RE: StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Duo Security
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 512)
Posted On: 12/06/2017 5:56:08 PM
RE: StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Duo Security, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF (Lead Case)
Dear Judge Falk:
We, along with Shook, Hardy & Bacon, represent Defendant Duo Security,
Inc. (“Duo”) in the above-captioned case. We write on behalf of Duo and Defendant Centrify Corporation (“Centrify”) as well as Plaintiff StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“StrikeForce”) to request that this matter be stayed pending appeal of a decision in another case finding invalid claims of the patent asserted in this case.
In this case StrikeForce alleges Defendants infringe asserted claims of U.S.
Patent No. 8,484,698. On December 1, 2017, in StrikeForce Technologies v.
SecureAuth Corporation, Case No. LA CV 17-04314 JAK (SKx), pending in the Central District of California, Judge Kronstadt granted a motion to dismiss StrikeForce’s First Amended Complaint against SecureAuth. Judge Kronstadt held that the patent claims asserted against SecureAuth (including asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A copy of the opinion is enclosed.
The Parties in this case have agreed, subject to Your Honor’s approval, that
all proceedings in this matter should be stayed pending entry of final judgment and the conclusion of all appeals in the SecureAuth matter. A proposed form of order is enclosed.
If the form and content of the order is acceptable to Your Honor, we request
that you sign it and arrange for its entry on the docket.
We appreciate Your Honor’s attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
s/ John E. Flaherty
John E. Flaherty
Enclosure
cc: Counsel of Record (via email w/ enclosure)
Case No. 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF (Lead Case)
Dear Judge Falk:
We, along with Shook, Hardy & Bacon, represent Defendant Duo Security,
Inc. (“Duo”) in the above-captioned case. We write on behalf of Duo and Defendant Centrify Corporation (“Centrify”) as well as Plaintiff StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“StrikeForce”) to request that this matter be stayed pending appeal of a decision in another case finding invalid claims of the patent asserted in this case.
In this case StrikeForce alleges Defendants infringe asserted claims of U.S.
Patent No. 8,484,698. On December 1, 2017, in StrikeForce Technologies v.
SecureAuth Corporation, Case No. LA CV 17-04314 JAK (SKx), pending in the Central District of California, Judge Kronstadt granted a motion to dismiss StrikeForce’s First Amended Complaint against SecureAuth. Judge Kronstadt held that the patent claims asserted against SecureAuth (including asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A copy of the opinion is enclosed.
The Parties in this case have agreed, subject to Your Honor’s approval, that
all proceedings in this matter should be stayed pending entry of final judgment and the conclusion of all appeals in the SecureAuth matter. A proposed form of order is enclosed.
If the form and content of the order is acceptable to Your Honor, we request
that you sign it and arrange for its entry on the docket.
We appreciate Your Honor’s attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
s/ John E. Flaherty
John E. Flaherty
Enclosure
cc: Counsel of Record (via email w/ enclosure)
(0)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