Asghari-Kamrani et al v. United Services Automobile Association
Filing
140
OPINION AND ORDER re: 86 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. the Court holds that the claims of the '432 patent at issue are invalid because they are directed to an abstract idea and thus ineligible for patent protection under 3 5 U.S.C. § 101. Because the allegedly infringed patent claims are invalid, Plaintiffs fail to slate a claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 86. and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE, ECF No. 70. The Court also DISMISSES AS MOOT USAA's Counterclaims. ECF No. 88. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar and filed on 7/5/16. Copies distributed to all parties 7/5/16. (ldab, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and
KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL NO. 2:15cv478
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a suit for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Second Am. Compl. ^| 1,
ECF No. 70. Plaintiffs Nader Asghari-Kamrani and Kamran Asghari-Kamrani ("Plaintiffs") have
alleged that the United Services Automobile Association ("USAA" or "Defendant") has
infringed several claims of United States Patent No. 8,266,432 ("the '432 patent"). ]± USAA has
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 86. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 86, and DISMISSES
WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 70. The Court also
DISMISSES AS MOOT USAA's Counterclaims. ECF No. 88.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Procedural History
On October 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint for patent infringement
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. Compl., ECF No. 1. On December 1, 2015, USAA filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. ECF No. 15. Before the Court heard argument on this
Motion, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on December 21, 2015. ECF 19. USAA then
filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on January 7, 2016. ECF No. 20. The
Court granted this motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to plead with sufficient
particularity. Order, ECF No. 60. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. IcL On April 12,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 70. On April 28, 2016, USAA
filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 86. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 101. On May 18, 2016, USAA filed its Reply.
ECF No. 111. A hearing on the instant motion was held on June 27, 2016. ECF No. 137.
USAA moves for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) on two
grounds: (1) because the claims of the '432 patent are directed to an abstract idea and are thus
ineligible for patent protection; and (2) because the Second Amended Complaint fails to identify
with sufficient particularity how USAA infringes the patent. USAA's Mem. in Supp. of its Mot.
to Dismiss ("USAA's Mem."), ECF No. 87 at 1. Because the Court holds that the patent is
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, it does not reach USAA's second contention.
B.
Patent-in-Suit
Plaintiffs allege that USAA infringes "at least claims 1-10, 12, 13, 16-26, 28-35, 38-42,
45, 47, 48, 50-52, 54, and 55" of the '432 patent. Second Am. Compl. f 1. According to the
Summary of the Invention, "[t]he invention relates to a system and method provided by a
Central-Entity for centralized identification and authentication of users and their transactions to
increase security in e-commerce." '432 patent 2:52-55, ECF No. 70-1, Ex. A. The patent
identifies three entities that perform the patent's methods: (1) a "Central-Entity" which
"centralizes user's personal and financial information in a secure environment in order to prevent
the distribution of the user's information in e-commerce;" (2) a "user" which "represents both a
typical person consuming goods and services as well as a business consuming goods and
services, who needs to be identified in order to make online purchases or gain access to restricted
web sites;" and (3) an "External-Entity" which "is any party offering goods or services in ecommerce and needs to authenticate the users based on digital identity." '432 patent at Summary
of Invention, 2:56-3:6.
Initially, the user signs-up at the Central-Entity and provides his or her "personal or
financial information." Id at 3:7-8. The Central-Entity gives the user a UserName and Password
that he or she will utilize when interacting with the Central-Entity. Id at 3:8-13. When requested
by the user, the Central-Entity also gives the user a SecureCode, which is "dynamic, nonpredictable and time-dependent." Id. at 3:13-16. The user may then provide his or her UserName
and SecureCode to the External-Entity. Id at 3:19-21. The External-Entity then sends the
UserName and SecureCode to the Central-Entity, which will validate the information and
confirm the identity of the user and inform the External-Entity of the result. Id at 3:21-26.
This process is described in Claim 1 of the patent, which is representative:
A method for authenticating a user during an electronic transaction between the
user and an external-entity, the method comprising:
receiving electronically a request for a dynamic code for the user by a
computer associated with a central-entity during the transaction between the user
and the external-entity;
generating by the central-entity during the transaction a dynamic code for
the user in response to the request, wherein the dynamic code is valid for a
predefined time and becomes invalid after being used;
providing by the computer associated with the central-entity said
generated dynamic code to the user during the transaction;
receiving electronically by the central-entity a request for authenticating
the user from a computer associated with the external-entity based on a userspecific information and the dynamic code as a digital identity included in the
request which said dynamic code was received by the user during the transaction
and was provided to the external-entity by the user during the transaction; and
authenticating by the central-entity the user and providing a result of the
authenticating to the external-entity during the transaction if the digital identity is
valid.
