`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
` CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00324-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`PLAINTIFF CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT APPLE,
`INC.’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 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................... 1
`A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss .......................................................................... 1
`B. Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................. 2
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 3
`A. Apple Has Not Met Its Burden of Proving the Two
`Allegedly “Representative Claims” Are Representative of
`Every Asserted Claim in the Patents. .................................................................... 4
`1. The Authentication Patents contain distinct limitations. ............................ 5
`2. The Fraud Reduction Patent s contain distinct
`limitations. ............................................................................................... 7
`B. The Authentication & Fraud Reduction Patents Claim
`Eligible Subject Matter......................................................................................... 9
`1. The Authen tication Patents claim eligible subject
`matter. ...................................................................................................... 9
`a) Alice Step One: The asserted claims solve
`computer problems and improve computer
`capabilities and are not abstract. .................................................... 9
`b) Alice Step Two: As alleged in the
`Complaint, the claims of the Authentication
`Patents recite inventive concepts. ................................................ 13
`2. The Fraud Reduction Patents claim eligible subject
`matter. .................................................................................................... 14
`a) Alice Step One: The Fraud Reduction
`Claims solve computer problems and
`improve computer capabilities and are not
`abstract. ...................................................................................... 15
`b) Alice Step Two: As alleged in the
`Complaint, the Fraud Reduction Claims
`recite inventive concepts. ............................................................ 19
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 20
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
` Page(s)
`CASES
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 2, 4, 13, 20
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ........................................................................................................... 2,3
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 9, 14
`AML IP, LLC v. ALDI, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00605-ADA, Dkt. 40 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2022) (Albright, J.) ........................... 2
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................... 3, 9, 16
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 14, 20
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 1
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................... 3, 5
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................... 2, 3, 19
`CosmoKey Sols. GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC,
`15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................ 19
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 17
`Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................ 12
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 3, 11
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatrci Systems, Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 17
`Grecia Est. Holdings LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`605 F. Supp. 3d 905 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (Albright, J.) ............................................................. 4
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 2
`In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
`495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................. 2
`Mytee Prods. v. Harris Rsch., Inc.,
`439 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................... 20
`PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc.,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (E.D. Tex. 2019) ............................................................................. 4, 5
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc,
`696 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 11, 12
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................. 9, 11, 16
`TecSec, Inc., v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................... passim
`Universal Secure Registry v. Apple, Inc.,
`10 F.4th (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 12, 17
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 19
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................................. passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ........................................................................................................................... 4
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) ........................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`TERM DEFINITION
`Carbyne Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
`Apple Defendant Apple, Inc.
`’512 Patent U.S. Patent No. 10,929,512 (Dkt. 1-1)
`’105 Patent U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105 (Dkt. 1-2)
`’138 Patent U.S. Patent No. 11,514,138 (Dkt. 1-3)
`’010 Patent U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010 (Dkt. 1-4)
`’656 Patent U.S. Patent No. 10,713,656 (Dkt. 1-5)
`’886 Patent U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886 (Dkt. 1-6)
`Asserted Patents ’512, ’105, ’138, ’010, ’656, and ’886 Patents
`Authentication Patents ’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
`Fraud Reduction Patents ’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
`Asserted Claims Authentication Claims and Fraud Reduction Claims
`Motion or Mot. Apple’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14)
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`1 Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al v. RightQuestion, LLC,
`IPR2022-00251, Paper 17 ( PTAB Jun. 09, 2022) (Final Writte n
`Decision denying institution)
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple’s Motion to Dismiss should be d enied for several independent reasons. First ,
`Apple has provided no meaningful analysis to support conflating the sixty-three Asserted Claims
`across the six Asserted Patents into two allegedly representative claims. The six Asserted Patents
`fall into two t echnology areas: the ’512, ’105, and ’138 Patents are the “Authentication Patents”
`and the ’010, ’656, and ’886 Patents are the “Fraud Reduction Patents.” With no basis or
`analysis, Apple asserts that claim 13 of the ’138 Patent is representative of the thirty-one asserted
`claims of the three Authentication Patents and claim 9 of the ’010 Patent is representative of the
`thirty-two asserted claims of the three Fraud Reduction Patents . There is no agreement on
`representativeness, Apple has not shown its proposed claims are representative, and the Asserted
`Claims have substantial differences. Second , Carbyne’s well-pleaded allegations establish that
`the claims of the Asserted Patents recite unconventional improvements to user -authentication
`and computer fraud -reduction technologies. Apple’s Alice step one arguments rely on reducing
`the claims of the Asserted P atents to a level of abstraction that is divorced from the claim
`language—exactly what the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit instruct against. Third , while
`this Court need not reach step two of the Alice test, Apple’s arguments there fail as well because
`they amount only to unsubstantiated attorney arguments which, at most, suggest factual and
`claim-construction disputes. Thus, Apple’s Motion should be denied.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
`Dismissal at the pleading stage is improper if a complaint alleges “enough facts to state a
`claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570
`(2007). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court
`“accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. ”
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
`Patent eligibility can be determined on a motion to dismiss “only when there are no
`factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of
`law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir.
