~index of some infringement lawsuits filed by (SFO
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 863)
Posted On: 05/20/2019 1:39:38 PM
~index of some infringement lawsuits filed by (SFOR) Strikeforce Technologies
updated 2019.05.20
There 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.
There is a movement to strengthen patents in the USA
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/03/27/patent-...id=107758/
SFOR Out of Band Multifactor Authentication Patents (OOB/MFA)
https://www.google.com/patents/US7870599
https://www.google.com/patents/US8484698
https://www.google.com/patents/US8713701
SFOR Keystroke Encryption patents
https://www.google.com/patents/US8566608
https://www.google.com/patents/US8732483
https://www.google.com/patents/US8973107
SFOR European Patent Application
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14763895
View cases
https://www.pacer.gov
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ent/425539-strike...corporated (for district courts)
https://www.docketbird.com
https://www.pacermonitor.com
https://www.pacerpro.com
https://www.courtlistener.com
Relevant recent court cases
October 16, 2017
Ropes and Gray in the USPTO Court (PTAB) won all challenges to StrikeForce's IP .
case IPR2017-01041
case IPR2017-01064
https://www.law360.com/patents/8484698/ptab_cases
https://jumpshare.com/v/8edDCebJyRqat1hn4s6p
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/1...4-698.html
February 8, 2018
A relevant case from The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
STEVEN E. BERKHEIMER vs. HP INC., case 2017-1437
https://www.law360.com/articles/1060000/the-t...ear-report
"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"
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5080473
April 24, 2018
Then another relevant case, The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in a 7 to 2 decision that the USPTO has the Constitutional Right to decide the validity of a patent.
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1013951 (The USPTO had already validated StrikeForce's patents on October 17, 2017.)
June 22, 2018
Then another relevant case and 7-2 decision, The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
"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."
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1047357
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
Parallel argument , abstract idea and Alice 101 step 1
Precedential decision
“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.“
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/search/node/ancora
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fi...6-2018.pdf
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1102847
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fi...6-2018.pdf
November 27, 2018 Citation of Supplemental Authority submitted 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."
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier
https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads...Update.png
Relevant merger/buyouts
There is a 2018 merger with SecureAuth/CoreSecurity. In addition, there are 3 companies below where each is being aquired for a minimum of $2.3 billion and with expected closings before end of 2018.
Centrify/Thoma Bravo
Duo/Cisco
Gemalto/Thales
Strikeforce Technologies case appealed to Federal Circuit
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc v. Secureauth Corporation
Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470
2019.05.14 Supreme court grants extension to file writ of
certiorari (appeal). There is additional detail concerning this case through the master post linked at the bottom of this note.
Other ongoing cases as of the date near the top. N.B. The market facts listed below may be outdated. It is quite possible that after these cases are resolved, that new infringement cases may be filed against additional companies.
1. Centrify (stayed pending SecureAuth Corp. appeal)
2019.05.14 see also Supreme Court grants extension to file writ of
certiorari (appeal) for Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470.
Over 5,000 worldwide organizations, including over half the Fortune 100
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1220...ORPORATION
https://www.centrify.com/pricing/
2. Duo Security Inc. (stayed pending SecureAuth Corp. appeal)
2019.03.13 "StrikeForce intends to appeal the Federal Circuit’s decision and file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court."
2019.05.14 see also Supreme Court grants extension to file writ of
certiorari (appeal) for Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470.
100 million in sales, 10000 customers, 300 million authentications per month, 600 employees https://duo.com/about/press/releases/duo-secu...innovation
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1220...CORPORATED
https://investorshangout.com/post/4959202/-SF...ents-This-
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312470/...orporated/
https://duo.com/about/press
https://duo.com/pricing
excerpt from the Duo case;
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. DUO SECURITY INCORPORATED
New Jersey District Court
Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 71 Filed 06/05/17
https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/doc1/119112009909
John Michael Vazquez, presiding
Mark Falk, referral
pg 10-11 of the pdf
"Incredibly, defendants tell this Court that StrikeForce does not compete with defendants for sales. Brief at 9. The opposite is true; StrikeForce competed head-to-head with Duo several times and lost. Waller Decl. at ¶ 21. For example, StrikeForce and Duo were both competing for sales to the Bechtel company. Id. StrikeForce was attempting to sell its ProtectID® product and Duo was attempting to sell its infringing product. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. That customer chose Duo’s product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at ¶ 21. Were it not for Duo’s infringing product, StrikeForce very likely would have made that sale since, at the time, only Duo and StrikeForce were being considered. Id.3 StrikeForce later learned that, during the negotiations, Duo cautioned Bechtel to check StrikeForce’s financials before purchasing StrikeForce’s product, and that StrikeForce was essentially out of money. Id. at ¶ 22.
In other words, not only is defendant Duo willfully infringing the ’698 patent, but it uses its strong financial position—a position gained through its infringement—against StrikeForce to undermine StrikeForce’s sales opportunities.
footnote 3
In addition to Bechtel, StrikeForce and Duo directly competed against one another for business from Toyota, Ebay, Google, Intel, among others. Waller Decl. at ¶ 20. Each of those customers chose Duo’s infringing product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at ¶ 22. "
updated 2019.05.20
There 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.
