ASSA ABLOY AB, et al v
`CPC Patent Technologies
`Pty Ltd
`
`I P R 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 0 0 6
`
`I P R 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 0 4 5
`
`I P R 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 0 8 9
`
`H E A R I N G : S E P T E M B E R 2 8 , 2 0 2 3
`
`Patent Owner’s Slides – Not Evidence
`
`1
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`CPC Patent Technologies
`Pty Ltd
`
`I P R 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 0 0 6
`
`I P R 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 0 4 5
`
`I P R 2 0 2 2 - 0 1 0 8 9
`
`H E A R I N G : S E P T E M B E R 2 8 , 2 0 2 3
`
`Patent Owner’s Slides – Not Evidence
`
`1
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds
`
`Source: Petition at p. 4
`
`2
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 2
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 1 of the ‘705 Patents
`– The “D” limitations
`
`• 1[D(P)] wherein the transmitter sub-system controller is further configured
`to:
`
`• 1[D(1)] receive a series of entries of the biometric signal, said series
`being characterised according to at least one of the number of said entries
`and a duration of each said entry;
`
`• 1[D(2)] map said series into an instruction; and
`
`• 1[D(3)] populate the data base according to the instruction
`
`Source: Petition, Claim Listing, p. 100 (emphasis added)
`
`3
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 3
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen Prior Art
`
`4
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 4
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument - Mathiassen
`
`Petitioner relies on Mathiassen for:
`◦ A series of entries of a biometric signal characterized by a number and duration
`
`◦ Petition, p. 41
`
`◦ Mapping said series into an instruction
`
`◦ Petition, pp. 43 and 46-49
`
`Petitioner admits that: “Bianco is silent on how administrators send control
`signals…”
`◦ Petition, p. 47; Ex. 1005, Lipoff Decl., ¶ 173.
`
`5
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 5
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen
`
`Source: POR at 31, POSR at 17-18, Ex. 1004 at Figs. 2-3 and Table 3a
`
`6
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 6
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – 3 Modes Disclosed
`
`Mathiassen teaches 3 separate modes of operation:
`
`Source: POR at 31, POSR at 17-18, Ex. 1004 at Table 3a, p. 12
`
`7
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 7
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – Finger Commands
`
`The navigation function “measures the duration, direction and
`speed of the finger moves on the switch and categorizes the signal
`from the switch into categories…[which are] compared by
`translation means 4 with predefined tables relating categories of
`finger moves and sequences thereof to readable characters/signs.”
`◦ Ex. 1004 (Mathiassen) at 7:2-8
`
`When authentication by finger print biometrics is completed, the
`cellular phone sets the sign-generator to sleep mode…The sign-
`generator is then waked up, e.g., when a request for the sign
`generator is called for…Two dimensional finger moves combined
`with combined finger command sequences (such as taps, etc.)
`thereby gives an accurate cursor control….”
`◦ Ex. 1004 (Mathiassen) at 14:22-36
`
`Source: POR at 25-29, POSR at 17-19, Ex. 1004 at 7:2-8; 14:22-36
`
`8
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 8
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – Finger Commands
`
`Mr. Lipoff’s testimony:
`
`Q. Yeah. Does the touch-sensitive switch measure the
`user's fingerprint with each of these finger commands?
`
`… T
`
`HE WITNESS:· There's no disclosure one way or the other
`as to measuring the fingerprint. It's -- it's -- they're characterized as
`finger commands which are entered upon the same biometric sensor
`that can be used for validating the fingerprint, but there's no
`disclosure one way or the other as to whether it's also reading the
`fingerprint other than just the -- a series of a number -- a number of
`entries and the duration of entries. So that's the only thing that
`seems to be disclosed here for certain.
`
`Source: POR at 30, 40; POSR at 19-20, Ex. 2034 (Lipoff Depo) at 65:2-24
`
`9
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 9
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – Finger Commands
`
`Dr. Russ’s Declaration:
`
`A POSITA would have understood that,
`biometrically scanning a fingerprint (including capturing
`the ridges and valleys of fingerprint) with each
`navigational finger movement would have made it more
`difficult, and certainly impractical (if not essentially
`impossible) to achieve the fast and versatile input of finger
`movements needed for navigational functions such as text
`input and curser control.
