Oral Argument
`
`Unified Patents and JPMorgan Chase Bank
`v.
`DynapassIP Holdings, LLC
`(Patent Owner)
`
`IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658
`April 16, 2024
`
`© 2024, Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Unified Patents and JPMorgan Chase Bank
`v.
`DynapassIP Holdings, LLC
`(Patent Owner)
`
`IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658
`April 16, 2024
`
`© 2024, Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Pet., p. 2.
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`’658 Patent: “Use of personal communication devices for user authentication”
`
`• In the ’658 Patent, the “password”
`is combination of at least the
`“passcode” and the “token”
`
`3
`
`PO Resp., pp. 5-6
`Sur-Reply, pp. 16-17
`
`’658 Patent, Fig. 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims – Continued
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited Art Veneklase
`
`• Veneklase’s password is only
`transmitted once to host
`computer.
`• Veneklase has multi-level security
`because random code is not
`generated/transmitted until host
`computer cross-references
`received password with a master
`password list.
`• Veneklase’s two-step
`authentication process is a key
`feature and defines Veneklase’s
`principle of operation.
`
`Veneklase, Fig. 6 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`6
`
`PO Resp., pp. 13-20
`Sur-Reply, pp. 1-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited Art Jonsson
`
`• Jonsson’s request for authentication
`starts authentication process
`• “Personal Unit 20” calculates
`“Response Code” based on
`“Challenged Code” and “PIN”
`
`Jonsson, 9:1-10:27
`
`Jonsson, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`PO Resp., pp. 15, 26-27
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.3] “control module . . .
`configured to create a new password based upon a token and passcode”
`• Petitioner’s modification changes Veneklase’s principle of operation by replacing two-
`step authentication process
`• Petitioner’s modification dismantles Veneklase’s existing multi-level security (e.g.,
`cross-referencing security feature, notification feature)
`
`B E F O R E M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`A F T E R M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`8
`
`PO Resp., pp. 15-22
`Sur-Reply, pp. 2-5
`
`Veneklase, Fig. 6 (excerpted and annotated).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.3] “control module . . .
`configured to create a new password based upon a token and passcode”
`• Alleged motivation to combine: “Jonsson’s use of only a single transmitted password
`[] allows for enhanced security over the twice transmitted password of Veneklase.”
`Reply, p. 6 (emphasis added).
`• But the password is only transmitted once in Veneklase’s original system
`B E F O R E M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`Sur-Reply, pp. 3-4, 6-7
`
`9
`
`Veneklase, Fig. 6 (excerpted and annotated).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.4] “a communication
`module configured to transmit the token to the” cellphone or pager
`• Petitioner’s modification renders Veneklase inoperable because password in Veneklase
`is needed to lookup telephone number of cellphone/pager to transmit random code
`(i.e., step one of two-step authentication process)
`
`B E F O R E M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`A F T E R M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`PO Resp., pp. 25-28
`
`Veneklase, Fig. 6 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.4] “a communication
`module configured to transmit the token to the” cellphone or pager
`• Institution Decision: “the user’s device would be identified in response to the user’s
`request for authentication as described in Jonsson.” Institution Decision, p. 21.
`
`A F T E R M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`11
`
`PO Resp., pp. 25-28
`
`Veneklase, Fig. 6 (excerpted and annotated).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.4] “a communication
`module configured to transmit the token to the” cellphone or pager
`• Alleged motivation to combine: “reduc[e] the steps to a single step and thus reduc[e]
`the amount of time required for the authentication process.” Pet., p. 31
`• But proposed combination
`still has at least two steps
`(transmit authentication
`request, transmit response
`code)
`
`A F T E R M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`• Proposed combination is
`more susceptible to DoS
`attacks
`
`PO Resp., pp. 25-28
`Sur-Reply, pp. 5-7
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Veneklase, Fig. 6 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.5] “an authentication
`module configured to receive the password from the user”
`
`• Veneklase’s “pager 420” is off-the-shelf: it only needs to be capable of receiving a
`message and displaying the message to be ready for use in Veneklase’s system
`
`• Petitioner provides no evidence that a user could simply acquire an off-the-shelf
`pager, in 1996, and immediately start using Jonsson’s system without heavy hardware
`and/or software customization
`
`13
`
`PO Resp., p. 30-31
`Sur-Reply, pp. 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Jonsson, 7:24-31.
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.6] “wherein the
`authentication module activates access to the account in response to the
`password and deactivates the account within a predetermined amount of time
`after activating the account”
`
`• Claimed “authentication module” activates access
`to the account in response to creation of the
`password.
`
`• Veneklase’s modified system granting access when
`received response code matches expected response
`code is not claimed “activates access.”
