Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 861
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., VISA INC., and VISA U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` C. A. No. 17-585-JRB-SRF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu Palapura (#5370)
`POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6147
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Visa Inc. and
`Visa U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fredrick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`RICHARDS LAYTON, & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 20, 2017
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 862
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.  ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`A.  The ’539 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter. ............................................. 1 
`
`B.  The ’826 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter. ............................................. 3 
`
`C.  The ’137 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter. ............................................. 5 
`
`D.  The ’813 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter. ............................................. 8 
`
`E.  USR’s Patents Attempt to Preempt User Authentication. .................................................. 9 
`
`F.  The “Exemplary” Claims Are Representative Of The Patents As A Whole. ..................... 9 
`
`III.  CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 863
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................5
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .....................................................................................................3, 4, 9
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................7
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .............................................................................................................3
`
`In re Brown,
`645 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................2
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................9
`
`IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-7774, 2017 WL 3581162 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) ...........................................5
`
`MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corp.,
`
`
`
`2016 WL 5661981 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016)……………………………………………6, 7
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc.,
`
`
`
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)……………………………………………………………6
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .............................................................................................................4
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`No. 2016-1728, 2017 WL 4582737 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017).............................................7
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`No. 16-1233, 2017 WL 4654964 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2017) ..........................................5, 10
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 864
`
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................2
`
`Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-06925, 2017 WL 1374759 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017) ........................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 865
`
`
`STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 866
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`USR’s opposition fails to demonstrate how the asserted patents meet the requirements for
`
`subject-matter eligibility. With respect to Alice step 1, USR admits that the patents merely claim
`
`systems that “allow users to securely authenticate their identit[ies]” (Opp. at 3; see also id. at 10,
`
`13-14, 17), which is a longstanding economic practice that can be performed in the human mind,
`
`and is therefore abstract. With respect to Alice step 2, USR does not claim any improvements to
`
`a computer system, much less a new authentication technology; instead, it claims arrangements
`
`of prior art general-purpose computer components employing age-old authentication techniques
`
`and mathematical operations. Its rhetoric aside, USR’s opposition does not identify any
`
`inventive component in any claim. Indeed, the patent specifications confirm that all the claimed
`
`hardware and authentication mechanisms were conventional, and there is nothing inventive about
`
`their ordered combination.1 USR’s opposition also makes clear that its reading of the asserted
`
`patents would preempt a wide range of transaction authentication systems, which provides
`
`further reason that the claims cover patent ineligible subject matter. The asserted patents are thus
`
`invalid under § 101 and Alice, and this case should be dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’539 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter.
`
`At Alice step 1, USR describes the ’539 patent as directed to “an anonymous
`
`identification system that allows user verification without requiring the user to share personal
`
`information with whomever is requesting verification.” (Opp. at 17.) Thus, even under USR’s
`
`own characterization of the patent, it is directed to substantially the same abstract idea described
`
`by defendants. (Op. Br. at 8.) As defendants explained, “verifying an account holder’s identity
`
`
`1
`USR argues that defendants ignored the ordered combination of the claim limitations.
`However, defendants addressed this issue for each patent (Op. Br. at 12, 15, 18, 20).
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 867
`
`
`with a code before enabling a transaction” is a fundamental economic practice as old as banking
`
`itself, and it can be performed entirely in the human mind. (Id. at 8-10); see also, e.g., Alice
`
`Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356 (2014); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`
`839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For example, even the earliest credit-based financial
`
`transactions required some means for the provider to verify the buyer’s identity. (’539 patent at
`
`1:13-19, 46-52.) The ’539 patent admits the simplicity of its core idea, explaining that the
`
`claimed system is designed to “take the place” of conventional means of identification. (Id. at
`
`3:22-24.) That the verification can be performed without sending confidential account
`
`information to a merchant by performing other conventional steps does not change the central
`
`purpose of the claim, but is merely incidental to the underlying verification operation. See In re
`
`Brown, 645 F. App’x 1014, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific limitations did not change the
`
`“central purpose of the claimed method” at Alice step one).
