “authenticating a user using conventional
`tools” ( e.g., displaying information, receiving a transaction re quest, capturing biometric
`information) and permitting a transaction to proceed “without ‘improv[ing] any underlying
`technology.’” Id. The Federal Circuit also held similar claims abstract in FairWarning. E.g., 839
`F.3d at 1093 (“detecting fraud” by “analyzing data” such as user identifier data).
`The results-oriented nature of the claims highlights their abstractness. The central—and
`supposedly inventive—limitation concerning the fraud detection analys is (“alive”) recites only the
`inputs to and outputs from a black box, without discussing how to conduct the analysis or how the
`recited components participate. That “essentially result-focused, functional character” confirms
`that the claims are “ineligible under § 101.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Adding rote recitations of conventi onal physical components ( e.g., a
`processor, memory, came ra) performing thei r conventional functions do es nothing to render the
`claims nonabstract. Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`While the Fraud Claims require that certai n information be “captur[ed]” (biometrics,
`location) and a certain determination made (whether a user is “alive”), those features do not save
`the claims from being abstract. First, collecting and analyzing information is an ineligible abstract
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`idea, and limiting that process to either specific informa tion or a specific technological
`environment (an electronic transaction) does not render the claims nonabstract. FairWarning, 839
`F.3d at 1094-95; Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`Second, use of biometric data does not render a claim nonabstract. USR, 10 F.4th at 1353.
`The claims do not purport to improve on the use or capture of biometrics; as in USR, there “is no
`description in the patent[s] of a specific technical solution by which the biometric information . . .
`is generated.” Id. at 1352. The claims merely recite using biometric information 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 *1, *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (steps comparing
`“signals,” including biometrics like iris scans, “ mirror[]” the human mind), aff’d, 669 F. App’x
`575 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedentia l). The inventor admitted that the patents disclose no new
`algorithms for using or implementing biometrics. Ex. A at 244:17-21; 246:16-24; 250:17-251:10.
`Third, use of location information in the ’656 and ’886 claims doe s not render them
`nonabstract. Using location information in connection with a tran saction is an abstract idea. See,
`e.g., NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd. , 547 F. Supp. 3d 977, 991 (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 commercia l 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) (holding claims abstract). The claims provide no new
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`technical solution for capturing or analyzing location information.
`Fourth, the black-box step of determining whether a user is “alive” does nothing to render
`the claims nonabstract. In Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. , the Federal Circuit
`addressed claims directed to authentication and data security, where the claimed advance was a
`recited “access checker” that pe rmitted access to a resource only if certain specified conditions
`were met. 815 F. App’x 529, 533 (Fed Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal un der § 101). The Court
`deemed that feature a “functional abstractio n;” the specification offered no “technological
`solution” for implementation, instead treating the feature “as a black box.” The same is true here.
`The claims recite nothing more th an the result of determining th at the user is alive, without
`specifying how that is done. The specification also contains no detail: “Techniques for confirming
`that the object being photographed is alive (e.g., by taking multiple photographs in rapid
`succession) …” ’010, 8:55-60. At best, this lone sentence describes an input to an undisclosed
`function. Dr. Jakobsson admitted that the patents disclose no algorithm but merely provide a
`“simple description of what the goal is.” Ex. A at 244:17-21; 246:16-24.2
`The claims are also abstract because they can largely be pe rformed via mental processes.
`Blue Spike, 2015 WL 5260506, at *5. Determining that a person is alive or dead, or present rather
`than absent, is analogous to longstanding commercial practices mentally performed by, e.g., bank
`tellers and notaries. See Cybersource, 654 F.3d at 1373 (identifying fraud based on contextual
`information “can be performed . . . in the human mind”). Dr. Jakobsson effectively admitted that
`these steps can be performed mentally, test ifying that the patents reduce fraud through “a
`
`2 While the ’010 and ’656 claims recite an “alive” determinati on based “at least in part” on
`biometric information, they do not specify the type of information, how it is used, or how the
`determination is made. As the ’886 examiner f ound, the specification’s disclosure is limited to
`taking multiple photographs in succession. E.g., H at 5-6. While the ’886 adds that “alive” is
`determined by analyzing “the set of images,” this too is an unexplained black-box determination.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`psychological observation that is being taken advantage of in a technological sense.” Ex. A, 159:2-
`10. Implementing that “psycholog ical observation” with conven tional technology rather than a
`human brain does not make them less abstract. Id.; see Berkheimer v. HP Inc. , 881 F.3d 1360,
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (abstract idea limited to a technological environment still abstract).