`
`’658 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`14
`
`PO Resp., pp. 32-38
` Sur-Reply, pp. 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.6] “wherein the
`authentication module activates access to the account in response to the
`password and deactivates the account within a predetermined amount of time
`after activating the account”
`• Claimed “activates access” starts a “predetermined
`amount of time.” The “authentication module”
`deactivates the account upon expiration of the
`“predetermined amount of time.”
`
`• The time in Veneklase’s modified system between
`receipt of challenge code and sending back of response
`code is not claimed “predetermined amount of time.”
`
`’658 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`15
`
`PO Resp., pp. 32-38
` Sur-Reply, pp. 10-13, 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited Art Kew
`
`16
`
`PO Resp., pp. 38-40, 43-47
`Sur-Reply, pp. 13-19
`
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.3] “. . . wherein the token
`is not known to the user . . .”
`
`• Petitioner: a “POSITA would have
`understood that the token would
`eventually need to be known to the user.”
`Pet., p. 10
`
`• But there is no evidence that Kew’s
`“Code A” is “eventually . . . known to
`the user.” Kew’s “Code A” cannot be the
`claimed “token.”
`
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`17
`
`PO Resp., pp. 46-47
`Sur-Reply, p. 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.3] “create a new password
`based at least upon a token and a passcode . . . known to the user”
`
`• Kew’s “identity code” is an encryption
`key.
`
`• No evidence that Kew’s “identity code” is
`“known to the user.”
`
`• Kew’s “identity code” cannot be the
`claimed “passcode.”
`
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`18
`
`PO Resp., pp. 43-46
`Sur-Reply, pp. 14-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.3] “create a new password
`based at least upon a token and a passcode . . . known to the user”
`
`• Petitioner concedes that the claimed “token”
`and the claimed “passcode” are combined to
`create the claimed “password”
`
`• “[U]ntil the passcode and token are
`combined, there is no password.” U.S.
`District Court (E.D. Tex)
`
`• Kew’s “user identification code” is never
`combined with Kew’s “Code A” (Petitioner-
`identified “token”) and cannot be the
`claimed “passcode.”
`
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`PO Resp., pp. 43-46
`Sur-Reply, pp. 16-17
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.6] “wherein the
`authentication module activates access to the account in response to the
`password and deactivates the account within a predetermined amount of time
`after activating the account”
`
`• Claimed “authentication module” activates access
`to the account in response to creation of the
`password.
`
`• Kew’s system granting access when “Code B”
`matches “Code C” is not claimed “activates
`access.”
`
`’658 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`20
`
`PO Resp., pp. 47-54
` Sur-Reply, pp. 19-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.6] “wherein the
`authentication module activates access to the account in response to the
`password and deactivates the account within a predetermined amount of time
`after activating the account”
`• Claimed “activates access” starts a “predetermined
`amount of time.” The “authentication module”
`deactivates the account upon expiration of the
`“predetermined amount of time.”
`
`• In contrast, Kew’s “predetermined length of time”
`starts when “receiver unit” starts displaying “Code C”
`
`• Kew’s security server (Petitioner-identified
`“authentication module”) has no way of knowing when
`Kew’s “predetermined length of time” ends and thus no
`way of knowing when to deactivate account.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’658 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`21
`
`PO Resp., pp. 47-54
` Sur-Reply, pp. 19-23
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [5.6] “wherein the
`authentication module activates access to the account in response to the
`password and deactivates the account within a predetermined amount of time
`after activating the account”
`• Claimed “activates access” starts a “predetermined
`amount of time.” The “authentication module”
`deactivates the account upon expiration of the
`“predetermined amount of time.”
`
`• In contrast, Kew’s “predetermined period” starts when
`“receiver unit” is activated
`
`• Kew’s security server (Petitioner-identified
`“authentication module”) has no way of knowing when
`“predetermined period” ends and thus no way of
`knowing when to deactivate account.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’658 Patent, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`22
`
`PO Resp., pp. 47-54
` Sur-Reply, pp. 19-23
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [1.2] “receiving a request
`from the user for a token via the personal communication device, over the
`second network”
`• Petitioner’s modification changes Kew’s principle of operation
`• No evidence Kew’s “receiver unit” can transmit anything
`A F T E R M O D I F I C AT I O N
`B E F O R E M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`PO Resp., pp. 55-59
`Sur-Reply, pp. 24-25
`
`23
`
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Cited art does not render obvious claim element [1.2] “receiving a request
`from the user for a token via the personal communication device, over the
`second network”
`• Proposed combination requires transmitting “user identification code” twice, from
`two separate devices, for single session: risk of interception increased
`A F T E R M O D I F I C AT I O N
`
`24
`
`PO Resp., pp. 55-59
`Sur-Reply, pp. 24-25
`
`Kew, Fig. 1 (excerpted and annotated).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`Thank you.
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 2009
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
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
