Spanakos v. Aronson

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mark J. Spanakos (Florida)
  • Defendant: Alan Aronson, Secure Start USA, LLC, Auto Secure USA Inc., and Auto Secure Inc. (all Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MESA & PEPIN, LLC
• Case Identification: 9:17-cv-80965, S.D. Fla., 08/21/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants reside, conduct business, and the acts giving rise to the lawsuit occurred within the Southern District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' biometric vehicle security systems infringe a patent related to using subdermal finger-based patterns for authorization.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle anti-theft systems that use biometric identifiers, specifically the unique structure of a finger's subdermal layer, to grant or deny operation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint describes a contentious history preceding this litigation, centered on the ownership of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff alleges he acquired title to the patent via a state court judgment foreclosing on a security interest. The complaint further alleges that Defendants were aware of this litigation, filed fraudulent patent assignments with the USPTO, and ignored cease and desist letters from the Plaintiff after he perfected his title.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,927,668 - Print Access Security System

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional vehicle security, including keys and keyless entry systems, is vulnerable because keys can be copied and frequency codes can be captured (U.S. Patent No. 6,927,668, col. 1:11-62). It also identifies a problem with prior art biometric scanners: they rely on surface fingerprints, which are "highly susceptible to errors caused by extraneous matter such as dirt, grease, paint, calluses, etc." (’668 Patent, col. 2:23-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "stand alone security system" hard-wired into a vehicle's electrical system that uses a sensor to create a "statistical pattern" based on the "finger's unique underlying structure" (’668 Patent, col. 1:59-62; col. 6:59-62). A "drive ring" on the sensor couples a signal into the "finger's living subdermal layer," and an "antennae array" receives the altered signal to generate the pattern, which is then compared to a stored, authorized template to enable vehicle operation (’668 Patent, col. 6:55-62).
• Technical Importance: The system claims to provide more reliable and secure identification by analyzing the subdermal structure of a finger, which is less affected by surface contaminants than traditional fingerprint ridges (’668 Patent, col. 6:12-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’668 Patent are asserted. The following analysis focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A print access security system for authorization to operate a vehicle,
  • Comprising a "fingerprint enrollment and verification module" (FEVM) electrically connected to the vehicle,
  • The FEVM has an opening to accept a finger,
  • A sensor is mounted in the opening to receive a finger and generate a "statistical pattern of the structure of the finger,"
  • The sensor includes a chip with an integrated circuit and a transparent coating,
  • The chip has a matrix containing an "antennae array" surrounded by a "drive ring,"
  • The drive ring is "adapted to transmit an electrical signal through the subdermal tissue of said finger,"
  • Placing a finger on the coating "alters said electrical signal which is received by said antennae array."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "biometric security" systems and services offered for sale by the Defendants (collectively, "Aronson Companies") (Compl. ¶¶22, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products function by having a driver place a finger on a sensor before starting the vehicle (Compl. ¶24). The system then "recognizes the blood vessels underneath the fingertip of a user" to authenticate them (Compl. ¶24). If the "unique pattern of subcutaneous blood vessels" is recognized as an authorized user, the vehicle will start; otherwise, the ignition remains deactivated (Compl. ¶24).
• The complaint asserts that this technology is distinct from "biometric fingerprint technology" because it "actually analyzes the pattern of blood vessels and not the fingerprints of the person" (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The following chart maps the narrative allegations onto representative claim 1 of the ’668 Patent.

'668 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patent claims a "fingerprint enrollment and verification module," yet the complaint alleges the accused product "analyzes the pattern of blood vessels and not the fingerprints of the person" (Compl. ¶24). This raises the question of whether a device that explicitly avoids surface fingerprint analysis can fall within the scope of claims reciting a "fingerprint" module.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product recognizes "subcutaneous blood vessels" but provides no detail on the mechanism used. A central question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the accused product uses the specific "drive ring" and "antennae array" structure required by claim 1 to generate a "statistical pattern," as opposed to another method like optical or infrared imaging.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"fingerprint enrollment and verification module"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of claim 1. Its construction is critical because the complaint distinguishes the accused technology (subcutaneous blood vessel analysis) from conventional fingerprinting. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if there is a definitional mismatch between the claim language and the accused product's function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that the generated template "is not a picture or representation of the actual grooves and ridges of a fingerprint" and that the system does not require a "pristine fingerprint" to function (’668 Patent, col. 6:8-13). This language may support an interpretation where "fingerprint" is a shorthand for any finger-based biometric identification, not just one based on surface ridges.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled Print Access Security System, and the term "fingerprint" is used extensively throughout the abstract, specification, and claims. A party could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "fingerprint" refers to the surface ridge patterns, and the patentee is bound by this conventional meaning despite the specification's discussion of subdermal layers.

"statistical pattern of the structure of the finger"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the sensor and is the data used for verification. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused device's "pattern of subcutaneous blood vessels" is a "statistical pattern" as claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the pattern as reflecting the "finger's unique underlying structure" (’668 Patent, col. 6:61-62). This could be argued to encompass any digital representation of a unique finger characteristic, including a map of blood vessels.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the creation of this pattern to a specific mechanism: a "drive ring" that "couples a small signal onto the finger's living subdermal layer" which is then read by an "antennae array" (’668 Patent, col. 6:55-62). An opposing party may argue that a "statistical pattern" is limited to a pattern generated by this specific RF-based method and would not cover patterns generated by other means, such as optical imaging.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶22, 40) but does not plead specific underlying facts, such as the provision of instructions to end-users or the sale of a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶32). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants had knowledge of the patent due to prior state court litigation over its ownership (Compl. ¶26), received and ignored cease and desist letters from the Plaintiff on September 11, 2015 (Compl. ¶28), and subsequently attempted to sell the "rights" to the patent to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶35).

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

• A central issue will be the history of ownership and willfulness. Given the complaint's detailed account of a state court judgment transferring the patent to the Plaintiff and subsequent cease and desist letters, a key focus will be on whether Defendants' continued activities constitute willful infringement, potentially leading to enhanced damages.
• The case will also turn on a question of technical proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused biometric systems, alleged to read "subcutaneous blood vessels," operate using the specific claimed structure of a "drive ring" and "antennae array" that generates a "statistical pattern" from a signal passed through "subdermal tissue"?
• Finally, a core legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "fingerprint... module," as used in the claims, be construed to cover a system that the complaint itself asserts "analyzes the pattern of blood vessels and not the fingerprints of the person"? The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts a broad, functional definition or a narrower one tied to the common meaning of "fingerprint."