Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`IDENITY SECURITY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00058-LY
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff Identity Security LLC (“Identity Security” or “Plaintiff”) files this First Amended
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or
`
`“Defendant”), alleging as follows:
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Identity Security LLC is a Texas limited liability company having its
`
`principal place of business at 1310 Welch Street, Unit A, Houston, Texas 77006.
`
`2.
`
`Identity Security is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,020,008, U.S. Patent No. 8,489,895, and U.S. Patent No. 9,507,948 (collectively, the “Patents-
`
`in-Suit”).
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. is a California corporation with a principal place of business
`
`at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple can be served through its registered
`
`agent, CT Corporation System, 818 W. Seventh Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, California, 90017.
`
`Apple admitted this allegation in its Answer. D.I. 18 at ¶4.
`
`4.
`
`Apple is registered to do business in Texas and has regular and established places
`
`of business in this District, including at 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas, 2901 S. Capital of Texas
`
`Hwy., Austin, Texas,12535 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas, and 5501 West Parmer Lane, Austin,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 2 of 19
`
`Texas. Apple employs thousands of people at these locations in Texas. Upon information and
`
`belief, work done at these Apple locations in Texas includes work related to device security and
`
`the Secure Enclave. Apple admitted these allegations in its Answer. D.I. 18 at ¶4.
`
`5.
`
`Apple has placed or contributed to placing infringing products, including iPhones,
`
`iPads, Apple Watches, and MacBook computers, into the stream of commerce via an established
`
`distribution channel knowing or understanding that such products would be sold and used in the
`
`United States, including in the Western District of Texas.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Apple also has derived substantial revenues from
`
`infringing acts in the Western District of Texas, including from the sale and use of infringing
`
`products, including iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and MacBook computers.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Apple admitted in its Answer that this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction. D.I. 18 at ¶7.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Apple because Apple conducts
`
`business in the State of Texas and in this District. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from Apple’s
`
`contacts with and activities in the State of Texas and in this District. Upon information and belief,
`
`Apple has committed acts of infringement within the State of Texas and within this District by
`
`directly and/or indirectly using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe one or
`
`more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Apple admitted in its Answer that this Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Apple for purposes of this action. D.I. 18 at ¶8.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 3 of 19
`
`9.
`
`Defendant has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action and has
`
`established sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Texas such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c), and 1400(b) because
`
`(1) Defendant has done and continues to do business in this District, (2) Defendant has a regular
`
`and established place of business in this District, and (3) Defendant has committed acts of patent
`
`infringement in this District by using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe
`
`one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. In particular, Apple maintains regular and established
`
`places of business in this District, including, at 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas, 2901 S. Capital of
`
`Texas Hwy., Austin, Texas, 12535 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas, and 5501 West Parmer Lane,
`
`Austin, Texas. Apples carries out its business from these physical locations. Apple admitted in its
`
`Answer that it has offices located at 12535 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas and 5501 West Parmer
`
`Lane, Austin, Texas and that it has stores located at 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas and 2901 S.
`
`Capital of Texas Hwy, Austin, Texas. D.I. 18 at ¶10.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`11.
`
`Identity Security is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497 (“the ’497 Patent”)
`
`titled “Digital Identity Device,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. The U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office duly issued the ’497 Patent on February 17, 2009. The ’497 Patent
`
`is valid and enforceable.
`
`12.
`
`Identity Security is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,020,008 (“the ’008 Patent”),
`
`titled “Microprocessor Identity Device,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly issued the ’008 Patent on September 13, 2011. The
`
`’008 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 4 of 19
`
`13.
`
`Identity Security is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,489,895 (“the ’895 Patent”),
`
`titled “Microprocessor Identity Device,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly issued the ’895 Patent on July 16, 2013. The ’895
`
`Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`14.
`
`Identity Security is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,507,948 (“the ’948 Patent”),
`
`titled “Digital Identity Device,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4. The U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office duly issued the ’948 Patent on November 29, 2016. The ’948 Patent
`
`is valid and enforceable.
`
`Background
`
`15.