`
`Source: POR at 78, Ex. 2031 at ¶78, pp. 41-42
`
`10
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 10
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – Finger Commands
`
`Dr. Russ’s testimony:
`
`“…the sensor is operating in one of two different
`modes: a fingerprint capture mode, which is designed to
`uniquely define the person, to use the language from 1:27
`of Mathiassen, or it’s using gestures to navigate and move
`a mouse and when that's happening, it's not trying to
`uniquely define a person. It's just trying to move a mouse
`on a screen, and so, it's not making a biometric
`measurement at all.”
`
`Source: POSR at 20-21, Ex. 1028 at 51:4-13
`
`11
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 11
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – Finger Commands
`
`Dr. Russ’ testimony:
`
`·
`
`Q.· · In Mathiassen, when a command is
`recognized by a series of long taps and short taps, do
`you believe that the system would be capturing
`fingerprint data in order to receive and recognize such
`instructions.
`
`· · · ·A.· · No. Because the fingerprint, the capture
`fingerprint gesture is expressly disclosed as moving the
`finger vertically over the stripe sensor, and so, it's clear
`that these long and short taps would not yield a complete
`fingerprint for analysis.
`
`Source: POSR at 20-21, Ex. 1028 at 85:12-22
`
`12
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 12
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Mathiassen – Institution Decision
`
`“By reading the fingerprint and its motion, ‘single-button
`sensor’ 1 (along with the above components 2-5) combine
`biometric reading for user authentication and cursor-type
`control for text input.”
`
`Source: IPR2022-01006, Paper 27 [Corrected] Institution Decision, p. 51
`
`13
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 13
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`“Biometric Signal” – Petitioner’s Construction
`is a Moving target
`
`Source
`Petition
`
`Petition
`
`Position
`No construction (see p. 9-12)
`
`“the ‘705 Patent provides that the biometric signal is a measurement of the user’s biometric
`attribute.”
`
`Date
`May 31, 2022
`
`May 31, 2022
`
`Petition, p. 41
`Ex. 1005, Lipoff Decl., ¶¶ 107, 161
`
`Lipoff Deposition
`
`A. [I]t’s not a construction that I considered before…and I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with
`this; its just that I haven’t had any opportunity to study it to form an opinion.
`
`Feb. 14, 2023
`
`Q.· ·So did you have a different construction of "biometric signal" in mind when you formed your
`opinions?
`
`A.· ·I didn't have any construction in mind.· I had an understanding of what "biometric signal" was as
`it’s used in the patent, and that's what I applied in forming my opinions.
`
`Ex. 2034, 32:14-33:3 (emphasis added)
`
`Reply Brief
`
`“the input and output of the biometric sensor”
`
`May 30, 2023
`
`Reply at 7-8
`
`Source: POSR at 3-4
`
`14
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 14
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Prior Construction of “Biometric Signal”
`
`January 12, 2022
`
`• Joint Claim Construction Statement filed in
`the Apple Litigation (WDTX)
`•Agreed Construction for “biometric signal”:
`“physical attribute of the user (i.e., fingerprint,
`facial pattern, iris, retina, voice, etc.)”
`•Ex. 2022, p. 3
`
`May 31, 2022
`
`• ASSA ABLOY files its Petition against the
`‘705 Patent
`•The Petition identifies the Apple Litigation and
`Apple’s IPR as related matters in the mandatory
`notices. Pet. at 1-2
`•The Petition proposes constructions for certain
`claim terms but is silent with respect to
`“biometric signal.” Pet. at 9-11
`
`February 23, 2022
`
`• Apple’s IPR Petition against the ‘705
`Patent filed
`•Apple proposes “physical attribute of the user
`(i.e., fingerprint, facial pattern, iris, retina, voice,
`etc.)” to the Board
`•IPR2022-00602, Paper No. 1 at 6
`
`Source: POSR at 6.
`
`15
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 15
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Partial Fingerprints Are Not Biometric
`Signals
`
`• Dr. Russ’ testimony:
`
`◦ A.· · Yeah, yeah.· A person of ordinary skill would
`understand that a fingerprint sensor images a fingerprint,
`an entire fingerprint.· There's no basis for saying that it's
`going to acquire a portion of a fingerprint.· And a
`person of ordinary skill would therefore regard
`something that acquires a portion of a fingerprint as
`not acquiring a fingerprint.
`
`Source: POSR at 13, Ex. 1028 (Russ Tr.) at 193:9-17
`
`16
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 16
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`“Biometric Signal”
`
`A “biometric signal” must uniquely identify the
`user – Mr. Lipoff agrees:
`
`“So long as the biometric sensor can output a
`biometric signal capable of uniquely
`identifying a user, the claims and purported
`invention would be viable.”