`
`The ’539 patent similarly fails Alice step 2. Although USR insists that the ’539 patent is
`
`rooted in “technological challenges associated with digital security & authentication” (Opp. at 1-
`
`2), the claims and specification refute that argument. The patent itself demonstrates that each
`
`step of claim 22 is directed to accomplishing the core abstract idea by implementing well-known
`
`methods using conventional computer components. (’539 patent at 5:43-45, 5:63-66, 6:4-17,
`
`6:51-53.) The first limitation merely requires “receiving” a transaction request containing two
`
`well-known types of data, a time-varying multicharacter code, which the patent admits could be
`
`generated by a prior art device2 (id. at 8:17-24), and a generic “indication of the provider.” (See,
`
`e.g., id. at Figs. 7-8 (boxes 704, 804); 18:42; 18:48-89; 20:11-12; 20:18-19.) The second
`
`
`2
`Although USR accuses defendants of omitting aspects of the claims, including the use of
`single-use time-varying token (Opp. at 20 n.20), defendants’ brief explained that time-varying
`tokens existed prior to the ’539 patent and had been used to generate time-varying codes for use
`in authentication systems. (Op. Br. at 10-11, 14.)
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 868
`
`
`limitation requires the processor to map the received code to the entity’s identity, another basic
`
`data operation. The third limitation requires ensuring compliance with access restrictions, which
`
`the patent admits was also well known. (Id. at 1:29-40.) The fourth and fifth limitations require
`
`the standard process of accessing information in a database. And the sixth limitation requires
`
`enabling the transaction, a process that has existed as long as electronic credit card transactions.
`
`USR alleges that these steps taken as an ordered combination are technologically
`
`innovative. But at bottom, the ’539 patent describes no more than using well-known
`
`authentication techniques to interface with a database. USR suggests there is something
`
`inventive about the system’s ability to perform authentication “without providing account
`
`identifying information to the merchant.” (Opp. at 19.) Not sending data to a particular party to
`
`a transaction, by itself, can hardly be characterized as a “technological” innovation, but is rather
`
`an “insignificant post-solution activity” insufficient to confer patent eligibility. Bilski v. Kappos,
`
`561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981)).
`
`B.
`
`The ’826 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter.
`
`At Alice step one, USR describes the ’826 patent as directed to “an improved distributed
`
`authentication system that authenticates a user’s identity…” (Opp. at 13.) Thus again, USR
`
`describes the patent as directed to essentially the same abstract idea identified by defendants.
`
`USR claims that this idea is not abstract because of two supposedly “critical” claim elements:
`
`“(1) gathering biometric information while locally authenticating the user, preventing
`
`unauthorized use of the device; and (2) requiring additional remote user authentication by a
`
`second device, based on both authentication information (e.g., one-time variable token) received
`
`from the first device, and second authentication information (e.g., information securely stored at
`
`the second device or obtained from the USR).” (Id. at 14-15.) But both these claim elements
`
`(and indeed the entire claim) directly involve the age-old economic process of authenticating a
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 869
`
`
`user using “biometric information” (defined generically as “any . . . method of identifying the
`
`person possessing the device” (’826 patent at 4:27-32)) and are capable of being performed
`
`entirely in the human mind. The first element locally authenticates a user based on biometric
`
`information (such as recognizing someone based on physical appearance), while the second
`
`remotely authenticates a user based on a comparison between a received token and a stored value
`
`(such as comparing a given password to a known password stored in a person’s memory). The
`
`other claim elements (retrieving, determining, receiving) can also be performed mentally.
`
`At Alice step 2, the ordered combination of the ’826 claim elements, like those of the
`
`other patents,3 discloses nothing more than a “computer-implemented” authentication scheme.