`C. Step Two: The Fraud Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept
`Once the abstract ideas of analyzing biomet rics and location are stripped from the Fraud
`Claims, what remains adds nothing “sufficient to ‘transform’ th e claimed abstract idea into a
`patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18, 221 (citation omitted). The undisputed facts
`show the Fraud Patents lack any inventive concep t. Apple’s expert opined that no claim element
`was inventive, Ex. J ¶¶ 950-964, which Carbyne’s expert did not rebut. Ex. K ¶¶ 692-699; see Ex.
`A at 218:23-24 (inventor testifying that “each limitation” “by itself is not necessarily novel”).
`Once the abstract idea is removed, all that remains are undisputedly conventional computer
`components used in a conventional manner, Ex. J ¶¶ 950-951; Ex. K ¶¶ 692-699 (not disputing
`Apple’s Expert’s opinion on this). Named inventor Dr. Jakobsson testified that the claimed
`computer components were know n. Ex. A at 213:17-2 (processor); 254:20 (“I did not invent
`memory”); 254:22- 255:6; see also ’010 at 2:6-10 (“[A] component . . . may be implemented as a
`general component that is tem porarily configured to perform the task”); 3:54-55 (“device 110
`includes typical components such as a CPU, RAM . . . .”). Such conventional components, even
`combined, are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a pa tent-eligible claim. BSG Tech
`LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (application of an abstract idea
`using conventional techniques not sufficient to transform claim); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096.
`Even the combination of elem ents, on the undisputed facts, is not inventive. Ex. J ¶ 962.
`Carbyne’s expert, Dr. Cole, opines that the “Asserted Claims pr ovide for an improved graphical
`user interface coupled with fraud detection analysis that did not exist in the prior art.” Ex. K ¶ 699.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`But Dr. Cole improperly includes elements of the abstract idea in the purported concept, e.g., Ex.
`J ¶ 953 (“limitations [such as the fraud detection analysis] are recited with generality and are also
`part of the abstract idea itself”), and so Dr. Cole’s proffered inventive concept is irrelevant to the
`analysis required by Alice , 573 U.S. at 218 (inventive concept must add “significantly more”).
`Regardless, Dr. Cole’s testimony confirms that each aspect of his purported abstract concept was
`well-known, routine, and conventional. By “improved graphical user interface,” Dr. Cole means
`one that “includes a virtual likeness of the fa ce of the account holder within the transaction
`interface,” Ex. K ¶ 697, but Dr. Cole does not dispute that “it was conventional to have processor(s)
`configured to render images in on e or more interfaces, such as re ndering a virtual likeness of an
`account holder or transaction recipient.” 3 Ex. J ¶ 955. By “fraud detection analysis,” Dr. Cole
`means capturing information “that determines at leas t in part that the user is alive,” but he later
`opines that techniques “to exactly determine a user is alive . . . were known to those in the relevant
`field at the time of the invention.” Ex. K ¶ 677.
`Nor do the claims provide a technological so lution rooted in computer technology to
`address a problem specifically arising in the realm of computers. Ex. J ¶ 946. Dr. Cole opines that
`each aspect of his purported inventive concept provides a separate purported benefit, but each
`benefit identified by Dr. Cole a ddresses a problem that predates computers and e-commerce. Ex.
`K ¶ 699 (“increase feelings of guilt” and “increased likelihood…that a fraudster will be caught”).
