Morpho Komodo LLC v. Casio America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Morpho Komodo LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Casio America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC; Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: 2:15-cv-01110, E.D. Tex., 06/22/2015
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, conducts substantial business in the district, and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, including selling the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Casio G'zOne Commando 4G LTE mobile phone and other portable computing products infringe three patents related to methods and systems for creating user-selectable signatures for computer authentication.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses computer login security by allowing users to create complex authentication "signatures" using various input devices and signal types, moving beyond traditional text-based passwords.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents form a family. U.S. Patent No. 7,725,725 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,350,078. U.S. Patent No. 8,429,415 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,725,725. The prosecution history includes terminal disclaimers, which may be relevant to claim scope and potential validity challenges.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-04-26	Earliest Priority Date (’078, ’725, ’415 Patents)
2008-03-25	'078 Patent Issue Date
2010-05-25	'725 Patent Issue Date
2013-04-23	'415 Patent Issue Date
2015-06-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,350,078 - "User selection of computer login"

• Issued: March 25, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the security risks of traditional computer logins that rely on a single account name and password, noting that once a password file is compromised, system security is jeopardized (’078 Patent, col. 1:11-21). It also notes that prior art using behavioral inputs like keystroke dynamics was "surreptitious," without user control (’078 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can select the specific input devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse) and the specific "signal types" (e.g., keystroke timing, mouse movement shape) to be used in creating a login signature (’078 Patent, Abstract). This user-defined, multi-modal signature can be used for authentication, potentially inferring the user’s account identity without the need for an explicit username, thus eliminating a traditional "entry point for hacking" (’078 Patent, col. 2:48-53). For example, a user could select via on-screen controls which characteristics of their input to record for authentication (’078 Patent, col. 5:4-16; Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to enhance login security by replacing a static, text-based password with a more complex, personalized, and user-configurable behavioral signature, making it more difficult to replicate or steal (’078 Patent, col. 2:48-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more of the claims" of the ’078 Patent (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method for creating a signature.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A computer-implemented method for creating a signature for subsequent authentication comprising:
  • indicating to a user commencement of signature input recording;
  • recording user input signals by type from at least one user-selected device among a plurality of selectable user input devices;
  • terminating said recording;
  • creating a signature based at least in part upon said recording; and
  • storing said signature.

U.S. Patent No. 7,725,725 - "User-Selectable Signatures"

• Issued: May 25, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’725 Patent, a continuation of the ’078 Patent application, addresses the same security vulnerabilities of traditional password-based computer login systems (’725 Patent, col. 1:35-47).
• The Patented Solution: This patent further develops the concept of user-defined signatures. It describes a process where a user records input from selected devices and can then edit the stored signature to exclude certain data (’725 Patent, Claim 3). The invention also discloses dividing a stored signature into "distinguishable data portions" or "keys," which can be linked sequentially, enhancing security by avoiding a single, monolithic authentication file (’725 Patent, Claim 8).
• Technical Importance: This approach builds upon the parent patent by introducing more sophisticated data management techniques, such as partitioning the signature data, to further obfuscate the validation protocol and strengthen security against unauthorized access (’725 Patent, col. 2:60-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more of the claims" of the ’725 Patent (Compl. ¶42). Independent claim 1 is representative of the process.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A computer-implemented process comprising:
  • receiving user indication of signature input recording;
  • recording user input signals by type from at least one user-selected device among a plurality of selectable user input devices connected to a single computer;
  • terminating said recording;
  • storing at least a portion of said recording;
  • creating a signature based at least in part upon at least a portion of said stored recording; and
  • storing said signature.

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,415 - "User-Selectable Signatures"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,429,415, "User-Selectable Signatures," issued April 23, 2013 (Compl. ¶19).
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’415 Patent claims a computing device (an apparatus) rather than a method. The device includes a processor, memory, and at least two different user-selectable input devices (e.g., a keyboard and a pointing device), where the system’s instructions allow a user to select not only the device but also the specific signal type to be recorded from that device to generate a reference signature for authentication (’415 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more of the claims," with Claim 1 being the sole independent claim (’415 Patent, Claim 1; Compl. ¶55).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Casio G'zOne Commando 4G LTE mobile phone of being a computing device that embodies the claimed invention, providing secured access through its various user-selectable unlock modes (Compl. ¶23, 54-55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "Defendant's portable computing products," with the "Casio G'zOne Commando 4G LTE mobile phone" named as an exemplary "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused phone provides users with a menu to select from several "unlock modes" to secure the device (Compl. ¶26).
• These modes include "face recognition, password, pin, pattern, or slide mode," which are configured using the phone's input devices, such as the touchscreen or the camera (Compl. ¶26).
• The complaint asserts that the accused products contain a program memory, data storage, and "first and second input devices" that a user can select to "generate a reference signature" that is later used for authentication (Compl. ¶25).
• The complaint does not provide specific details on the market positioning of the accused products, other than alleging that Defendant markets, sells, and imports them (Compl. ¶4, 24).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'078 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A computer-implemented method for creating a signature...comprising: indicating to a user commencement of signature input recording;	The accused phone presents a menu allowing a user to select and configure an unlock mode, which commences the process of recording a reference signature.	¶26	col. 5:4-16
recording user input signals by type from at least one user-selected device among a plurality of selectable user input devices...	A user selects from various unlock modes (e.g., face, pattern, PIN), which utilize different input devices (camera, touchscreen) to record distinct types of input signals for authentication.	¶26	col. 3:16-24
terminating said recording;	The recording process for setting up the chosen unlock mode concludes after the user provides the necessary input, such as completing a pattern or capturing a facial image.	¶23	col. 4:25-30
creating a signature based at least in part upon said recording; and	The phone processes the recorded user input, such as the coordinates of a drawn pattern or captured facial data, to create a reference signature.	¶23, ¶25	col. 5:24-28
storing said signature.	The generated reference signature is stored in the device's data storage memory for comparison during subsequent authentication attempts.	¶25	col. 5:24-28