`
`The claims of the Patents-in-Suit disclose a novel and unconventional means of
`
`improving the privacy and security of digital information on a digital device using a unique
`
`microprocessor identity device, which will be used to create a unique digital identity for the user.
`
`The combination of the unique microprocessor identity and digital identity for the user can be used
`
`to secure communications between parties and grant various levels of permission, as well as
`
`authenticate identities of the users. See, e.g., Exhibit 1 at 1:13-17.
`
`16.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’497 Patent is representative. Claim 1 states:
`
`1. A digital identity device, comprising:
`
` a
`
` microprocessor comprising a microprocessor identity that uniquely identifies the
`microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor comprises an on-die Programmable Read-
`Only Memory (PROM) and the microprocessor identity is etched into the PROM;
`
`digital identity data, wherein the digital identity data identifies an owner of the digital
`identity device, wherein the digital identity data comprises a name of the owner;
`
` a
`
` memory configured to store at least the digital identity data, wherein the microprocessor
`identity is an alpha-numeric value, and
`
`wherein the digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor identity by encrypting the
`digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`Under claim 1 of the ’497 Patent, the microprocessor is uniquely identified using an alpha-
`
`numeric value that is etched, or programmed, into a programmable read-only memory or PROM.
`
`Further, the digital identity data corresponding to the user or owner is encrypted using an algorithm
`
`that uses the unique microprocessor identity. In other words, the unique microprocessor identity
`
`can be used as a cipher to protect the owner’s identity and authenticate the user, thereby permitting
`
`authorized used of the device.
`
`17.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’008 Patent states:
`
`1. A microprocessor identity device, comprising:
`
`
`a microprocessor;
`
`microprocessor identity information that uniquely identifies the microprocessor
`identity device;
`
`digital identity data that identifies an owner of the microprocessor identity device;
`and
`
` a
`
` memory operatively connected to the microprocessor and configured to store the
`digital identity data and the microprocessor identity information,
`
`wherein the digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor identity device by
`encoding, using the microprocessor, the digital identity data using an algorithm that
`uses the microprocessor identity information.
`
`
`Claim 5 of the ’895 Patent states:
`
`5. A microprocessor identity device, comprising:
`
`
`a microprocessor;
`
`microprocessor identity information that uniquely identifies the microprocessor
`identity device;
`
`and digital identity data that identifies an owner of the microprocessor identity
`device, the digital identity data being bound to the microprocessor identity device,
`wherein the digital identity data includes a password provided by the owner, and
`wherein the digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor identity device using
`an encryption algorithm and the microprocessor identity information.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’948 Patent discloses a similar invention tied to biometric information. The claim
`
`states:
`
`1. A digital identity device comprising:
`
` a
`
` microprocessor, wherein microprocessor identity information uniquely identifies the
`microprocessor;
`
`digital identity data that identifies an owner of the digital identity device,
`
`wherein the digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor by encrypting, using
`the microprocessor, the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the
`microprocessor identity information,
`
`wherein the microprocessor reads the digital identity data,
`
`wherein the digital identity data comprises an owner's biometric information, and
`
`wherein the owner's biometric information comprises a fingerprint.
`
`18.
`
`Unique identification of the microprocessor and then creating a unique digital
`
`identity wherein the digital identity is bound to the microprocessor using encryption, among other
`
`aspects of the invention, provides a novel approach to securing digital transactions. The
`
`microprocessor identity is unique to that device and distinguishes that device from others like it in
`
`the world. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at 3: 63-65.
`
`19.
`
`Apple infringes at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 12 of the ’497 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 6,
`
`7, and 9 of the ’008 Patent, claim 5 of the ’895 Patent, and claim 1 of the ’948 Patent by using,
`
`making, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that incorporate
`
`Apple’s Secure Enclave. Attached as Exhibits 5-8 are claim charts showing infringement by
`
`Apple’s Secure Enclave processor of at least one claim from each of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`20.