`
`The claims recite the use of amorphous “authentication information” to cover systems that
`
`perform authentication without limiting the claims sufficiently to allow for their survival. See
`
`Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611-12 (“…postsolution components did not make the concept patentable”);
`
`Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (crediting “post-solution activity” in §101 analysis
`
`“exalts form over substance”). And the claim steps are all standard computing functions:
`
`“authenticating,” “retrieving,” “determining,” and “receiving.” See Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign
`
`Corp., No. 16-cv-06925, 2017 WL 1374759, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017) (finding
`
`“transmitting,” “receiving,” “updating,” and “selecting” are “routine, generic computer
`
`functions”). None of the ’826 limitations, viewed independently or together, provides an
`
`“inventive concept.” Rather, they are merely conventional data operations incident to the
`
`
`3
`USR argues that because the asserted patent claims are not identical, defendants’
`common analysis of the patents is improper. (Opp. at 20.) A comparison between the claims
`reveals many common concepts including authentication of a user based on authentication
`information (such as time-varying codes) and transmission of data between a user’s device and a
`remote database. All four patents claim the same underlying process of collecting information
`from a user, comparing it to stored information, and then granting access. Moreover, each
`section of defendants’ opening brief accounted for the differences between the patent claims in
`its analysis, and specifically analyzed each patent’s particular claimed features.
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 870
`
`
`underlying abstract idea. See IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Inc., No. 16-cv-7774, 2017 WL
`
`3581162, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) (finding nothing unique about arrangement of a
`
`“receiver” and “verifier”); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., No. 16-1233, 207
`
`WL 4654964, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2017) (“claims directed to the performance of certain
`
`financial transactions . . . must be categorized as involving abstract ideas”).4
`
`C.
`
`The ’137 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter.
`
`Although USR emphasizes that the ’137 patented method is implemented in a mobile
`
`device, the core of the claimed invention still lies in authentication. USR again admits as much
`
`when it describes the ’137 patent as “an improved mobile transaction approval system providing
`
`both local and remote authentication.” (Opp. at 10.) And while USR alleges that claim 12
`
`“claims much more” than an abstract idea, it does not discuss what aspects of the claim it
`
`believes are not abstract. The claim limitations, whether viewed individually or as an ordered
`
`combination, are all directed to a device that can authenticate a user and approve a transaction.
`
`The device includes a biometric sensor, which simply captures biometric data, a wireless
`
`transceiver, which transmits and receives messages, and a processor configured to perform
`
`standard operations including “authenticat[ing],” “retriev[ing] or receiv[ing],” and “generat[ing]”
`
`a signal. (’137 patent at 46:60-67.) The use of these generic computer components to perform
`
`
`4
`USR’s assertion that its patents, like the one in Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v.
`AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claim a “software-based invention
`that improves the performance of the computer system itself” (Opp. at 16) is incorrect. The
`patent at issue in Bascom was for an improved content filtering technique that actually made the
`local and remote computers performing the filtering run more efficiently. 827 F.3d at 1351 (“By
`taking a prior art filter solution (one-size-fits-all filter at the ISP server) and making it more
`dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), the claimed invention
`represents a software-based invention[ ] that improve[s] the performance of the computer system
`itself.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original)). The asserted patents, by
`contrast, do not claim to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technical process.
`Cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“[T]he claims at issue amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than
`an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified,
`generic computer.”).
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 871
`
`
`the age-old practice of verifying a party to a transaction does not change the abstract nature of
`
`the claim.
`
`The two cases that USR cites do not suggest otherwise. In McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
`
`Games America Inc., the patent at issue covered an improved method for animating 3D character
`
`models in video games. 837 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The improvements allowed 3D
`
`animated models to appear more fluid when synchronized with voice dialogue. Id. The Federal
`
`Circuit determined that the rules-based method claimed by the patent was a distinct process to
`
`automate a task previously performed by human beings and enabled the improvement realized by
`
`the invention. Id. at 1314, 1316. The ’137 patent and the others at issue here are distinguishable
`
`in at least three respects. First, the patents-in-suit do not recite any novel “rules” that result in an
`
`improved technological result, but instead recite the use of several well-known authentication
`
`methods to control access to a database containing sensitive financial data. Second, unlike the
`
`invention in McRO, which could be used to generate tangible 3D models, the asserted claims do
`
`not result in a tangible product, but rather are just a means by which to access, compare, and
`
`manipulate data. Third, unlike the complex rule set implemented by the claims in McRO, all
`
`claim steps can be performed entirely by human beings.5
`
`MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corp. involved a claim whereby
`
`documents saved in a networked document management system would be seamlessly encrypted
`
`upon saving, eliminating the need for the user to perform the operation manually. 2016 WL
`
`5661981, at *4-5 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016). The court found that the claim was not directed to an
`
`abstract idea because it “improv[ed] an existing technological process,” namely, encrypting
`
`
`5
`Although the claims cover the use and combination of concepts such the “time-varying
`value” (’137 patent) or “encrypted authentication information” (’813 patent) that could require
`complex mathematical calculations, those same terms are also broad enough to encompass
`simple codes that an average person could calculate mentally.