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court may be whether a user’s selection of a high-level, pre-packaged "unlock mode" (e.g., "Pattern") meets the claim requirement of selecting a "user-selected device" and "signal type." The patent specification describes a more granular selection process, which may support a narrower construction than what is alleged in the complaint (’078 Patent, col. 5:4-16; Fig. 10).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the creation of a "reference signature" (Compl. ¶25). It raises the question of what evidence demonstrates that the accused phone's unlock modes perform the specific "creating a signature" process taught in the patent, which includes concepts like packaging and key trajectories, as opposed to a more conventional data-matching operation.

'725 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A computer-implemented process comprising: receiving user indication of signature input recording;	The accused phone receives a user's command to begin the setup for a chosen unlock mode, such as "Face Unlock" or "Pattern."	¶26	col. 5:1-4
recording user input signals by type from at least one user-selected device...	By selecting a mode, the user causes the phone to record signals from the corresponding input device, such as image data from the camera or coordinate data from the touchscreen.	¶26	col. 3:20-30
terminating said recording;	The recording of setup data is terminated upon the user's completion of the required input for the selected mode.	¶23	col. 4:30-34
storing at least a portion of said recording;	The phone stores data derived from the user's setup input in its memory.	¶25	col. 5:26-30
creating a signature based at least in part upon...said stored recording; and	A reference signature is created from the stored data for use in future authentications.	¶23, ¶25	col. 5:26-30
storing said signature.	The final reference signature is stored in the device's memory.	¶25	col. 5:26-30

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: As with the ’078 Patent, a key dispute may arise over whether selecting a pre-defined "mode" constitutes the "user-selected device" and "signal type" selection recited in the claims.
  • Technical Questions: The ’725 Patent claims and specification discuss more advanced features, such as editing a signature or dividing it into distinct data portions (Claim 3, Claim 8). The complaint does not allege specific facts showing these features are present in the accused products, which raises the question of whether the infringement theory requires these functionalities to be read into the term "creating a signature."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "user-selected device" (from '078 Patent, Claim 1; '725 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical to the infringement analysis. The patent's contribution is tied to providing the user with control over the authentication inputs. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome may depend on whether choosing a pre-packaged "unlock mode" (e.g., Face Unlock) is legally equivalent to selecting a "device" (the camera) as contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists examples of input devices including keyboards, pointing devices, and biometric devices (’078 Patent, col. 2:36-40). A party could argue that selecting a mode like "Face Unlock" is an explicit choice to use the camera, thereby constituting selection of a "device."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where a user can select specific signal types from a given input device using checkboxes, suggesting a granular level of control beyond just picking a pre-defined mode (’078 Patent, col. 5:4-16; Fig. 10). This could support an interpretation requiring direct selection of the device itself, rather than an implicit selection via a mode.

The Term: "signal type" (from '078 Patent, Claim 1; '725 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will heavily influence the scope of the claims. The infringement allegation hinges on the idea that choosing "Pattern" or "PIN" is equivalent to selecting a "signal type." The dispute will likely center on the level of granularity required for this selection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims broadly define a "signal type" as "a category, among a plurality of possible categories, of measurable variable input" (’078 Patent, Claim 1). This language may be argued to be broad enough to encompass the distinct categories of data generated by a pattern input versus a facial scan.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of signal types, such as "keystroke timing," "mouse clicks," "mouse vector," and "mouse location" (’078 Patent, Fig. 14). The ability to select among these different technical data types for a single device, as shown in Figure 10, suggests that the term implies a more fine-grained, technical selection by the user than choosing a high-level product feature.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three asserted patents.
  • Inducement: The allegations are based on Defendant actively encouraging infringement by its customers and users through materials such as the "Casio G'zOne Commando 4G LTE mobile phone User Guide," which allegedly instructs users on how to perform the claimed methods (e.g., setting up an unlock mode) (Compl. ¶34, 47, 60).
  • Contributory Infringement: The complaint alleges that the accused authentication methods are a material part of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses, and were "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement" (Compl. ¶37-38, 50-51, 63-64).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not explicitly allege "willfulness" but does request enhanced damages and attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶5). The basis for knowledge of the patents is alleged to be "at least as of the service of the complaint," which would support a claim for post-suit, rather than pre-suit, willful infringement (Compl. ¶31, 44, 57).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the act of a user selecting a high-level, pre-configured authentication "mode" like "Pattern Unlock" on a smartphone be construed to meet the claim limitations requiring a user to select a specific "input device" and "signal type," as that selection process is described in the patents' specifications?
• A central evidentiary question will concern the technical operation of the accused products: Does the software on the accused phone perform the specific, multi-step process of "creating a signature" as detailed in the patents (which includes concepts like partitioned data "keys" and "trajectories"), or does it perform a more generic data-matching function that may fall outside a narrower construction of the claims?
• A further question may arise regarding patentability and damages, given the familial relationship and terminal disclaimers among the asserted patents. The court may scrutinize the assertions for potential double patenting issues and will have to consider how to apportion damages, if any, across three patents claiming similar aspects of a single inventive concept.