`2018). For example, a factual dispute over “[w]hether the claim elements or t he claimed
`combination are well-understood, routine, [or] conventional” will preclude granting a motion to
`dismiss. Id. at 1128. And because pa tents are presumed valid , “[a]ny fact . . . pertinent to the
`invalidity conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Cellspin Soft, Inc. v.
`Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Indeed, this Court has held that a Rule 12(b)
`motion is an “awkward place” to determine § 101 eligibility:
`In other words, to prevail, the movant needs to overcome both a factual deck
`stacked against it and a heightened burden of proof. Therefore, because a patent is
`presumed valid and requires clear and convincing evidence to prove its invalidity,
`a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss is a procedurally awkward place for a court to
`resolve a patent’s § 101 eligibility.
`AML IP, LLC v. ALDI, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-605-ADA, Dkt. 40 at 7 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2022).
`B. Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
` Whether a patent recites patent -eligible subject matter under § 101 involves a two -step
`analysis according to the test set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. 208
`(2014). Apple, as the party chall enging the validity of the Asserted Patents, bears the burden of
`proof. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 967 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`Alice Step One. At step one , the court determines “whether the claims at issue are
`directed to a paten t-ineligible concept,” like an abstract idea. Alice , 573 U.S. at 218. To make
`this determination, courts ask “what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance
`over the prior art” by considering the asserted claims “in light of the specificati on.” TecSec, Inc.
`v. Adobe Inc. , 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In cases involving inventions related to
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`computer technology, the Federal Circuit has found that claims are patent eligible when they
`focus on: (1) “specific asserted improvements in co mputer capabilities,” or (2) “a solution to a
`problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks or computers.” Id. at 1293.
`Notably, the Federal Circuit has held that “[i]mproving security . . . can be a non -abstract
`computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier
`approaches to solve a specific computer problem.” Id. at 1294 (quoting Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). At step one, courts must avoid describing
`the claims at “ a high level of abstraction” or “untethered from the language of the claims”
`because doing so “all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” Enfish, LLC v.
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Alice Step Two. If a patent claim fails at step one, the court proceeds to step two where it
`“examine[s] the elements of the claim to dete rmine whether it contains an inventive concept
`sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent -eligible application.” Alice, 573
`U.S. at 221 (citations and quotations omitted). Patent claims recite an “inventive concept” if they
`reflect “something more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
`to the industry.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1315 (citation omitted) . “[W]hether a claim element or
`combination of elements is well- understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
`relevant field is a question of fact” that “must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For a Rule 12(b) motion, Carbyne
`need only assert “plausible and specific factual allegations that aspects of the claims are
`inventive.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1317.
`III. ARGUMENT
`The relevant question at the moti on to dismiss stage is whether Carbyne has stated a
`legally plausible claim; not whether it will ultimately be entitled to relief. See supra Section II.A.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Carbyne’s factual allegations must be taken as true, with every inference made in Carbyne’s
`favor. Id. In the Complaint, Carbyne adequately alleged that Apple infringes its duly issued
`patents and that each Asserted Patent is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and claims
`unconventional, inventive concepts. Carbyne has thus adequately pled legally sufficient claims,
`and dismissal at this early stage of the case is inappropriate. Aatrix Software, 882 F.3d at 1128.
`A. Apple Has Not Met Its Burden of Proving the Two Allegedly “Representative
`Claims” Are Representative of Every Asserted Claim in the Patents.