`
` “The Secure Enclave is a system on chip (SoC) that is included on all recent iPhone,
`
`iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod devices, and on a Mac with Apple silicon as well as those
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 7 of 19
`
`with the Apple T2 Security Chip. … The Secure Enclave also provides the foundation for the secure
`
`generation and storage of the keys necessary for encrypting data at rest, and it protects and evaluates the
`
`biometric data for Touch ID and Face ID.” See https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-
`
`security-overview-secf020d1074/1/web/1. Apple describes the Secure Enclave as “a hardware-based
`
`key manager that’s isolated from the main processor to provide an extra layer of security.” See
`
`https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/certificate_key_and_trust_services/keys/storing_k
`
`eys_in_the_secure_enclave. Apple described the benefits of using the Secure Enclave to developers:
`
`“When you store a private key in the Secure Enclave, you never actually handle the key, making it
`
`difficult for the key to become compromised. Instead, you instruct the Secure Enclave to create the key,
`
`securely store it, and perform operations with it. You receive only the output of these operations, such as
`
`encrypted data or a cryptographic signature verification outcome.” Id.
`
`21.
`
`The Secure Enclave was introduced as part of the Apple A7 processor in the iPhone 5S
`
`in September 2013. Since then, several Apple Products have used the Secure Enclave, namely:
`
`
`
`
`
`iPhone 5s and later
`
`iPad models with A7 SoC or later
`
` MacBook Pro computers with TouchBar (2016, 2017) that contain the Apple T1 Chip
`
`
`
`Intel-based Mac computers that contain the Apple T2 Security Chip
`
` Mac computers with Apple silicon
`
` Apple TV HD or later
`
` All Apple Watch models
`
` HomePod and HomePod mini
`
` Apple Magic Keyboard with Touch ID
`
` Any other Apple product that uses or relies on the Secure Enclave processor
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 8 of 19
`
`https://support.apple.com/guide/security/secure-enclave-sec59b0b31ff/web.
`
`(“the
`
`Infringing
`
`Products”). Apple leverages the Secure Enclave in several applications and features. For example,
`
`the Secure Enclave plays a role in managing the authentication process and enabling payment
`
`transaction
`
`to proceed
`
`in Apple Pay. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/apple-pay-
`
`component-security-sec2561eb018/1/web/1. With Apple’s Touch ID security:
`
`When the fingerprint sensor detects the touch of a finger, it triggers the advanced
`imaging array to scan the finger and sends the scan to the Secure Enclave. The
`channel used to secure this connection varies, depending on whether the Touch
`ID sensor is built into the device with the Secure Enclave or is located in a
`separate peripheral.
`
`***
`
`Communication between the processor and the Touch ID sensor takes place over a
`serial peripheral interface bus. The processor forwards the data to the Secure
`Enclave but can’t read it. It’s encrypted and authenticated with a session key that’s
`negotiated using a shared key provisioned for each Touch ID sensor and its
`corresponding Secure Enclave at the factory.
`
`https://support.apple.com/guide/security/touch-id-and-face-id-security-sec067eb0c9e/1/web/1. In
`
`its Answer, Apple admitted that the that Secure Enclave was introduced in the Apple A7 System-
`
`On-A-Chip (“SOC”) in September 2013. D.I. 18 at ¶21. Apple further admitted that Secure
`
`Enclave hardware is included in: iPhone 5S or later, iPad Air or later, MacBook Pro computers
`
`with Touch Bar (2016 and 2017) that contain the Apple T1 Chip, Intel-based Mac computers that
`
`contain the Apple T2 Security Chip, Mac computers with Apple silicon, Apple TV HD or later,
`
`Apple Watch Series 1 or later, HomePod, and HomePod mini. Id.
`
`22.
`
`Similarly, Face ID data is sent to the Secure Enclave. “A portion of the Secure Neural
`
`Engine—protected within the Secure Enclave—transforms this data into a mathematical representation
`
`and compares that representation to the enrolled facial data.” Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 9 of 19
`
`23.