The dependent claims build on this basic framework. Independent Claim 25 is an
apparatus claim version of Claim 1. Claim 25 requires that two computers perform the functions
of the Central-Entity—one to generate a dynamic code and a second to validate it. Independent
Claim 48 is another method claim very similar to Claim 1. It requires an alphanumeric dynamic
code. Independent Claim 52 is an apparatus claim version of Claim 48 and again uses two
computers to perform the functions of the Central-Entity. All independent and dependent claims
of the patent require a Central-Entity, a user, and an External-Entity. See '432 patent, Claims 155. All claims also require the use of a dynamic code. Id
II.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection. It
provides:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain
a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this provision
and held that three categories of subject matter are not eligible for patent protection: laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l. 134 S.Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014). In Mavo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. Inc.. 132 S.Ct.
1289 (2012), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for distinguishing patents that
claim one of these patent-ineligible concepts from those that claim patent-eligible applications of
these concepts. Alice. 134 S.Ct. at 2355. In the first step, a court determines whether the claims
at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. ]d (citing Mavo. 132 S.Ct. at 1286-97). If so,
in the second step, a court must consider "what else" is in the claims that may justify patent
protection. Id (quoting Mavo. 132 S.Ct. at 1297). A court must "consider the elements of each
claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional
elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application." Id. (internal
quotations omitted) (quoting Mavo. 132 S.Ct. at 1298, 1297). This second step is a search for an
"inventive concept" that ensures that the patent claims amount to "significantly more" than
claims upon an ineligible concept. Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294).
Patentability under section 101 is an issue of law that may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank. Nat. Ass'n.
776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim construction is not necessary to dismiss patent
claims at the pleading stage if the construction advocated by the patent holder would not make
the claims eligible for patent protection. Id. In determining patent eligibility a court does not
need to address each individual claim if the court can identify a representative claim and "all
claims are substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea." Id at 1348 (internal
quotation omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Mayo/Alice Step One
In Alice, the leading Supreme Court case holding that patent claims were invalid because
directed to an abstract idea, the Supreme Court declined "to delimit the precise contours of the
'abstract ideas' category." See 132 S.Ct. at 2357. Recognizing that "precision has been elusive in
defining an all-purpose boundary between the abstract and the concrete," Internet Patents Corp.
v. Active Network. Inc.. 790 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit has looked to
"some important principles" laid down by the Supreme Court in recent cases to decide what is an
abstract idea. Content Extraction. 776 F.3d at 1256. For instance, the Supreme Court has held
that fundamental economic and longstanding commercial practices are "methods of organizing
human activity" that are "within the realm of'abstract ideas'" as the term is used in section 101
analysis. Alice. 134 S.Ct. at 2356-57. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have also
compared the claims under review to those found to be directed to an abstract idea in prior cases.
Id at 2355-57 (comparing the claims at issue to those in Bilski v. Kappos. 561 U.S. 593 (2010));
Enfish. LLC v. Microsoft Corp.. No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756255, at *4 (Fed. Cir. May 12,
2016) (identifying this comparative approach).
There have been somewhat contradictory points of emphasis in the opinions of the
Supreme Court and Federal Circuit that address what constitutes an abstract idea. In the few
cases that the Supreme Court has chosen to take it has consistently found that the patent claims
were directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.. Alice. 134 S.Ct. at 2356 (finding the concept of
intermediate settlement to be patent ineligible); Bilski. 561 U.S. at 611 (same for the
"fundamental economic practice" of hedging). By contrast, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that
the "first step of the [Mayo/Alice] inquiry is a meaningful one,... a substantial class of claims
are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Enfish. 2016 WL 2756255, at *4. Additionally,
the Federal Circuit—with support from language in Alice—has warned that describing claims at
"a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that
the exceptions to § 101 shallow the rule." ]d at *6; see also Alice. 134 S.Ct. at 2354 ("[W]e
tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle [concerning laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas] lest it shallowall of patent law.").
Critically for the present case, the Federal Circuit has added a new inquiry to step one of
the Mavo/Alice analysis when the claims involve computer-related technology. The goal of this
inquiry is to distinguish between claims that "merely recite the performance of some business
practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the
Internet" and those that are "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings. LLC v.
Hotels.com. L.P.. 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patent claims in Alice were of the
first variety: the claims at issue related to a computerized scheme for mitigating settlement risk
by means of a third party, a concept the Supreme Court found to be a standard business practice
predating the use of computers. See Alice. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2356. Although the Supreme Court
considered the significance of computerization in performing the second step of the Mayo/Alice
analysis, computerization did not factor into the Supreme Court's analysis of the first step.
