I have not posted about the SecureAuth response ye
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 1764)
Posted On: 12/02/2018 12:57:48 PM
I have not posted about the SecureAuth response yet because I have been working to verify information for accuracy. I currently have 12 windows open from original Patent documents to Appeal responses as well PTAB patent exoneration documents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviewed SFOR Utility patents in 2011 and 2017 and completely validated their inventiveness both times.
We know that there have been many posts about how laughable Knobbe Martens / SecureAuth's response is and I understand that.
We've essentially watched ORAL ARGUMENT before our eyes this past week. We should also understand that Knobbe Marten was forced to put together an actual case and argument that tried to discredit SFOR patents since the District court did not offer a specific SFOR Patent weakness or justification for their decision in November of 2017 other than to use 35 U.S.C. 101 as the basis for their final decision which was that SFOR patents are abstract and un-inventive. This was just a couple of weeks after the US Patent office rendered this decision:
https://jumpshare.com/v/8edDCebJyRqat1hn4s6p
Which was affirmed by this April 2018 Supreme Court decision :
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/04/29/supreme.../id=96579/
SFOR's invention for computer MFA/OOBA cyber-security had 'no previous art' or in other words, hadn't been thought of yet. What is more remarkable to me is that for many years Blank Rome was listed on SFOR's website as a 'Partner" of SFOR's due to their patent support. Why? Because they supported SFOR as they applied for the 698 and 701 patents to protect the 599 patent. If you look below, the 698 and 701 patent links below, the last two are updates to the 599 patent .
U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599 (the “ 599 patent ”), titled “Multichannel Device
Utilizing a Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS),” was duly and legally issued on January 11, 2011
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7870599
U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 (the “ 698 patent ”), titled “Multichannel Device
Utilizing a Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS),” was duly and legally issued on July 9, 2013
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8484698
U.S. Patent No. 8,713,701 (the “’ 701 patent ”), titled “Multichannel Device
Utilizing a Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS),” was duly and legally issued on April 29, 2014
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8713701
Ropes & Gray's 3/26/2018 174-page Appeal Brief explains much more about SFOR's patents here : https://jumpshare.com/v/v16tJSqFzFgZ5JTVkOpH
You can read about Preschool and Ancient Greece here with Knobbe Martens 5/07/2018 83-page Response :
https://jumpshare.com/v/qGPBC944xOGw8FIn1o6B
As well as R&G's 6/04/2018 41-page Appeal Response to SA :
https://jumpshare.com/v/aQMvkVJwf68GCqreotGS
As well as R&G's 6/11/2018 393-page Support Documentation Appeal Response to SA :
https://jumpshare.com/v/tDD65VB293l4so6Q8f3Y
Then came last week's ZPaul post that identified R&G's Appeal update :
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5272356
And then came another Knobbe Martens ancient Greece response :
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5275875
Did you know :
1. That Blank Rome assisted in the developing the legal language to protect SFOR patents. They are 'Utility' patents, not process patents, which are the strongest in the US.
2. That Microsoft's team of lawyers never attempted this kind of ridiculous attempt to invalidate 3-patents and over 40 claims without any significant investigation.
3. Ropes & Gray reviewed the inventiveness SFOR patents before investing tremendous resources into their relationship. 11 SFOR attorney's have been involved in this Appeal process with 3 of them being named 'Super Attorneys'.
4. Steven Cooper (former CIO of the Department of Homeland Security & Department of Justice) has aligned himself with SFOR's patent protected technology.
5. None of the other Lawfirms / Infringers even attempted this avenue of defense after considering it.
Why would SecureAuth / Knobbe Martens even attempt this? Of course we're not sure but just one month later they received 200 million as part of this merger:
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/1...tform.html
After hours and hours of research, this is a slam dunk case. If Knobbe Martens intent was to delay the inevitable than they succeeded for SA in allowing them time to merge with K1.
Otherwise, we just had the opportunity to get a front row seat to the Oral arguments with statements about Ancient Greece and Preschool .
We know that there have been many posts about how laughable Knobbe Martens / SecureAuth's response is and I understand that.
We've essentially watched ORAL ARGUMENT before our eyes this past week. We should also understand that Knobbe Marten was forced to put together an actual case and argument that tried to discredit SFOR patents since the District court did not offer a specific SFOR Patent weakness or justification for their decision in November of 2017 other than to use 35 U.S.C. 101 as the basis for their final decision which was that SFOR patents are abstract and un-inventive. This was just a couple of weeks after the US Patent office rendered this decision:
https://jumpshare.com/v/8edDCebJyRqat1hn4s6p
Which was affirmed by this April 2018 Supreme Court decision :
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/04/29/supreme.../id=96579/
SFOR's invention for computer MFA/OOBA cyber-security had 'no previous art' or in other words, hadn't been thought of yet. What is more remarkable to me is that for many years Blank Rome was listed on SFOR's website as a 'Partner" of SFOR's due to their patent support. Why? Because they supported SFOR as they applied for the 698 and 701 patents to protect the 599 patent. If you look below, the 698 and 701 patent links below, the last two are updates to the 599 patent .
U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599 (the “ 599 patent ”), titled “Multichannel Device
Utilizing a Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS),” was duly and legally issued on January 11, 2011
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7870599
U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 (the “ 698 patent ”), titled “Multichannel Device
Utilizing a Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS),” was duly and legally issued on July 9, 2013
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8484698
U.S. Patent No. 8,713,701 (the “’ 701 patent ”), titled “Multichannel Device
Utilizing a Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS),” was duly and legally issued on April 29, 2014
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8713701
Ropes & Gray's 3/26/2018 174-page Appeal Brief explains much more about SFOR's patents here : https://jumpshare.com/v/v16tJSqFzFgZ5JTVkOpH
You can read about Preschool and Ancient Greece here with Knobbe Martens 5/07/2018 83-page Response :
https://jumpshare.com/v/qGPBC944xOGw8FIn1o6B
As well as R&G's 6/04/2018 41-page Appeal Response to SA :
https://jumpshare.com/v/aQMvkVJwf68GCqreotGS
As well as R&G's 6/11/2018 393-page Support Documentation Appeal Response to SA :
https://jumpshare.com/v/tDD65VB293l4so6Q8f3Y
Then came last week's ZPaul post that identified R&G's Appeal update :
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5272356
And then came another Knobbe Martens ancient Greece response :
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5275875
Did you know :
1. That Blank Rome assisted in the developing the legal language to protect SFOR patents. They are 'Utility' patents, not process patents, which are the strongest in the US.
2. That Microsoft's team of lawyers never attempted this kind of ridiculous attempt to invalidate 3-patents and over 40 claims without any significant investigation.
3. Ropes & Gray reviewed the inventiveness SFOR patents before investing tremendous resources into their relationship. 11 SFOR attorney's have been involved in this Appeal process with 3 of them being named 'Super Attorneys'.
4. Steven Cooper (former CIO of the Department of Homeland Security & Department of Justice) has aligned himself with SFOR's patent protected technology.
5. None of the other Lawfirms / Infringers even attempted this avenue of defense after considering it.
Why would SecureAuth / Knobbe Martens even attempt this? Of course we're not sure but just one month later they received 200 million as part of this merger:
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/1...tform.html
After hours and hours of research, this is a slam dunk case. If Knobbe Martens intent was to delay the inevitable than they succeeded for SA in allowing them time to merge with K1.
Otherwise, we just had the opportunity to get a front row seat to the Oral arguments with statements about Ancient Greece and Preschool .
(32)
(0)