There is a movement to strengthen patents in the USA
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/03/27/patent-...id=107758/
SFOR Out of Band Multifactor Authentication Patents (OOB/MFA)
https://www.google.com/patents/US7870599
https://www.google.com/patents/US8484698
https://www.google.com/patents/US8713701
SFOR Keystroke Encryption patents
https://www.google.com/patents/US8566608
https://www.google.com/patents/US8732483
https://www.google.com/patents/US8973107
SFOR European Patent Application
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14763895
View cases
https://www.pacer.gov
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ent/425539-strike...corporated (for district courts)
https://www.docketbird.com
https://www.pacermonitor.com
https://www.pacerpro.com
https://www.courtlistener.com
Relevant recent court cases
October 16, 2017
Ropes and Gray in the USPTO Court (PTAB) won all challenges to StrikeForce's IP .
case IPR2017-01041
case IPR2017-01064
https://www.law360.com/patents/8484698/ptab_cases
https://jumpshare.com/v/8edDCebJyRqat1hn4s6p
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/1...4-698.html
February 8, 2018
A relevant case from The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
STEVEN E. BERKHEIMER vs. HP INC., case 2017-1437
https://www.law360.com/articles/1060000/the-t...ear-report
"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"
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5080473
April 24, 2018
Then another relevant case, The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in a 7 to 2 decision that the USPTO has the Constitutional Right to decide the validity of a patent.
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1013951 (The USPTO had already validated StrikeForce's patents on October 17, 2017.)
June 22, 2018
Then another relevant case and 7-2 decision, The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
"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."
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1047357
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
Parallel argument , abstract idea and Alice 101 step 1
Precedential decision
“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.“
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/search/node/ancora
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fi...6-2018.pdf
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1102847
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fi...6-2018.pdf
November 27, 2018 Citation of Supplemental Authority submitted 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."
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier
https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads...Update.png
Relevant merger/buyouts
There is a 2018 merger with SecureAuth/CoreSecurity. In addition, there are 3 companies below where each is being aquired for a minimum of $2.3 billion and with expected closings before end of 2018.
Centrify/Thoma Bravo
Duo/Cisco
Gemalto/Thales
Strikeforce Technologies case appealed to Federal Circuit
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc v. Secureauth Corporation
Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470
2019.05.14 Supreme court grants extension to file writ of
certiorari (appeal). There is additional detail concerning this case through the master post linked at the bottom of this note.
Other ongoing cases as of the date near the top. N.B. The market facts listed below may be outdated. It is quite possible that after these cases are resolved, that new infringement cases may be filed against additional companies.
1. Centrify (stayed pending SecureAuth Corp. appeal)
2019.05.14 see also Supreme Court grants extension to file writ of
certiorari (appeal) for Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470.
Over 5,000 worldwide organizations, including over half the Fortune 100
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1220...ORPORATION
https://www.centrify.com/pricing/
2. Duo Security Inc. (stayed pending SecureAuth Corp. appeal)
2019.03.13 "StrikeForce intends to appeal the Federal Circuit’s decision and file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court."
2019.05.14 see also Supreme Court grants extension to file writ of
certiorari (appeal) for Federal Circuit US Court of Appeals case# 18-1470.
100 million in sales, 10000 customers, 300 million authentications per month, 600 employees https://duo.com/about/press/releases/duo-secu...innovation
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1220...CORPORATED
https://investorshangout.com/post/4959202/-SF...ents-This-
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312470/...orporated/
https://duo.com/about/press
https://duo.com/pricing
excerpt from the Duo case;
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. DUO SECURITY INCORPORATED
New Jersey District Court
Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 71 Filed 06/05/17
https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/doc1/119112009909
John Michael Vazquez, presiding
Mark Falk, referral
pg 10-11 of the pdf
"Incredibly, defendants tell this Court that StrikeForce does not compete with defendants for sales. Brief at 9. The opposite is true; StrikeForce competed head-to-head with Duo several times and lost. Waller Decl. at ¶ 21. For example, StrikeForce and Duo were both competing for sales to the Bechtel company. Id. StrikeForce was attempting to sell its ProtectID® product and Duo was attempting to sell its infringing product. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. That customer chose Duo’s product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at ¶ 21. Were it not for Duo’s infringing product, StrikeForce very likely would have made that sale since, at the time, only Duo and StrikeForce were being considered. Id.3 StrikeForce later learned that, during the negotiations, Duo cautioned Bechtel to check StrikeForce’s financials before purchasing StrikeForce’s product, and that StrikeForce was essentially out of money. Id. at ¶ 22.
In other words, not only is defendant Duo willfully infringing the ’698 patent, but it uses its strong financial position—a position gained through its infringement—against StrikeForce to undermine StrikeForce’s sales opportunities.
footnote 3
In addition to Bechtel, StrikeForce and Duo directly competed against one another for business from Toyota, Ebay, Google, Intel, among others. Waller Decl. at ¶ 20. Each of those customers chose Duo’s infringing product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at ¶ 22. "
(2)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
There are no guarantees in investing. No one should consider these pages or posts 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.
Scroll down for more posts ▼