`
`Security of computers and mobile devices is paramount. As mobile devices and
`
`computers (including smart watches and tablets) have come to dominate our daily lives, the need
`
`to keep them secure becomes ever more critical. “Mobile security involves protecting portable
`
`devices such as laptops, tablets, smart watches, and phones against cyber threats. Today, the need
`
`for protection is more critical because we store a lot of sensitive data on these devices. Studies
`
`show that mobile banking is one of the top three most used apps by Americans. The case is similar
`
`in other countries especially in the developing and emerging markets. Most individuals and small
`
`businesses also use their smartphones and laptops to login into their emails and social media pages.
`
`With each day that passes, we are adding some data to our digital footprints through our mobile
`
`devices,
`
`making
`
`it
`
`easy
`
`for
`
`hackers
`
`to
`
`target
`
`us.”
`
`See
`
`https://www.whatmobile.net/Opinion/article/mobile-security-important. In its Answer, Apple
`
`admitted that that the security of computers and mobile devices is important. D.I. 18 at ¶23.
`
`24.
`
`As another reporter put it, “Having a mobile phone has become a large part of our
`
`everyday life. Many underestimate the value a phone truly holds when it comes to the information
`
`it stores. Your phone has your entire life on it.” See https://blog.rsisecurity.com/importance-of-
`
`mobile-security/. This is not an exaggeration. In addition to email and social media accounts,
`
`mobile phones and computers contain sensitive personal and financial information as well as
`
`applications that permit users to access their bank accounts, credit card accounts, and mobile
`
`payment options. That data must be protected.
`
`25.
`
`The claimed invention makes it more difficult for hackers to obtain sensitive
`
`information by, among other benefits, providing protection that is linked to the device’s hardware,
`
`e.g., the processor, which is given its own unique identifier. From there, the unique identifier can
`
`be used as a key against which other identifiers can be checked, encrypted, or otherwise protected.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 10 of 19
`
`Count One: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the allegations made in the
`
`26.
`
`preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`27.
`
`Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 12 of the ’497 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or
`
`offering for sale the Infringing Products in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Likewise, Defendant Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 12 of the ’497 Patent by importing the Infringing
`
`Products into the United States.
`
`28.
`
`An example of Apple’s infringement by the Secure Enclave is found in Exhibit 5
`
`to this Complaint. By way of example, the digital identity devices, i.e., the Infringing Products,
`
`each comprise a microprocessor, the Secure Enclave, comprising a microprocessor identity that
`
`uniquely identifies the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor comprises an on-die
`
`Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM) and the microprocessor identity is etched into the
`
`PROM. The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor and is provisioned during fabrication with its own
`
`unique ID, which is an AES-256 bit key, i.e., an alpha-numeric value, fused to the coprocessor.
`
`The Infringing Products also each comprise digital identity data in the form of passcode, Touch
`
`ID, or Face ID data. Such data identify the owner of the device, including the name of the owner,
`
`which can be the name of an individual, the name of a company or organization, or other
`
`identifying data. The digital identity data is stored in memory in or only available to the Secure
`
`Enclave and is bound to the Secure Enclave’s unique ID by encrypting the data with a key
`
`entangled with the unique ID. Moreover, each of the Infringing Products includes an interface
`
`configured to enable it to communicate with external devices, and that interface may be an
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 11 of 19
`
`input/output port. The foregoing description is based on publicly available information and a
`
`reasonable investigation of the structure and operation of the Infringing Products. Plaintiff reserves
`
`the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the
`
`Infringing Products that it obtains during discovery.
`
`29.
`
`Apple has had knowledge of the ’497 Patent at least as of the date of the Original
`
`Complaint. Since then, Apple has induced infringement of the ’497 Patent by actively encouraging
`
`third parties to infringe the asserted claims of the ’497 Patent. Apple has repeatedly extolled the
`
`benefits of its security infrastructure across its product line from iPhones to MacBooks to Apple
`
`Watches, including and especially the benefits of the Secure Enclave. Despite knowledge that the
`
`Secure Enclave infringes the claims of the ’497 Patent, Apple intentionally continued to sell and
`
`offer for sale Infringing Products with the Secure Enclave functionality activated by default.