Compare id. at 2355-57 and id. at 2357-60. However, the Federal Circuit has begun to ask
"whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer technology versus being
directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis." Enfish. 2016 WL
2756255, at *4. Claims that are directed to an improvement to computer technology are not
directed to an abstract idea. Id. at *8.
All of the claims in the '432 patent require the use of a computer. Claim 1 of the patent,
which is representative, claims a "method for authenticating a user during an electronic
transaction." However, despite the electronic setting and purportedly Internet specific problem
addressed, the patent claims are directed to a common method for solving an old problem. The
claims are directed to the abstract idea of using a third party and a random, time-sensitive code to
confirm the identity of a participant to a transaction. This formulation is admittedly verbose. It is
verbose because the patent claims combine two abstract ideas: the use of a third party
intermediary to confirm the identity of a participant to a transaction and the use of a temporary
code to confirm the identity of a participant to a transaction. It is an obvious combination, and
nothing about the combination removes the patent claims from the realm of the abstract.
Nothing about the concept behind the patent claims depends upon their implementation
by computers. As USAA points out, the concept could easily be performed either by hand or,
more simply, with technologies much older than computers. See USAA's Mem. at 17-18. To
adapt USAA's example, let's say that a company (the user, in the terms of the patent) wants to
buy a new chair. A local retailer (the External-Entity) will sell goods on credit to anyone who has
an account at a local bank (the Central-Entity). By previous arrangement, when the company
needs something from the retailer an employee will go to the manager of the bank. The manager
will, using a set of dice containing both letters and numbers, generate a random code. The
manager writes down this code as well as an expiration time for the code and gives it to the
employee. The employee then goes to the retailer. The retailer calls the bank manager and
confirms that the code is correct and still valid. The code confirmed, the retailer knows that the
individual is an employee of a company that has an account at the bank. The retailer gives the
employee a chair.
If this seems a rather involved way to purchase a chair, imagine instead that an
intelligence service has a source within a foreign country. Periodically the source (the External-
Entity) conveys a packet of information to a courier (the user) sent by the intelligence service.
Although the same courier is never used twice, it is important that the source confirm the identity
of the courier. By previous arrangement, whenever a courier goes to pick up the packet the
courier first visits the source's handler (the Central-Entity), who works at an embassy in the
foreign country. The handler gives the courier a time sensitive code. The courier then goes to the
source and tells the source the code. The source relays the code back to the handler who confirms
its validity and thus the identity of the courier. The packet is then handed over.
A comparison with the claims at issue in Alice is instructive. The claims in Alice related
8
to a "computerized scheme for mitigating 'settlement risk'—i.e., the risk that only one party to
an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation." 134 S.Ct. at 2352. The patent
claims were drawn to an old solution to this problem, "intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a
third party to mitigate settlement risk." Id at 2356. Like the claims in this case, intermediate
settlement could and had been performed without computers. The Supreme Court in Alice had
no trouble concluding that intermediated settlement was longstanding "method of organizing
human activity." Id The fact that the patent claims used a computer to perform part of this
method was of no consequence.
The claims in the '432 patent are not like those considered in the recent Federal Circuit
cases that have held that the patent claims under review were not directed to an abstract idea
because they were directed to an improvement in computer technology. In DDR Holdings the
patent claims were directed to "systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that
combines certain visual elements of a 'host' website with content of a third party merchant." 773
F.3d at 1248. The purpose of this system is to prevent the loss of web traffic that occurs when
visitors to a "host" website click an advertisement on the website. Id In the patented system,
when visitors click an advertisement on a "host" webpage, rather than being directed away from
the "host" website and to the advertiser's website, the visitors are directed to a hybrid website
that maintains the "look and feel" of the "host" website. Id. at 1248-49. It is an Internet-based
solution to an Internet-specific problem. Id at 1257. In Enfish. the patent claims described "an
innovative logical model for a computer database" that used a single "self-referential" table to
store data. 2016 WL 2756255, at *1. The Federal Circuit held that the patent claims were
"directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Id at *5.
Plaintiffs argue that the patent claims are directed to a "problem unique to computer-
network authentication" and could only be implemented by a computer system. Pis.' Opp'n to
USAA's Mot. to Dismiss ("Pis.' Opp'n"), ECF No. 101 at 13-14. Certainly it is true that the
problem of authenticating parties to a transaction has been magnified by computer and network
technology. Through computer networks many individuals may conduct business over long
distances in an instance. However, just because a problem has been magnified by computer and
network technology does not make the problem unique to this environment. And just as
computers magnify the scale of traditional problems such as authentication, they may also make
it easier to perform traditional solutions to these traditional problems. It is true, as Plaintiffs
argue, that there are advantages to performing the claimed method on computers. See Pis.'
