Thanks Z for bringing up the PTAB IPR decission th
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 415)
Posted On: 10/27/2018 4:25:50 PM
Thanks Z for bringing up the PTAB IPR decission that validated SFOR's COBAS patent for Out Of Band Authentication.
For longs who may have forgotten and newbies:
SFOR IPR Win from OCT. 2017, please go to Z's post and read the whole PTAB denial for IPR brought on by trustwave,Duo and Centrify... here are just a few favorate pieces I will share.
"Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Thus, for the reasons given below, we deny institution of an inter partes review." you must read the rest!
As per SFOR's claim in their 698 patent (as mentioned in the response):
"According to the ’698 patent, prior art authentication systems typically are in-band systems in which data and authentication information are exchanged on a single channel."
What did SFOR invent, patent and is currently being infringed upon? HERE IT IS:
" According to the ’698 patent, prior art authentication systems typically are in-band systems in which data and authentication information are exchanged on a single channel. Id. at 2:31– 3:14, 5:63–6:12, Fig. 1. To increase security, the ’698 patent instead implements an out-of-band system with “an authentication channel that is separated from the [access] channel carrying the information . . . for actual information transfer.” Id. at 3:14–20, 4:52–57, 6:9–23; see id. at 1:20–25.
In particular, the ’698 patent discloses a multichannel, out-of-band security system for granting or denying access to a host computer in response to a user’s access request. Id. at [57], 4:34–36. In the first authentication factor, the user seeking access to the host computer presents user identification and password data over an access channel. Id. at [57], 4:36–39. This information is intercepted and transmitted to a security computer, which verifies the information. Id. at [57], 4:35–36. Next, in the second authentication factor, the security computer communicates with the user through a peripheral device, such as a telephone, within a separate authentication channel. Id. at [57], 4:39–42. The security computer authenticates the user via a password entered on the telephone keypad and may further authenticate the user using a biometric system, which controls access based on “characteristics of the human body,” such as fingerprints or voice. Id. at [57], 2:13–17, 4:39–46, 6:47–59. Upon obtaining a match, the security computer instructs the host computer to grant access. Id. at [57]."
Duo, Centrify and Trustwave were denied their challenge of inter partes review of SFOR's 698 patent.:
"Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds."
SFOR will hopefully get a large chunck of the OOBA pie once this Federal appeal is done. Just from Duo's $2.3 Billion even just 1% is $23 Million (Peeps should look up typical % damages awarded from tech revs for infringent.). These numbers are no joke! This is why Blank Rome and Ropes & Gray are so diligently getting their jobs done. They would not be here if it weren't for 2 key drivers for lawfirms...:
1) Great certainty in winning the cases, especially now with PTAB backing and hopefully soon Appelate Court ruling.
2) Huge $$$$. These two large lawfirms need big money to support their infrastucture.
SFOR/BST have more possabilities than ever before!!
GLTA
IMO
For longs who may have forgotten and newbies:
SFOR IPR Win from OCT. 2017, please go to Z's post and read the whole PTAB denial for IPR brought on by trustwave,Duo and Centrify... here are just a few favorate pieces I will share.
"Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Thus, for the reasons given below, we deny institution of an inter partes review." you must read the rest!
As per SFOR's claim in their 698 patent (as mentioned in the response):
"According to the ’698 patent, prior art authentication systems typically are in-band systems in which data and authentication information are exchanged on a single channel."
What did SFOR invent, patent and is currently being infringed upon? HERE IT IS:
" According to the ’698 patent, prior art authentication systems typically are in-band systems in which data and authentication information are exchanged on a single channel. Id. at 2:31– 3:14, 5:63–6:12, Fig. 1. To increase security, the ’698 patent instead implements an out-of-band system with “an authentication channel that is separated from the [access] channel carrying the information . . . for actual information transfer.” Id. at 3:14–20, 4:52–57, 6:9–23; see id. at 1:20–25.
In particular, the ’698 patent discloses a multichannel, out-of-band security system for granting or denying access to a host computer in response to a user’s access request. Id. at [57], 4:34–36. In the first authentication factor, the user seeking access to the host computer presents user identification and password data over an access channel. Id. at [57], 4:36–39. This information is intercepted and transmitted to a security computer, which verifies the information. Id. at [57], 4:35–36. Next, in the second authentication factor, the security computer communicates with the user through a peripheral device, such as a telephone, within a separate authentication channel. Id. at [57], 4:39–42. The security computer authenticates the user via a password entered on the telephone keypad and may further authenticate the user using a biometric system, which controls access based on “characteristics of the human body,” such as fingerprints or voice. Id. at [57], 2:13–17, 4:39–46, 6:47–59. Upon obtaining a match, the security computer instructs the host computer to grant access. Id. at [57]."
Duo, Centrify and Trustwave were denied their challenge of inter partes review of SFOR's 698 patent.:
"Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds."
SFOR will hopefully get a large chunck of the OOBA pie once this Federal appeal is done. Just from Duo's $2.3 Billion even just 1% is $23 Million (Peeps should look up typical % damages awarded from tech revs for infringent.). These numbers are no joke! This is why Blank Rome and Ropes & Gray are so diligently getting their jobs done. They would not be here if it weren't for 2 key drivers for lawfirms...:
1) Great certainty in winning the cases, especially now with PTAB backing and hopefully soon Appelate Court ruling.
2) Huge $$$$. These two large lawfirms need big money to support their infrastucture.
SFOR/BST have more possabilities than ever before!!
GLTA
IMO
(7)
(0)