`
`Moreover, by its design of the Infringing Products, Apple encourages third parties to use FaceID,
`
`TouchID, password protections, and other functionality making use of the Secure Enclave when
`
`using the Infringing Products. In that sense, Apple has taken certain affirmative acts—e.g., selling,
`
`offering for sale, importing the Infringing Products—to bring out the commission by others of acts
`
`of infringement, i.e., use of the Secure Enclave or similar functionality. Apple undertook these
`
`affirmative acts with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’497
`
`Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Apple’s direct and indirect infringement has damaged Plaintiff in an amount yet to
`
`be determined, but at no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`Count Two: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,020,008
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the allegations made in the
`
`31.
`
`preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 12 of 19
`
`32.
`
`Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 of the ’008 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or
`
`offering for sale the Infringing Products in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Likewise, Defendant Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 of the ’008 Patent by importing the
`
`Infringing Products into the United States.
`
`33.
`
`An example of Apple’s infringement by the Secure Enclave is found in Exhibit 6
`
`to this Complaint. By way of example, the Infringing Products contain a microprocessor identity
`
`device, the Secure Enclave, that comprise a microprocessor wherein microprocessor identity
`
`information uniquely identifies the microprocessor identity device. The Secure Enclave is a
`
`coprocessor and is provisioned during fabrication with its own unique ID, which is an AES-256
`
`bit key, i.e., an alpha-numeric value. The Infringing Products also each comprise digital identity
`
`data in the form of passcode, Touch ID, or Face ID data that identify the owner of the device,
`
`including the name of the owner, which can be the name of an individual, the name of a company
`
`or organization, or other identifying data. The Secure Enclave also includes a memory operatively
`
`connected to the microprocessor that stores the digital identity data and the microprocessor identity
`
`information, wherein the digital identity data are bound to the microprocessor identity device by
`
`encoding, using the microprocessor, the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the
`
`microprocessor identity information. The digital identity data are bound to the Secure Enclave’s
`
`unique ID by encrypting the data with a key entangled with the unique ID. Moreover, each of the
`
`Infringing Products includes an interface configured to enable it to communicate with external
`
`devices, and that interface may be an input/output port. The foregoing description is based on
`
`publicly available information and a reasonable investigation of the structure and operation of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 13 of 19
`
`Infringing Products. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example,
`
`on the basis of information about the Infringing Products that it obtains during discovery.
`
`34.
`
`Apple has had knowledge of the ’008 Patent at least as of the date of the Original
`
`Complaint. Since then, Apple has induced infringement of the ’008 Patent by actively encouraging
`
`third parties to infringe the asserted claims of the ’008 Patent. Apple has repeatedly extolled the
`
`benefits of its security infrastructure across its product line from iPhones to MacBooks to Apple
`
`Watches, including and especially the benefits of the Secure Enclave. Despite knowledge that the
`
`Secure Enclave infringes the claims of the ’008 Patent, Apple intentionally continued to sell and
`
`offer for sale Infringing Products with the Secure Enclave functionality activated by default.
`
`Moreover, by its design of the Infringing Products, Apple encourages third parties to use FaceID,
`
`TouchID, password protections, and other functionality making use of the Secure Enclave when
`
`using the Infringing Products. In that sense, Apple has taken certain affirmative acts—e.g., selling,
`
`offering for sale, importing the Infringing Products—to bring out the commission by others of acts
`
`of infringement, i.e., use of the Secure Enclave or similar functionality. Apple undertook these
`
`affirmative acts with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’008
`
`Patent.
`
`35.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement has damaged Plaintiff in an amount yet to be
`
`determined, but at no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`Count Three: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,489,895
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the allegations made in the
`
`36.
`
`preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`37.
`
`Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least claim 5 of the ’895 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 14 of 19
`
`the Infringing Products in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Likewise,
`
`Defendant Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’895 Patent by importing the Infringing Products into the United
`
`States.
`
`38.