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 872
`
`
`electronic data without input from the user. Id. at *8. Unlike in MAZ Encryption, the USR
`
`claims do not improve upon any existing technological process or computer functionality.
`
`Instead, the claims are directed to the types of economic tasks that MAZ Encryption
`
`distinguished as abstract ideas, such as conducting safe financial transactions. See id. at *5-9
`
`(distinguishing patent from abstract ideas of “storing and accessing” data and “organizing and
`
`storing information safely”).
`
`The ’137 patent does not disclose an “inventive concept” at Alice step 2. Again, USR
`
`does not dispute that all the components of claim 12 are conventional computer components.
`
`Instead, USR makes the blanket assertion that because the system “improves security” for remote
`
`transactions by protecting a customer’s information from interception, it is patent-eligible. (Opp.
`
`at 13.) But Alice step 2 requires that the claim amount to “significantly more” than a claim for
`
`the abstract concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal
`
`Wilde, Inc., No. 2016-1728, 2017 WL 4582737, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017) (invalidating
`
`under § 101 patent that purportedly improved security for mail). Here, the claims recite a device
`
`containing elements that were well known, uses it to gather information from a user, combines
`
`the data,6 transmits it, and enables a transaction. Limiting the patent to biometric/secret
`
`information, or confining it to a generic computer device performing rudimentary tasks, does not
`
`provide the “significantly more” that Alice requires. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d
`
`1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Neither ‘attempting to limit the use of [the idea] to a particular
`
`technological environment’ nor a ‘wholly generic computer implementation’ is sufficient.”).
`
`
`6
`USR argues that the patent does not admit that generation of a combined signal was
`known in the prior art, asserting that defendants have conflated a “predetermined algorithm” for
`combining information with a “preexisting algorithm.” (Opp. at 12, 13 n.12.) But the
`specification recites that the prior art SecurID device used in the cited embodiment “combines
`these three numbers using a predetermined algorithm.” (’137 patent at 14:26-40.)
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 873
`
`
`D.
`
`The ’813 Patent Does Not Claim Patentable Subject Matter.
`
`As with the other patents, USR describes the ’813 patent as a system “that allow[s] users
`
`to securely authenticate their identity when using a POS device.” (Opp. at 3.) USR’s description
`
`confirms once again that the core of the ’813 claims is abstract. Claim 1 is directed to an
`
`electronic ID device that the patent itself describes as “any type of electronic device” capable of
`
`performing an authentication operation. (’813 patent at 13:5-8.) The electronic ID device
`
`contains well-known components such as a biometric sensor, a user interface, and a
`
`communication interface. (Id. at 5:30-34, 7:1-7, 27:25-29, 43:21-33, 50:3-11), as well as a
`
`processor configured
`
`to perform
`
`typical functions
`
`like “receive” and “communicate”
`
`information, “activate” a device, and “generate” values. The claim also references a “point-of-
`
`sale” terminal, described as a “counter-top” device. (Id. at 44:1-4.) Using these generic
`
`computer components to perform the age-old practice of verifying a user using conventional
`
`steps to enable a transaction does not change the claim’s abstract nature.
`
`The ’813 patent also fails Alice step 2. Claim 1 discloses nothing more than an
`
`authentication scheme implemented in the generic “electronic ID device” capable of data
`
`transmission, reception, comparison, and combination operations incident to the underlying
`
`abstract idea. The patent again claims the amorphous “authentication information,” which is
`
`nothing more than a code derived from three pieces of conventional authentication data.