`Apple argues that the six Asserted Patents should be held invalid and the entire case
`dismissed based on a completely unsupported assertion that two claims—claim 13 of the ’138
`Patent (Authentication Patents) and claim 9 of the ’010 Patent (Fraud Reduct ion Patents)—are
`representative of the sixty-three Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Apple’s argument fails.
`According to 35 U.S.C. § 282, “[e]ach claim of a patent (whether in independent,
`dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed va lid independently of the validity of
`other claims.” “Absent a basis to overcome the presumption of independence, the plain text of §
`282 requires courts to analyze the validity of each claim individually.” PPS Data, LLC v. Jack
`Henry & Assocs., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1030 (E.D. Tex. 2019) ; Grecia Est. Holdings LLC
`v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 3d 905, 912 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (Albright, J.) (“35 U.S.C. §
`282 accords a presumption of validity to each patent claim.”).
`As the movant and proponent of t he alleged representativeness, Apple has the burden to
`overcome the presumption of independent validity of each claim by “offering a substantial
`rationale for treating a claim as representative of other asserted claims” that is “directly tethered
`to the cl aim language.” PPS Data, LLC , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1030. In other words , to justify
`treating one claim from each of the Authentication and Fraud Reduction Patents as representative
`of all the other Asserted Claims, Apple “must conduct an analysis tethered to the claim language,
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`to show that there are no legally relevant distinctions between the claim identified as
`representative and the remaining asserted claims .” Id. at 1031 (emphasis added). The Federal
`Circuit has held the presumption of independent validi ty can be overcome and a claim may be
`treated as representative only when: (1) “the patentee does not present any meaningful argument
`for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim” or
`(2) “the parties agree to treat a claim as representative.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365.
`Here, Apple has failed to establish that representa tive treatment is justified . First, the
`parties have not agreed that the two claims Apple has identified are representative of all the
`Asserted Claims. Second, Apple has also failed to show that there are no legally relevant
`distinctions between its representative claims and the remaining claims . As explained below,
`both the independent and dependent claims of the Fraud Reduction and Authen tication Patents
`include distinct limitations not present in the allegedly representative claims that Apple has
`overlooked or ignored. Because Apple has failed to meet its burden of proving the two claims it
`identified are representative of all the Asserted Claims, the Court should deny Apple’s Motion.
`1. The Authentication Patents contain distinct limitations.
`In a single footnote, Apple concludes that the ’138 Patent’s independent claims are
`substantially similar to (and thus representative of) the claims of the ’138, ’512, and ’105
`Patents. Mot. at 14 n.7. Based entirely on this footnote statement, Apple treats claim 13 of the
`’138 Patent as representative of all thirty -one asserted claims of the Authentication Patents and
`only applies the Alice test to this allegedly representative claim. But there are substantial
`differences that preclude finding that this single claim is representative.
`For example, claim 1 of the ’512 Patent discloses a hardware architecture with a “first”
`and “second processor” wherein each processor is capable of performing explicit tasks. See, e.g.,
`’512 Patent at cl. 1. Further, there are other distinct components in the claims such as “secure”
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`and “insecure storage” as well as a “restricted interface” for communication between the “fi rst”
`and “second” processor that are different from the scope of claim 13 of the ’138 Patent. Id. And
`these are differences between the alleged representative claim and just one claim of the ’512
`Patent. Other claims of the ’512 Patent add other distinct d ifferences that need to be considered
`in the § 101 analysis, such as: cloud storage (claim 2); how the encrypted record is downloaded
`by the second device (claim 4); and how the record is decrypted and stored (claims 5-9). None of
`this is captured by a single claim from the ’138 Patent.
`The same is true for the other Authentication Patents. For example, independent claim 1
`of the ’105 Patent explicitly requires a “first” and “second” device of the “same brand” capable
`of initiating a backup of a record. Non e of these limitations are found in claim 13 of the ’138
`Patent. However, this is just one of the many differences as claim 4 adds a “secure channel”
`between the first and second devices of the same brand, claim 9 adds a secure storage and the
`restricted interface, and claims 10 and 11 add limitations to the restricted interface such as it
`being a dedicated physical connection and/or an application programming interface, respectively.
