DCT

2:25-cv-02522

Auth Token LLC v. Credit One Bank N A

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02522, D. Nev., 12/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of alleged infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a method for securely personalizing an authentication token, such as a smart card.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns dual-factor authentication systems, which are critical for securing access to sensitive online services, particularly in the financial sector.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a 2002 Great Britain application and is a divisional of a prior U.S. application that issued as a patent. The complaint itself does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-05-10 ’212 Patent Priority Date
2013-02-12 ’212 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,375,212, "Method for personalizing an authentication token," issued February 12, 2013 (’212 Patent).

U.S. Patent No. 8,375,212 - "Method for personalizing an authentication token"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for strong, dual-factor authentication to secure remote access to computer systems, noting that simple password-based systems are vulnerable to attack. It identifies a challenge in deploying physical authentication tokens in a way that is both secure and cost-effective for a mass-market environment. (’212 Patent, col. 1:18-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to securely provision an authentication token (like a smart card) for an end-user. The method involves a one-time "personalization mode" where the token communicates with a trusted personalization device. This device establishes a secure, encrypted channel to the token, sends it an initial secret key and a seed value, and after receiving them, the token permanently leaves personalization mode. This process transforms a generic token into a secure, user-specific device capable of generating one-time passwords for authentication. (’212 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:5-16; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows organizations, such as banks, to leverage existing smart cards already issued to customers (e.g., for credit/debit functions) and add a robust authentication capability without needing to issue a separate, dedicated device. (’212 Patent, col. 3:20-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, instead referencing charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). Claim 1 is the patent's sole independent method claim.
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • An authentication token entering a "personalization mode."
    • A personalization device requesting a serial number from the token.
    • The device encrypting the serial number with a "personalization key" and sending it back to the token.
    • The token decrypting the serial number to validate the personalization key.
    • Establishing an "encrypted session" between the token and device using a "transport key."
    • The device sending an "initial seed value" and an "initial secret key" to the token over the encrypted session.
    • The token storing these values, after which it "can no longer enter the personalization mode."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name any specific accused product, method, or service. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶7, ¶10, ¶12). These charts were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided "Exhibit 2" and does not contain narrative infringement allegations sufficient to construct a claim chart summary (Compl. ¶12-13). Therefore, no analysis of the infringement theory can be conducted based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "authentication token"

    • Context and Importance: The specification consistently describes the token in the context of a physical "smart card" (’212 Patent, col. 1:12; col. 3:13-16). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term can be construed to cover non-physical, software-based authentication methods, which are common in modern banking. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent's scope is limited to the physical embodiments described.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "authentication token" without explicitly limiting it to a "smart card," which could support an argument that the term encompasses any device, physical or virtual, that performs the claimed functions.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract, summary, and detailed description heavily feature the "smart card" as the invention. The background section discusses the benefits and context of smart card technology at length, potentially suggesting the invention is grounded in and limited to that physical medium (’212 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-62; col. 4:57-60).

  • The Term: "personalization mode"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that after the initial setup, the token "can no longer enter the personalization mode." This implies a one-time, irreversible state change. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused system has a distinct setup or provisioning state that is permanently disabled after its first use.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify the precise technical mechanism for preventing re-entry into personalization mode, which could allow the term to cover any software or hardware method that functionally prevents re-provisioning with a new secret key.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a clear three-state system: "Personalisation mode," "Normal mode," and "Locked mode" (’212 Patent, col. 6:5-16). An argument could be made that the accused system must implement this specific state-based architecture, not just a system that is functionally irreversible.

  • The Term: "transport key"

    • Context and Importance: This key is used to establish the "encrypted session" for securely transferring the secret key. The nature of this key and the session it secures will be critical. The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's method for provisioning secrets meets the specific security protocols implied by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, requiring only the use of a "transport key" to establish an "encrypted session," which could encompass a wide range of standard secure communication protocols.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed example of creating the transport key using a Diffie-Hellman exchange protocol (’212 Patent, col. 7:35-62). A defendant may argue that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "transport key" to one created through a similar key-exchange protocol, rather than, for example, a key that is simply pre-shared or delivered via a different mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. It alleges only "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶10).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint contains no factual allegations suggesting that the defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’212 Patent. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint body provides no basis for such a finding (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A primary procedural question will be whether the complaint, which identifies neither the accused products nor the specific infringement theory and instead relies entirely on an unprovided exhibit, satisfies federal pleading standards.
  • Assuming the case proceeds, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "authentication token", which is described throughout the patent specification as a physical smart card, be construed to cover the potentially software-based authentication system used by the defendant?
  • A key technical question for infringement will be whether the accused system employs a "personalization mode" that is irreversibly disabled after initial provisioning, as required by the patent's independent claim. The case may turn on whether the accused system's setup process maps onto this claimed one-time, state-changing limitation.