Information security — US PTAB Patent Cases
11 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 11 total
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of PACid Technologies' ’433 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes early filing and strong Fintiv factors to argue for institution.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of PACid Technologies' ’993 patent on user authentication. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §102. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s 2014 patent on secure information delivery, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a PCT publication combined with Austin‑Lane. The petition also challenges potential discretionary denials under §325(d) and Fintiv.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against Proxense's 8,886,954 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ludtke and Kon. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) and BitSight have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on BitSight’s ’331 patent. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue termination promotes efficiency and reduces costs.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa challenges Cortex MCP's patent on digital credential verification, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that tokenization and electronic credential management methods were well-known in the field of information security. This IPR petition sets up a major dispute over the novelty of modern authentication systems.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that Visa, Inc.'s claims were likely obvious over prior art references including Oborne and Neafsey. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'scan,' leading to the institution of 17 claims under Section 103.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc.'s IPR petition against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s patent was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The Board adopted key claim constructions, including defining 'OVER file' to encompass tokens and NFC interactions for 'scan,' confirming sufficient basis for unpatentability arguments.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.