Opp'n at 14-19. However, these advantages do not transform the method into one directed to an
improvement of computer technology. Again, a comparison with Alice, the leading Supreme
Court case on this issue, is instructive. The risk that one party to a transaction will not follow
through on its obligation is undoubtedly magnified for electronic transactions, and there are
advantages to performing intermediated settlement using computer technology. This was not
enough to save the claims in Alice.
The Federal Circuit itself has emphasized in a recent decision that limiting claims to a
particular environment does not necessarily make the claims any less abstract. See In re TLI
Commc'ns LLC Patent Litis.. No. 2015-1372, 2016 WL 2865693, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 17,
2016). In TLI Communications, the Federal Circuit considered claims that described a method
for recording images with a phone, storing those images as digital images, transmitting the
images and classification information collected by the phone to a server, and then sorting the
images based on the classification information. See id. at *2 (discussing a representative claim).
The Federal Circuit held that the claims were "simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying
and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id at *5. Of course, digital camera
technology, in allowing pictures to be taken and developed quickly, magnifies the problem of
image classification. Fortunately computers and phones also make it easier to classify and sort
images.
B.
Mayo/Alice Step Two
Having determined that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, in the second step of
the Mayo/Alice analysis the Court must consider whether the elements of the claims both
individually and as an ordered combination transform the nature of the claims into a patenteligible application. This is a search for an "inventive concept." In Alice, the Supreme Court
reiterated that "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." 134 S.Ct. at 2358. Were that the case, "any
application could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer
system configured to implement the relevant concept. Id at 2359.
The representative method claim in this case describes the following steps: (1)
"receiving" electronically a request for a dynamic code for the user; (2) "generating" by the
Central-Entity a dynamic code; (3) "providing" the generated dynamic code to the user; (4)
"receiving" electronically by the Central-Entity a request for authenticating the user from a
computer associated with the External-Entity; and (5) "authenticating" by the Central-Entity the
user and providing the result to the External-Entity. '432 patent, Claim 1.
Taken individually, each of these claim elements describes conventional computer
functions. The claim elements describe sending data electronically, generating a random code,
and comparing two pieces of data to see if they are the same. As in Alice, "each step does no
more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions." 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Considered as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not add anything inventive
11
to the abstract concept underlying them. They simply instruct a generic computer or computers
to verify the identity of a participant to a transaction using a randomly generated code. They do
not "purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself." Id. "Nor do they effect an
improvement in any other technology or technological field." Id. They have generic computers
perform an old method of authentication. This is not enough to transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See id at 2360.
Put simply, there is nothing inventive about Plaintiffs' patent claims. To allow Plaintiffs
to patent a generic computer implementation of an abstract idea would allow Plaintiffs to
monopolize the idea itself and inhibit further discovery and invention. See id at 2354,2359.
C.
The Need for Claim Construction and the Apparatus Claims
Finally, the Court notes that while Plaintiffs recite the need for claim construction, they
never identify how claim construction might change the meaning of the claims such that they
would be eligible for patent protection. Additionally, although Plaintiffs fault USAA for focusing
its analysis on Claim 1 of the '432 patent, they fail to specify how consideration of the other
claims would add to the analysis. This is not to say that Plaintiffs have the burden to prove the
validity of their patent. The point is simply that Plaintiffs' arguments on these points are empty.
As described above, all of the claims are substantially similar to Claim 1. Independent method
Claim 48 adds the limitation of an alphanumeric dynamic code. The two apparatus claims,
Claims 25 and 51, simply use two computers to perform the functions of the Central-Entity.
None of these additional limitations change the substance of the claims. See Alice. 134 S.Ct. at
2360 ("Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance.
The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system
claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same
idea."). Similarly, construction of the claims would not affect the Court's analysis of whether the
12
claims are directed to an abstract idea. No matter what construction the Court adopts the
substance of the claims is the same.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court holds that the claims of the "432 patent at issue are
invalid because they are directed to an abstract idea and thus ineligible for patent protection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the allegedly infringed patent claims arc invalid. Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 86,
and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE, ECF No. 70.
The Court also DISMISSES AS MOOT USAA's Counterclaims. ECF No. 88.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all Counsel of Record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norfolk, VA
July 5_, 2016
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?