Why we will see SFOR change forever at any time...
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5(a), counsel for StrikeForce is unaware of any appeal in or from the same proceeding before this or any other appellate court. The cases known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court that will directly affect or be directly affected by this Court’s decision are:
1. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Duo Sec., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF (D.N.J.) (filed June 20, 2016).
2. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Centrify Corp., No. 2:16-cv-03574-JMV-MF (D.N.J.) (filed June 20, 2016).
3. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Gemalto Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10422-RGS (D. Mass.) (filed Mar. 14, 2017).
4. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Vasco Data Sec. Int’l, Inc.,No. 1:17-cv-10423-RGS (D. Mass.) (filed Mar. 14, 2017). Case: 18-1470
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Whether, at Alice step one, the district court erred in finding that all of the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea by characterizing the claims too broadly as merely “providing restricted access to resources”;
2. Whether, at Alice step two, the district court erred by assessing the “additional elements” of the Challenged Claims not against the abstract idea identified at step one, but against a narrower idea that subsumed the inventive “out-of-band” feature, in finding that the claims’ ordered combination of elements was not sufficient to make the claims patent-eligible; and
3. Whether the district court erred by finding the Asserted Claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even though the fact issues, allegations, the patent specifications, and other supporting materials, when viewed in the light most favorable to non-movant StrikeForce as required for a motion to dismiss, StrikeForce’s assertion that the ordered combination of claimed elements is not well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the invention
Overview
1. The Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,870,599 (“’599 Patent”), 8,484,698 (“’698 Patent”), and 8,713,701 (“’701 Patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”) are directed to a unique technical architecture and invention—a particular system and method of completely “out-of-band” authentication—designed to protect and secure online systems. In finding these claims not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the pleadings stage, the district court over-generalized and mis-characterized the invention and misapplied the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. This Court should reverse that improper dismissal. In 1999, Ram Pemmaraju, the inventor of the Asserted Patents and long-time Chief Technology Officer at StrikeForce, recognized the distinctive security risks of the commercial Internet environment and created a novel solution that was superior to existing authentication systems. Understanding that existing authentication methods, such as simple password-based systems that used a single communication channel, ran the significant risk of being intercepted and corrupted by hackers (a so-called “man-in-the-middle” attack), Mr. Pemmaraju conceived of a particular security system utilizing an architecture that includes two completely separate communication channels to verify a person’s identification.
In finding these claims abstract and patent-ineligible, the district court erred in several critical ways. For example, without considering the claimed advances over the prior art and the specific arrangement of elements recited in the Asserted Claims, the district court mis-characterized and oversimplified these claims by finding that they are directed merely to “providing restricted access to resources.” Compounding this error, the district court applied a claim construction that is contrary to the parties’ agreed-to constructions.
2. The Parties
StrikeForce is a cybersecurity company that provides computer security products to businesses and consumers. One of those products is ProtectID®, an out-of-band authentication solution that practices the claimed invention of the Asserted Patents.
SecureAuth is a software company and StrikeForce competitor that provides, among other products, “25+ Authentication Methods” for accessing protected computer resources, many of which use some type of out-of-band authentication. See Appx506. Only three of those 25+ methods are accused of infringing StrikeForce’s claims.
3. The Asserted Patents
In 1999, Mr. Pemmaraju recognized that contemporary security solutions were inadequate to prevent hackers from penetrating secured online systems—a significant problem for the developing commercial potential of the Internet. In particular, Mr. Pemmaraju realized that hackers could easily compromise “ubiquitous” security systems, such as simple password systems, random password systems, and biometric systems, because there the password and biometric information was often transmitted on the same channel as the information the user wanted to access.
As the Asserted Patents explain, the use of a single channel for both access and authentication created a “technical problem” whereby “the hacker is in a self-authenticating environment.” In other words, by breaching the sole, in-band channel, the hacker could intercept user authentication information (e.g., a user name and password) passed along that channel and could then use this information at a later time to fool the system into believing that he is a legitimate user. (“Both the USER ID and the voice password are sent along the same pathway and any improper accessor into this channel has the opportunity to monitor and/or enter both identifiers.”). Moreover, once a hacker had penetrated the sole channel and stolen credentials, he could remain undetected for extended periods, collecting additional sensitive data.