`
`Moreover, the addition of another generic computing device (a POS device) does not render the
`
`claim more inventive or technological. USR’s argument that the electronic ID device and POS
`
`device are unique because they are responsive to specific inputs is unavailing. The claimed
`
`inputs (biometric information, encrypted authentication information, secret information) are
`
`conventional and not limited in a meaningful way. Some unspecified portion of those inputs is
`
`combined (a process that the patent admits was known) and then transmitted to the POS device
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 874
`
`
`to conduct authentication. (Id. at 52:9-29; 53:39-47.) The claim does not pass muster under
`
`Alice. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“recit[ation of] routine computer functions, such as the sending and receiving information to
`
`execute the database search,” insufficient under Alice step 2).
`
`E.
`
`USR’s Patents Attempt to Preempt User Authentication.
`
`In its opposition, USR attempts to argue that the patents survive Alice because they do
`
`not present any preemption concern.7 (Opp. at 2 n.1.) However, under its interpretation of the
`
`asserted patents, USR clearly seeks to preempt a wide range of authentication systems that
`
`enable transactions, such as “allow[ing] users to securely authenticate their identity when using a
`
`POS device” (Opp. at 3), “authenticat[ing] a user’s identity at a handheld device using local
`
`biometric information” (id. at 13), and “allow[ing] user verification without requiring the user to
`
`share personal information with whomever is requesting verification” (id. at 17).
`
`Moreover, the specifications emphasize that the asserted patents could be implemented or
`
`performed using conventional components. For example, the secure registry can be “any kind of
`
`database” (’539 patent at 6:18; ’826 patent at 11:52; ’137 patent at 12:1; ’813 patent at 10:24),
`
`the processor can be any processor (’539 patent at 6:51-53; ’826 patent at 12:18-20; ’137 patent
`
`at 12:34-36; ’813 patent at 10:58-60), and biometric information can be of “various types” (’539
`
`patent at 8:48-54; ’826 patent at 14:36-49; ’137 patent at 14:54-67; ’813 patent at 13:9-22). As a
`
`result, USR does indeed seek to preempt the entire field of authentication methods and systems.
`
`F.
`
`The “Exemplary” Claims Are Representative Of The Patents As A Whole.
`
`Defendants’ motion relies on the very claims that USR claimed to be “exemplary” in its
`
`complaint. To be clear, USR’s complaint described the claims discussed herein as “exemplary”
`
`7
`Although preemption is the concern that drives the exclusionary principles of Alice, it is
`not the test for patent eligibility, since “limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding
`token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable.” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612.
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 875
`
`
`of the others. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 43, 65, 84, 106.) USR cannot claim for purposes of its infringement
`
`claims that the asserted claims are “exemplary” of others, but then assert here that each claim
`
`needs to be separately analyzed. Furthermore, as USR admitted in its opposition, all four patents
`
`are directed to a system for authenticating a user. (Opp. at 3, 10, 13, 17.) In each patent, the
`
`independent claims are directed to the same system or method, with only minor variations in
`
`claim language. The dependent claims add only various post-solution limitations, such as
`
`performing decryption in a well-known manner (’539 patent at claims 3, 24), mapping certain
`
`elements to one another (id. at claim 13) or delivering data in a certain manner (id. at claims 4,
`
`25). Moreover, as many cases have held, there is no requirement that the Court analyze each and
`
`every claim with the same degree of precision where, as here, the claims are “substantially
`
`similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Smart Systems Innovation, 2017
`
`WL 4654964, at *3 n.7. (See Op. Br. at 8 n.2.)
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court find the asserted
`
`claims to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and dismiss this action with prejudice.
`
` /s/ Fredrick L. Cottrell, III
`Fredrick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`RICHARDS LAYTON, & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bindu Palapura
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu Palapura (#5370)
`POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6147
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Visa Inc. and
`Visa U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 37 Filed 10/20/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 876
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James Yoon
`Jamie Y. Otto
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto CA 94304
`(650) 320-4726
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark D. Selwyn
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 858-6000
`
`Monica Grewal
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(202) 663-6000
`
`Derek A. Gosma
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 443-5300
`
`Dated: October 20, 2017
`
`
`RLF1 18313356v.1
`
`11
`
`