`The specification implies the Fraud Patents provide a solution applicable to physical and electronic
`transactions. Ex. D at 1:19-29 (“Fraudulent transactions are an ongoing problem….at physical
`locations….[and] in the context of electronic transactions. Impr oved techniques to prevent fraud
`
`3 Dr. Cole’s opinion that the “graphic user interface” “would increase feelings of guilt in a would-
`be fraudster” (Ex. K ¶ 699) is belied by the claims, which do not require the displayed likeness be
`that of the sender—indeed, Carbyne accuses a likeness of a recipient. E.g., Ex. L at 5.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`would be useful.”). Consistent with the specification, Dr. Jakob sson testified that fraud may be
`committed by an individual “using [a] stolen card to perform transactions at physical locations,”
`Ex. A at 155:7-18, which is a problem arising long before e-commerce. Applying the generic
`solution to electronic transactions does not create an inventive concept. See Intell. Ventures I, 850
`F.3d at 1327 (concluding claimed activity was abstract as it was “longstanding conduct that existed
`well before the advent of computers and the Internet”). In short, the claimed features “are described
`and claimed generically rather than with the specificity necessary to show how those components
`provide a concrete solution to the problem addressed by the patent.” Affinity Labs v. Amazon.com
`Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Some claims recite no components at all. ’010 cl. 9.
`III. THE AUTHENTICATION PATENTS CLAIM INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
`A. Background of the Authentication Patents Claims
`The Authentication Patents purport to improve existing “authentication techniques” by
`making accessing resources less “tedious.” ’138, 3:1-43, 3:61-64. The patents have the same title,
`inventor, and assignee, and share similar specifications. 4 Their purported solution is to verify the
`user’s identity by matching biometric information (e.g., fingerprint) to a template (e.g., fingerprint
`patterns) before sending the user’s credentials (e.g., cryptographic keys) to a requested resource
`on the user’s behalf, ’138, 3:1-4, avoiding the need for user-entered credentials, ’138, 2:65-3:1.
`’138 claim 1 (see Appx 2) recites storing informati on (a record comprising a biometric
`template and cryptographic key); displaying info rmation (a prompt); receiving information (a
`biometric input); analyzing in formation (determining a match between received and stored
`information); accessing information (accessi ng a credential); transmitting information
`(transmitting the credentials); and rem oving information (facilitating wiping of
`
`4 The ’105 specification adds Figs. 9-15 and an “ADDITIONAL EMBODIMENTS” section to the
`’138 specification. Unless stated otherwise, all citations are to the ’138.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 230 Filed 11/06/24 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`information).5 ’138, 3:21-55, 4:44-46, 6:29-7:23, Fig. 5. The ’105 independent claims are similar,
`except they do not recite a visual prompt or wi ping. The ’105 recites “initiating a backup” to a
`device (without reciting how) and receiving and matching “authentication information,” again
`without specifying how, ’105, cl. 1. The claims do not recite any new “authentication technique”
`or any new technology for performing the recited functions.
`Instead, the patents emphasize that their authentication techniques are “widely deployable”
`by using “general component[s]” and can be implemented “in numerous ways,” in a “variety . . .
`of devices” ( e.g., “gaming systems,” “mice,” and “doo r locks”) to conduct “a variety” of
`transactions with a “variety of services.” ’138, 1:44-46, 2:6-23, 2:36-3:16, 4:35-37. The “general
`component[s]” used to perform the techniques—ge neric processors, memory, storage—are recited
`performing their conventional functions, such as receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data. ’138,
`2:16-23, 3:60-4:3, 4:13-4:31, 5:10-45, 6:50-57, 7:48-8:2, Fig. 5. The dependent claims add only
`minor features that do not change the character of the independent claims. They recite merely
`storing information (’105 cl. 9); wiping information (’138 cls. 7-8); and otherwise generic
`components, ’105, cl. 14 (“biometric user input element,” e.g., a sensor (22:9-14)).
`B. Step One: The Authentication Patents are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Authenticating User Identity Before Granting Access To Data
`The Authentication Claims are directed to the idea of facilitating access to resources based
`on authenticating a user’s identity, or in oth