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5(a), counsel for StrikeForce is unaware of any appeal in or from the same proceeding before this or any other appellate court. The cases known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court that will directly affect or be directly affected by this Court’s decision are:
1. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Duo Sec., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF (D.N.J.) (filed June 20, 2016).
2. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Centrify Corp., No. 2:16-cv-03574-JMV-MF (D.N.J.) (filed June 20, 2016).
3. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Gemalto Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10422-RGS (D. Mass.) (filed Mar. 14, 2017).
4. StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. Vasco Data Sec. Int’l, Inc.,No. 1:17-cv-10423-RGS (D. Mass.) (filed Mar. 14, 2017). Case: 18-1470
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Whether, at Alice step one, the district court erred in finding that all of the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea by characterizing the claims too broadly as merely “providing restricted access to resources”;
2. Whether, at Alice step two, the district court erred by assessing the “additional elements” of the Challenged Claims not against the abstract idea identified at step one, but against a narrower idea that subsumed the inventive “out-of-band” feature, in finding that the claims’ ordered combination of elements was not sufficient to make the claims patent-eligible; and
3. Whether the district court erred by finding the Asserted Claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even though the fact issues, allegations, the patent specifications, and other supporting materials, when viewed in the light most favorable to non-movant StrikeForce as required for a motion to dismiss, StrikeForce’s assertion that the ordered combination of claimed elements is not well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the invention
Overview
1. The Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,870,599 (“’599 Patent”), 8,484,698 (“’698 Patent”), and 8,713,701 (“’701 Patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”) are directed to a unique technical architecture and invention—a particular system and method of completely “out-of-band” authentication—designed to protect and secure online systems. In finding these claims not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the pleadings stage, the district court over-generalized and mis-characterized the invention and misapplied the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. This Court should reverse that improper dismissal. In 1999, Ram Pemmaraju, the inventor of the Asserted Patents and long-time Chief Technology Officer at StrikeForce, recognized the distinctive security risks of the commercial Internet environment and created a novel solution that was superior to existing authentication systems. Understanding that existing authentication methods, such as simple password-based systems that used a single communication channel, ran the significant risk of being intercepted and corrupted by hackers (a so-called “man-in-the-middle” attack), Mr. Pemmaraju conceived of a particular security system utilizing an architecture that includes two completely separate communication channels to verify a person’s identification.
In finding these claims abstract and patent-ineligible, the district court erred in several critical ways. For example, without considering the claimed advances over the prior art and the specific arrangement of elements recited in the Asserted Claims, the district court mis-characterized and oversimplified these claims by finding that they are directed merely to “providing restricted access to resources.” Compounding this error, the district court applied a claim construction that is contrary to the parties’ agreed-to constructions.
2. The Parties
StrikeForce is a cybersecurity company that provides computer security products to businesses and consumers. One of those products is ProtectID®, an out-of-band authentication solution that practices the claimed invention of the Asserted Patents.
SecureAuth is a software company and StrikeForce competitor that provides, among other products, “25+ Authentication Methods” for accessing protected computer resources, many of which use some type of out-of-band authentication. See Appx506. Only three of those 25+ methods are accused of infringing StrikeForce’s claims.
3. The Asserted Patents
In 1999, Mr. Pemmaraju recognized that contemporary security solutions were inadequate to prevent hackers from penetrating secured online systems—a significant problem for the developing commercial potential of the Internet. In particular, Mr. Pemmaraju realized that hackers could easily compromise “ubiquitous” security systems, such as simple password systems, random password systems, and biometric systems, because there the password and biometric information was often transmitted on the same channel as the information the user wanted to access.
As the Asserted Patents explain, the use of a single channel for both access and authentication created a “technical problem” whereby “the hacker is in a self-authenticating environment.” In other words, by breaching the sole, in-band channel, the hacker could intercept user authentication information (e.g., a user name and password) passed along that channel and could then use this information at a later time to fool the system into believing that he is a legitimate user. (“Both the USER ID and the voice password are sent along the same pathway and any improper accessor into this channel has the opportunity to monitor and/or enter both identifiers.”). Moreover, once a hacker had penetrated the sole channel and stolen credentials, he could remain undetected for extended periods, collecting additional sensitive data.
13
