DCT

2:23-cv-00273

Ancora Tech Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-10045, C.D. Cal., 12/29/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Apple, Inc. engages in substantial and continuous business in the district, including the sale of the accused infringing products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iOS-based products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch, infringe a patent related to methods for restricting software operation to authorized computers.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is a form of digital rights management (DRM) that ties software execution to a specific hardware device using cryptographic keys stored in the computer's firmware.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941, survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of all claims. The complaint also alleges that Apple had knowledge of the patent as early as December 11, 2002, which forms the basis for a willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-05-21 '941 Patent Priority Date
2002-06-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Issues
2002-12-11 Alleged date of Apple's first knowledge of the '941 Patent
2010-06-01 Reexamination Certificate for '941 Patent Issues
2010-12-29 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 - "Method Of Restricting Software Operation Within A License Limitation", Issued June 25, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "grand proliferation of illegally copied software" and the shortcomings of existing software and hardware protection schemes. ('941 Patent, col. 1:13-16). It notes that software-based protections written to a hard disk are "very vulnerable to attack" by hackers, while hardware dongles are "expensive, inconvenient, and not particularly suitable" for software distributed over the internet. ('941 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to tie a software program's license to the specific computer it is intended to run on by using the computer's Basic Input/Output System (BIOS). A unique, unmodifiable key is stored in the read-only memory (ROM) portion of the BIOS during manufacture. ('941 Patent, col. 2:42-51). To authorize a program, a corresponding license record is encrypted with this unique key and stored in an erasable, non-volatile part of the BIOS (e.g., an E²PROM). ('941 Patent, col. 2:5-9, 62-67). When the program is launched, a verifier uses the key from the BIOS ROM to encrypt the program's license data and compares it to the stored encrypted record; a match permits the program to run, while a mismatch results in restricted operation. ('941 Patent, col. 2:10-26; FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: By embedding the core security components—the unique key and the verification process—into the computer's low-level firmware, the invention created a security mechanism that was substantially more difficult to tamper with than protections residing on a standard hard drive. ('941 Patent, col. 3:5-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts. Based on the allegations, the following independent claim is representative of the asserted technology:

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A method of restricting software operation within a license for use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method comprising the steps of:
    • selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
    • using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data that includes at least one license record,
    • verifying the program using at least the verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
    • acting on the program according to the verification.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are certain Apple devices "that include an operating system, including but not limited to, the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products that include iOS." (Compl. ¶¶9, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Apple's devices, through the iOS operating system, perform a process that "restricts software operation." (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific mechanisms within iOS (such as code signing, app verification, or FairPlay DRM) that are alleged to infringe. The allegations are general, stating that Apple has "made, used, offered for sale, imported and sold" the accused products in the United States. (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. The following table summarizes the likely infringement theory for the representative independent claim based on the general allegations in the complaint.

'941 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of restricting software operation...for use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer... The complaint alleges that the accused iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch are computing devices that restrict software operation. ¶9, 15 col. 5:59-62
selecting a program residing in the volatile memory, The complaint alleges that the accused devices include the iOS operating system, which is capable of selecting and running software programs. ¶9, 15 col. 6:62-63
using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data that includes at least one license record, The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It makes no specific allegations regarding an "agent" or a "verification structure" located in a "BIOS" of the accused devices. N/A col. 6:64-67
verifying the program using at least the verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It does not describe how the accused devices allegedly "verify" a program using a structure from a "BIOS." N/A col. 7:1-4
acting on the program according to the verification. The complaint alleges that Apple "restricts software operation," which suggests an action is taken based on a verification. ¶9 col. 7:5-6

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "BIOS." The '941 patent describes a conventional PC BIOS architecture. ('941 Patent, col. 2:45-51). A question for the court will be whether the boot firmware and security architecture of Apple's ARM-based mobile devices, which differ significantly from a traditional PC BIOS, fall within the scope of this claim term.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations linking the operation of iOS to the claimed method steps. A key question will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that Apple's devices use an "agent" to set up a "verification structure" and then "verify" programs against it in the specific manner claimed by the patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "BIOS"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent repeatedly anchors its invention in the "BIOS" of a "conventional computer." ('941 Patent, col. 2:45-46). Defendant will likely argue that its mobile devices do not contain a "BIOS" as the term was understood at the time of the invention, thus placing the accused products outside the claim scope.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent also defines a "computer" broadly as a "digital data processor," which could support an argument that "BIOS" should be interpreted functionally to cover any equivalent firmware that initializes hardware at startup. ('941 Patent, col. 3:21-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to a BIOS with a "ROM section" and an "E²PROM section." ('941 Patent, col. 4:56-59). This suggests a specific hardware architecture common to PCs in the late 1990s and could support a narrower construction that excludes the integrated firmware and flash memory architecture of modern mobile devices.

The Term: "pseudo-unique key"

  • Context and Importance: The entire security model of the patent relies on a "pseudo-unique key" stored in a non-modifiable memory area. ('941 Patent, col. 2:45-51). To prove infringement, Plaintiff must identify a corresponding key in Apple's hardware and show it meets the claim requirements.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the key's function as being "sufficient to uniquely differentiate" one memory from another and notes it may be a "random bit string." ('941 Patent, col. 5:20-22; col. 4:14-15). This may support a broad, functional definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the key was "embedded at the ROM section... during manufacture" and is "practically invariable." ('941 Patent, col. 2:45-49). This language could be used to argue that the term requires a key physically fused or written into a specific type of memory (ROM), as opposed to a key that is generated or stored differently in modern secure hardware.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that Apple induces and contributes to infringement. (Compl. ¶9). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for these claims, such as referencing user manuals or developer documents that instruct users to perform infringing acts.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that "Apple had knowledge of the '941 patent at least as early as December 11, 2002." (Compl. ¶11). This allegation of specific, pre-suit knowledge serves as the primary basis for the claim of willful, wanton, and deliberate infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the term "BIOS", as described in a patent grounded in the PC architecture of the late 1990s, be construed to read on the modern, integrated System-on-a-Chip and secure boot firmware found in the accused Apple mobile devices?
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: given the complaint's lack of technical detail, can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence through discovery to show that Apple's sophisticated software DRM and code-signing processes perform the specific, sequential steps of the method claimed in the '941 patent?
  • A central factual dispute for willfulness will be the basis of knowledge: the case may turn on what specific event or communication occurred on or around December 11, 2002, that would have given Apple the pre-suit notice of the '941 patent alleged in the complaint.