`Notably, the alleged representative claim of the ’138 Patent does not even capture all the
`distinct elements of the claims of the ’138 Patent. Consider claims 11 and 12, which claim the
`hardware system of claim 1 and additionally a “restricted interface” and “secure storage,”
`respectively. Neither of these distinct hardware elements is captured by the alleged
`representative claim. Accordingly, Apple cannot show that claim 13 is representative of the ’138
`Patent’s claims—let alone all claims of the Authentication Patents. Apple’s Motion ignores the
`distinctions between the Authentication Patents in favor of analyzing a single claim that it alleges
`is representative, despite meaningful arguments to the contrary. This Court should not treat a
`single claim in the ’138 Patent as representative, and should deny the Motion on this basis.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`2. The Fraud Reduction Patents contain distinct limitations.
`Apple’s Motion states in a footnote that the ’010, ’656, and ’886 Patents are
`“substantively similar.” Mot. at 4 n.3. Based entirely on this footnote statement, Apple treats
`claim 9 of the ’010 Patent as representative of all thirty -two Fraud Reduction Claims and
`analyzes the patent eligibility of only th is single “representative” claim under the Alice test. See
`Mot. at 6–12. Based entirely on the footnote statement, and as with the Authenticati on Patents,
`Apple’s “reasoning” does not meet its burden to rebut the presumption of independent validity.
`As Carbyne pointed out in its Complaint, the independent claims of the ’656 Patent
`(claims 1, 10, 19) and the ’886 Patent (claims 1, 6, 11) include additional limitations that provide
`technical improvements distinct from the ’010 Patent’s claims . See Compl. ¶¶ 58 -59. The
`method recited in claim 9 of the ’010 Patent describes using “captured biometric information”
`only to determine that the user is alive. All of the ’656 Patent’s asserted claims add the limitation
`of comparing this captured biometric information to distinct “stored biometric information” to
`confirm a user’s identity for the purpose of detecting fraud. E.g., Dkt. 1-5 (’656 Patent) at cls. 1,
`10, and 19 (emphasis added). Likewise, the ’8 86 Patent ’s asserted claims add the requirement
`that the biometric information used to determine whether a user is “alive” must consist of a “set
`of image s” captured using a camera. E.g., Dkt. 1 -6 (’886 Patent) at cl s. 1, 6, 11. Just as a
`biometric comparison improves fraud detection through verification, analyzing real-world photos
`helps to more accurately verify that a party to a remote transaction is alive. Carbyne pointed out
`both of these advances in the Complaint, meaning it has already provided meaningful arguments
`for how the ’886 and ’656 Patents’ claims differ from those of the ’010 Patent.
`Apple’s own Motion acknowledges the meaningful distinctions between the independent
`claims of the ’656 and ’886 Patents and claim 9 of the ’010 Patent:
` [The ’010 Patent’s . . . claim 9] recites receiving and storing information[];
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`displaying information[]; analyzing information[]; and a result[]. The ’656 and
`’886 independent claims . . . also recite capturing l ocation information, and the
`’656 recites storing biometric information instead of a virtual likeness.
`Mot. at 4–5 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Thus, by Apple’s own summary, the ’656 and
`’886 Patents’ independent claims possess additional limitations over the ’010 Patent’s claim 9. In
`fact, the ’656 Patent’s independent claims include different subject matter altogether. Apple does
`not bother to explain how these additional limitations are not legally significant. Therefore,
`Apple has not met its burden of proving that claim 9 of the ’010 Patent is representative.
`The dependent claims also include limitations beyond those of Apple’s proposed
`representative claim , such as: the ’010 Patent’s claim 21, wherein collected biometric
`information comprises a plurality of photographs that are analyzed to determine whether the user
`is alive; the ’656 Patent’s claim 18, which recites initiating a transaction without the user needing
`to input a password (a convenience feature) ; and the ’886 Patent’s claim 10, w hich recites
`associating the patented interface with a phone, tablet, or laptop, providing for brand or vendor
`association. Apple downplays these limitations solely with attorney argument , stating that the
`dependent claims “add minor features that do no ch ange the character of the independent
`claims.” Mot. at 5. But to reach this conclusion, Apple did not analyze the language of the
`claims. Instead, Apple sorted the dependent claims into generic, arbitrary categories , that its
`attorneys characterize as “add[ing] minor features ,” such as “collection of additional
`information,” “origin of collected information,” and “information that is not required.” Id. This
`sort of analysis, completely untethered from the claim language, and with nothing more than the
`suppositions of Apple’s attorneys, cannot rebut the presumption of independent validity. Thus,
`Apple has not met its burden of proving that claim 9 of the ’010 Patent is representative of the
`other Fraud Reduction Claims, and its Motion should therefore be denied.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`B. The Authentication & Fraud Reduction Patents Claim Eligible Subject Matter.