`
`An example of Apple’s infringement by the Secure Enclave is found in Exhibit 7
`
`to this Complaint. By way of example, the Infringing Products contain a microprocessor identity
`
`device, the Secure Enclave, that comprise a microprocessor wherein microprocessor identity
`
`information uniquely identifies the microprocessor identity device. The Secure Enclave is a
`
`coprocessor and is provisioned during fabrication with its own unique ID, which is an AES-256
`
`bit key, i.e., an alpha-numeric value. The Infringing Products also each comprise digital identity
`
`data in the form of passcode, Touch ID, or Face ID data that identify the owner of the device,
`
`including the name of the owner, which can be the name of an individual, the name of a company
`
`or organization, or other identifying data. The passcode, Touch ID, and Face ID can be viewed as
`
`passwords provided by the owner. The Secure Enclave also includes a memory operatively
`
`connected to the microprocessor that stores the digital identity data and the microprocessor identity
`
`information, wherein the digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor identity device by
`
`encoding, using the microprocessor, the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the
`
`microprocessor identity information. The foregoing description is based on publicly available
`
`information and a reasonable investigation of the structure and operation of the Infringing
`
`Products. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis
`
`of information about the Infringing Products that it obtains during discovery.
`
`39.
`
`Apple has had knowledge of the ’895 Patent at least as of the date of the Original
`
`Complaint. Since then, Apple has induced infringement of the ’895 Patent by actively encouraging
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 15 of 19
`
`third parties to infringe the asserted claims of the ’895 Patent. Apple has repeatedly extolled the
`
`benefits of its security infrastructure across its product line from iPhones to MacBooks to Apple
`
`Watches, including and especially the benefits of the Secure Enclave. Despite knowledge that the
`
`Secure Enclave infringes the claims of the ’895 Patent, Apple intentionally continued to sell and
`
`offer for sale Infringing Products with the Secure Enclave functionality activated by default.
`
`Moreover, by its design of the Infringing Products, Apple encourages third parties to use FaceID,
`
`TouchID, password protections, and other functionality making use of the Secure Enclave when
`
`using the Infringing Products. In that sense, Apple has taken certain affirmative acts—e.g., selling,
`
`offering for sale, importing the Infringing Products—to bring out the commission by others of acts
`
`of infringement, i.e., use of the Secure Enclave or similar functionality. Apple undertook these
`
`affirmative acts with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’895
`
`Patent.
`
`40.
`
`Apple’s direct infringement has damaged Plaintiff in an amount yet to be
`
`determined, but at no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`Count Four: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,507,948
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the allegations made in the
`
`41.
`
`preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’948 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale
`
`the Infringing Products in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Likewise,
`
`Defendant Apple has infringed, and is continuing to infringe, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’948 Patent by importing the Infringing Products into the United
`
`States.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-LY Document 91 Filed 03/17/23 Page 16 of 19
`
`43.
`
`An example of Apple’s infringement by the Secure Enclave is found in Exhibit 8
`
`to this Complaint. By way of example, the digital identity devices, i.e., the Infringing Products,
`
`each comprise a microprocessor, the Secure Enclave, wherein microprocessor identity information
`
`uniquely identifies the microprocessor. The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor and is provisioned
`
`during fabrication with its own unique ID, which is an AES-256 bit key, i.e., an alpha-numeric
`
`value. The Infringing Products also each comprise digital identity data in the form of Touch ID
`
`data that identify the owner of the device, including the name of the owner, which can be the name
`
`of an individual, the name of a company or organization, or other identifying data. The digital
`
`identity data is bound to the Secure Enclave’s unique ID by encrypting the data with a key
`
`entangled with the unique ID. The Secure Enclave reads the digital identity data, which comprises
`
`biometric information, i.e., fingerprint data. The foregoing description is based on publicly
`
`available information and a reasonable investigation of the structure and operation of the Infringing
`
`Products. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis
`
`of information about the Infringing Products that it obtains during discovery.
`
`44.
`
`Apple has had knowledge of the ’948 Patent at least as of the date of the Original
`
`Complaint. Since then, Apple has induced infringement of the ’948 Patent by actively encouraging
`
`third parties to infringe the asserted claims of the ’948 Patent. Apple has repeatedly extolled the
`
`benefits of its security infrastructure across its product line from iPhones to MacBooks to Apple
`
`Watches, including and especially the benefits of the Secure Enclave. Despite knowledge that the
`
`Secure Enclave infringes the claims of the ’948 Patent,