~index to the appeal brief history of the (SFOR) Strikeforce Technologies vs. SecureAuth case and appeal with related material
Thee is additional company detail through the master post linked at the bottom of this note.
There are no guarantees in investing. No one should consider these pages to be financial advice. Everyone has a responsibility to verify and thoroughly learn more than what is referenced or written here, and everyone must take responsibility for their own investing decisions.
(for Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470
other access to pacer
1. On March 16, 2017
, StrikeForce sued SecureAuth in the Eastern District of Virginia for willfully infringing the Asserted Patents.
Treble damages may be awarded for willful patent infringement.
2. On June 12, 2017 they moved the case to the California Central District Court
3. On September 20, 2017 SecureAuth plans to merge with Core Security https://www.s
4. Ropes and Gray in the USPTO Court (PTAB) won all challenges to StrikeForce's IP on October 16, 2017
. These support the patent holder.
5. SecureAuth in December 2017
won a dismissal by basically saying the patent is not valid because of the Alice 101. This is the opposite of what the USPTO (PTAB) had ruled two months earlier on October 17, 2017.
6. The dismissal was appealed, and the other infringement cases were stayed.
7. A relevant case from The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit February 8, 2018
STEVEN E. BERKHEIMER vs. HP INC., case 2017-1437
"The Federal Circuit jolted the patent world with this February decision, and similar follow-on rulings, which collectively made it more challenging for accused infringers to knock out patents"
8. As pointed out in Rope's and Gray's appeal brief from March 26, 2018
, the lower court made a number of mistakes.
9. Then another relevant case, The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on April 24, 2018 in a 7 to 2 decision that the USPTO has the Constitutional Right to decide the validity of a patent.
(The USPTO had already validated StrikeForce's patents on October 17, 2017.)
10. The appeal reply brief by SecureAuth's attorney on May 7, 2018
11. The Strikeforce reply to the SecureAuth brief was filed June 4, 2018
12. The process is moving along. June 11, 2018
SFOR Appendix is filed for Appeal of SFOR vs. SecureAuth
Both parties (SFOR and SecureAuth) are in compliance with Rule 33 having discussed settlement
13. Then another relevant case and 7-2 decision, The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on June 22, 2018
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that a Schlumberger Ltd. unit can recover profits it lost outside the U.S. due to a rival’s infringement of its oil exploration patents, saying the Federal Circuit was wrong to hold that such damages cannot be awarded based on overseas conduct."
This decision supports the patent holder.
14. Again, a relevant case from November 16, 2018
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reverses and remands yet another one of numerous unrelated cases that had said a patent was invalid under the Alice standard. This decision supports the patent holder. This is Precedential.
Same court as appeal
(Federal Circuit Court of Appeals)
Same infringer defense team
, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
, abstract idea and Alice 101 step 1
“we conclude that claim 1 of the ’941 patent is not directed to an abstract idea. Improving security here, against a computer’s unauthorized use of a program can be a non-abstract computer functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem.“
15. Citation of Supplemental Authority submitted November 27, 2018
to the 18-1470 docket by the team representing Strikeforce. See also November 16, 2018 above
"Ancora confirms that these concrete improvements over prior art security systems, specifying a particular assignment of functionalities across the variously claimed components, are patent eligible. Ancora, slip op. at 10-11. Under Ancora, and this Court’s prior decisions, these claims are not abstract and are patent eligible under § 101. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling must be reversed."
Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier
16. Oral arguments of 15 minutes for each side took place on February 4, 2019
17. Audio from the oral argument
will appear here
18. Decision from the Appeals court will appear here
Eventually the appeals court will issue a mandate