$SFOR SecureAuth used Claim # 53 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA for section 101. If peeps can look @ the SFOR's IPR win @ http://jmp.sh/yWiPTv0 and switch quick to Page # 5 and read claim #53 under "ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM" and read the complete analysis, you will see what is coming next from Ropes & Gray appeal.
SFOR has asserted 43 claims from the three Asserted Patents & SecureAuth have identified Claim #53 of the ‘698 Patent as representative. Because SFOR does not propose an alternative claim as representative so the interception element can be considered in conjunction with the other components of the representative claim, SecureAuth and SDCA used
Claim# 53 to frame the Alice inquiry. Ropes & Gray will have to look into the sequence and combination of the claims of the'698 patent in their appeal. Now is the time IPR will pay a key role.
What is bizarre is that SA claims that the Asserted Patents & out-of-band authentication was used to transmit sensitive information well before the advent of the internet and computers and using reference of U.S. Navy tactics during World War II and ancient Greek methods for decoding and transmitting messages
SA also claiming that '698 is an abstract idea, which is ridiculous. They probably have not referred or read the NIST OOBA & OOBA over PUSH and IPR denial documents that explains in detail about the validity of all SFOR's '698 claims.
Ref 101 @ http://jmp.sh/C1Acfaq & http://jmp.sh/ixH4u0Q
https://www.ropesgray.com/newsroom/alerts/201...gress.aspx
Peeps should chill - If anyone refer to my previous post , I always said SA will be the last one to come through because of added complexity with the State of California.
Remember - DUO Markman Hearing is coming up on 12/11/17 and IPR will play it's role here as well. CDT are all in New Jersey Courts.
As I said few days back @ https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4865654 , my eyes are glued to Large Enterprise DEALS
SFOR has asserted 43 claims from the three Asserted Patents & SecureAuth have identified Claim #53 of the ‘698 Patent as representative. Because SFOR does not propose an alternative claim as representative so the interception element can be considered in conjunction with the other components of the representative claim, SecureAuth and SDCA used
Claim# 53 to frame the Alice inquiry. Ropes & Gray will have to look into the sequence and combination of the claims of the'698 patent in their appeal. Now is the time IPR will pay a key role.
What is bizarre is that SA claims that the Asserted Patents & out-of-band authentication was used to transmit sensitive information well before the advent of the internet and computers and using reference of U.S. Navy tactics during World War II and ancient Greek methods for decoding and transmitting messages
SA also claiming that '698 is an abstract idea, which is ridiculous. They probably have not referred or read the NIST OOBA & OOBA over PUSH and IPR denial documents that explains in detail about the validity of all SFOR's '698 claims.
Ref 101 @ http://jmp.sh/C1Acfaq & http://jmp.sh/ixH4u0Q
https://www.ropesgray.com/newsroom/alerts/201...gress.aspx
Peeps should chill - If anyone refer to my previous post , I always said SA will be the last one to come through because of added complexity with the State of California.
Remember - DUO Markman Hearing is coming up on 12/11/17 and IPR will play it's role here as well. CDT are all in New Jersey Courts.
As I said few days back @ https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4865654 , my eyes are glued to Large Enterprise DEALS
19