`
`Ex. 1029 (Second Lipoff Decl.) at ¶ 14
`
`Q.· ·And I -- I am not trying to cause confusion
`by mixing terms such as biometric data or
`biometric signal. I just want to establish that
`you agree that just biometric systems in general
`are intended to uniquely identify a given user; is
`that fair?
`
`A.· ·Yeah, I would say that when the --
`when a biometric system is used for the
`purpose of providing access, then it would
`need to be capable of uniquely identifying the
`user.
`
`Ex. 2040 (Lipoff Tr., Vol. 2) at 54:7-15
`
`Source: POSR at 8-9, Ex. 1029 at ¶14, Ex. 2040 at 54:7-15
`
`17
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 17
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`“Biometric Signal”
`
`A “biometric signal” must uniquely identify the
`user – Petitioner’s prior art agrees
`
`Mathiassen, Ex. 1004 at 1:14-24:
`◦ “Accordingly there is a strong trend to base access control on
`biometrics which is [a] mathematical description of characteristic
`elements of the owner's body or behaviour that can not be
`separated from this person, and which describes him uniquely.”
`
`Bianco, Ex. 1003 at 12:51-61:
`◦ “Bianco describes “[b]iometric devices” that “identify a user
`based on compared measurements of unique personal
`characteristics” called “biometric measurements.”
`
`Source: POSR at 8-9; Petition (Paper 2) at 20.
`
`18
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 18
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Bianco Prior Art
`
`19
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 19
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument - Bianco
`
`Petitioner relies on Bianco for
`◦ A series of entries of a biometric signal characterized by a number and duration
`
`◦ Relies on hand-written signature
`
`◦ Petition at 42
`
`◦ Populating the database according to the instruction
`
`◦ Relies on Bianco’s enrollment of biometric signatures in a database
`
`◦ Petition at 49-50
`
`◦ Admits that Bianco does not disclose the “mapping” element
`
`◦ Petition at 47
`
`20
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 20
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Bianco – Physical vs Behavioral Attributes
`
`“Biometric identification mechanisms include two basic
`categories of biometric measurements. The first category
`involves measuring a unique characteristic found on a
`user's body. This may include, but is not limited to, finger
`and hand geometry, retina and facial images, weight, DNA
`data and breath. The second category involves measuring
`a user's behavioral characteristics. This may include, but
`is not limited to, voice, typing stroke and signature. In
`general, anything that can be measured on a user that is
`unique can be used as a biometric measurement.”
`
`In all cases, the measurement must uniquely identify the
`user.
`
`Source: POR at 24; POSR at 23, Ex. 1003 (Bianco) at 7:57-67
`
`21
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 21
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Bianco – Physical vs Behavioral Attributes
`
`◦ “Bianco makes clear that biometrics
`are both physical (e.g., fingerprint,
`eyeprint, DNA scan) and behavioral
`(e.g., voice, typing style, signature).”
`
`Source: POR at 21-22, Ex. 1005 (Lipoff Decl.) at ¶ 169 (citing Ex. 1003 at 7:57-67)
`
`22
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 22
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Bianco – Physical vs Behavioral Attributes
`“A fingerprint device measures the geometry of a
`fingerprint.”
`◦ Ex. 1003 (Bianco) at 8:26-27
`
`“A specific example of how biometric identification
`works when behavioral measurements are involved can
`be illustrated by a typical signature device. Here, the
`user is prompted for multiple samples of a signature.
`For each sample, characteristics or measurements
`include the pressure, sequence of events, direction,
`relative vectors and speed.”
`◦ Ex. 1003 (Bianco) at 8:41-47
`
`Source: POR at 23-24, 43-45; POSR at 23
`
`23
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 23
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Construction of “Biometric Signal”
`
`‘705 & ‘208 Patents:
`◦ “One example of a biometric signal is a fingerprint. Other physical attributes that can be used
`to provide biometric signals include voice, retinal or iris pattern, face pattern, palm
`configuration and so on.”
`
`◦ Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at 1:29-33
`
`Dr. Russ:
`◦ “In sum, the ‘biometric signals’ claimed in the ’705 Patent are physical biometric attributes only;
`the claims do not include behavioral biometric attributes. A POSITA would have understood that
`attributes that are clearly behavioral attributes, such as hand-written signatures, typing stroke,
`and gait, did not fall within the scope of the claimed ‘biometric signal’ as properly construed.”