`1. The Authentication Patents claim eligible subject matter.
`The Authentication Patents are directed to specific improvements in computer security,
`such as using a dedicated processor only accessible over a restricted interface to control access to
`records stored in secure storage, and not simply “facilitating access to resources based on
`authenticating a user’s identity” as Apple generically suggests. Mot. at 15. In fact, as
`demonstrated in the following sections, the Authentication Patents are so clearly not directed to
`an abstract idea, that even Samsung, a party just as sophisticated as Apple, did not raise § 101 as
`a defense in a litigation two years ago with some of the same patents.
`1
`a) Alice Step One: The Authentication C laims solve computer
`problems and improve computer capabilities and are not
`abstract.
`The Authentication Patents provide technical solutions —such as using a dedicated
`processor only accessible over a restricted interface to limit access to a user’s most vital records
`(their passwords and biometric info) —that overcome issues in the prior art authentication
`systems t o enable safer and more convenient authentication. Separating cryptographic
`functionality into a sp ecialized secure processor and storage that is difficult to penetrate is a
`technological solution to a technological problem and not merely the application of an abstract
`idea using conventional computer technology. See Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ancora Techs., 908 F.3d at 1350 (Claims “yield[ed] a
`tangible technological benefit (by making the claimed system less susceptible to hacking).”); SRI
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sy s., Inc. , 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Claims were “directed to
`using a specific technique . . . to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks:
`
`1 In fact, the USPTO did not institute IPRs on the ’512 Patent , which further demonstrates the
`inventive concepts of the Authentication Patents. See generally Ex. 1.
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`identifying hackers or potential intruders into the network.”).
`The idea to bifurcate the processers and use other means to restrict access to the user’s
`most vital information is described in the Complaint and specification of the Authentication
`Patents. For example:
`One example of a device with secure storage is
`illustrated in FIG. 3. In the example shown, a mobile
`phone 300 includes a large and insecure storage 302
`attached to a fast processor 304, and a smaller but
`secure storage 306 attached to a dedicated processor
`308 and a sensor 310 (e.g., a camera or a fingerprint
`reader). Users (and applications) can read from an d
`write to the insecure storage area. However, users
`cannot access the secure storage area, and the fast
`processor can only communicate with the dedicated
`processor/sensor via a restricted API.
`Dkt. 1-1 (’512 Patent) at 3:66- 4:8; Compl. ¶¶ 44- 45. As the fi gure and the description explain,
`bifurcating the tasks which a first processor and a dedicated second processor are configured to
`do restricts the first processor from accessing the user’s most vital information which is stored in
`secure storage and only accessible by the dedicated second processor. See, e.g. , Compl. ¶ 32
`(“Dr. Jakobsson determined that the correct way to deal with this was to create a secure portion
`of a device where at least some processing of the user’s most sensitive data would be done.”).
`This separation and bifurcation of tasks between processors is also reflected in the claims
`of the Authentication Patents—but not in the single allegedly representative claim that Apple has
`elected to focus on. Consider claim 1 of the ’512 Patent, wh ich illustrates this secure division in
`a system with a “first” and “second” processor where these processors are only capable of
`communicating with each other via a “restricted interface.” Here, the “ first” processor is
`configured to “establish a secure connection with the external resource ,” while the “ second”
`processor is configured to perform many sensitive tasks like “determin[e] that there is a match
`between the biometric input and a stored biometric template,” “access a record stored in a secure
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 30 Filed 06/14/23 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`storage,” and “perform a cryptographic operation.” Dkt. 1 -1 (’512 Patent) at cl . 1; see also Dkt.
`1-2 (’105 Patent) at cls. 1, 9-11 (discussing different forms of the “restricted interface” such as a
`“dedicated physical connection” and “application programming interface” to help restrict access
`to the user’s most important information); Dkt. 1-3 (’138 Patent) at cls. 11-12, 23-24.
`Indeed, performing these functions on a conventional computer (i.e., that fails to restrict
`access to a user’s most important data) would substantially decrease the security of the overall
`system, and thus the claimed systems improve the operation of the computer itself. See Enfish ,
`822 F.3d at 1