`
`◦ Ex. 2031 (Russ Decl.) at ¶¶ 43
`
`Source: POR at 10, 16-17; POSR at 7-8, 10, 12
`
`24
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 24
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Construction of “Biometric Signal”
`
`Source: POR at 13-14
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 25
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Bianco – Mapping Limitation
`
`◦ “Bianco discloses reading multiple
`types of biometric signatures,
`including fingerprints, and signatures
`where each has a duration. However,
`Bianco is silent on how
`administrators send control
`signals….”
`
`Source: POR at 41 (citing Petition at 47); (Ex. 1005 (Lipoff Decl.) at ¶ 173
`
`26
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 26
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`No Motivation to
`Combine
`
`27
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 27
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Combine
`
`“[A] POSITA would have understood that capturing the ridges
`and valleys of the entire fingerprint with each finger move—
`while in a navigation mode—would have been highly
`undesirable because it would interfere with, and slow down, the
`navigational functions. Using a stripe sensor, as explained in both
`Mathiassen and EX-2037, requires the computer to “stitch
`together” different images to form a complete fingerprint image.
`EX-2037 at 002. This requires significant computing power and
`time.”
`
`Source: POR at 35-36, Ex. 2031 (Russ Decl.) at ¶ 77
`
`28
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 28
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Combine
`
`Source: POR at 36-37 citing Ex. 2031 (Russ Decl.) at ¶79; Ex. 2037 at p. 1, Figure 1
`
`29
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 29
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Combine
`
`“[A] POSITA would have understood that the need for
`measuring a duration of behavioral biometric entries such as a
`hand-written signature and typing stroke makes sense and
`serves a beneficial security purpose because the duration of
`such behavioral traits is part of what makes that trait unique
`to a given user. But a POSITA would further understand that
`this benefit has no apparent applicability to the measurement
`of the duration of a physical attribute, such as a fingerprint. A
`fingerprint is a unique identifier of a user by itself, regardless
`of for how long it is measured….”
`
`Source: POR at 43, Ex. 2031 (Russ Decl.) at ¶ 94
`
`30
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 30
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Time Bar Under 35
`U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`31
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 31
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`DJ Complaint: Petitioner Heavily Relied
`On Its Affinity With Apple
`
`“Charter Pacific is also engaged in an aggressive litigation campaign that includes Apple Inc. (“Apple”),
`a business partner of the ASSA ABLOY Entities,” EX2007 at ¶30.
`
`Patent Owner’s “litigation campaign that includes Apple … is likely to expand to include the ASSA
`ABLOY Entities.” Id.
`
`“it is highly likely that Charter Pacific will sue the Assa Abloy Entities on the same patents that have
`been asserted against Apple.” Id.
`
`“Charter Pacific has a history of alleging infringement of all three Patents-in-Suit, including against
`Apple, the ASSA ABLOY Entities’ business partner.” Id. at ¶¶ 43-44.
`
`“After initiating the two lawsuits in the Western District of Texas, CPC also initiated an ex parte
`discovery action against Apple under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to pursue infringement allegations against
`Apple in the Federal Republic of Germany.” Id. at ¶ 46.
`
`“the Apple Touch ID and Face ID features were a prominent focus of the claim charts presented to
`Yale.” ¶63.
`
`“Charter Pacific has asserted infringement of the ’039 patent against Apple.” Id. at ¶ 100.
`
`Source: POR at 18-20 citing Ex. 2007, ¶¶18-20.
`
`32
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 32
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Current Argument
`
`“Petitioners and Apple have a standard business relationship like that of over 34
`
`million application developers on Apple’s platform (EX-1023 at 6-7) and hundreds
`
`of MFi Program participants (collectively its business partners).”
`
`Source: Reply to POPR (Paper 18) at 1.
`
`33
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 33
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Against the ’039 Patent was
`Prompted Solely by the Apple Litigation
`
`◦ Neither of the notice letters to Yale Locks mentioned the ’039 Patent.
`
`◦ EX2005, EX2006.
`
`◦ The DJ Complaint raises the ‘039 Patent in connection with HID and Hospitality, not Yale. Patent Owner
`never contacted HID or Hospitality.
`
`◦ EX2007 at ¶¶100-106.
`
`◦ Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`◦ “the fact that the five patents asserted in the Activision litigation were the same five patents Bungie challenged in its IPR petitions”
`cited as one of three significant factors indicating that Activision was an RPI.
`
`Source: PO Preliminary Response (Paper 9) at 10.
`
`34
`
`CPC Ex. 2041 - Page 34
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
