[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Argue cases this morning the first one is number 19-1312 Tellesign Corporation versus Twilio, Inc. [00:00:10] Speaker 00: Mr.. Kanacha Go ahead [00:00:28] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:00:29] Speaker 01: May it please the Court. [00:00:31] Speaker 01: I'm going to focus my arguments today on the 03-4 patent, which addresses a problem unique to the internet and improves the security of a computing system. [00:00:42] Speaker 01: Your Honors, only by the internet can a single individual, one person, masquerade or hold him or herself out as thousands of individuals or thousands of unique people to millions of people. [00:00:56] Speaker 01: And this occurs by way of fake [00:00:58] Speaker 01: website registrations. [00:01:01] Speaker 01: What happens is, is one person, one individual can register for thousands, tens of thousands of fake web accounts at, say, an Amazon or a social networking site. [00:01:13] Speaker 01: They can then publish what appears to be thousands or hundreds of favorable reviews of low quality products to exert influence, to cause people to purchase those products. [00:01:24] Speaker 01: They can publish news articles that are inaccurate news articles. [00:01:29] Speaker 01: And then in doing so, the people that are viewing this think that what they're seeing are thousands of individuals. [00:01:35] Speaker 01: But they're not. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: They're just one person. [00:01:38] Speaker 01: That is only possible by way of the internet. [00:01:41] Speaker 01: So the question became, 15 years ago, how could this be prevented? [00:01:46] Speaker 01: Obviously, websites, they want legitimate registrants to register for their website. [00:01:52] Speaker 01: The likes of an Amazon or a New York Times or someone, they want registrants to register for their website. [00:01:58] Speaker 01: So how, in real time, in a split second, how can one make a decision about whether a registration is legitimate or not legitimate? [00:02:06] Speaker 01: That was the focus of the problem that the founders of Telesign faced in the 2005-2006 time frame. [00:02:14] Speaker 01: And they came up with an idea. [00:02:16] Speaker 01: That idea was to use a phone number in an unconventional manner, to use a phone number in a way that hadn't been used before. [00:02:25] Speaker 01: Obviously, people would use phone numbers to make telephone calls. [00:02:28] Speaker 01: Well, TeleSign came up with the idea. [00:02:30] Speaker 01: They realized not all phone numbers are created equal. [00:02:35] Speaker 01: What they realized is that they could use a phone number itself, or more particularly, three attributes associated, three characteristics associated with a phone number, as a trust metric. [00:02:46] Speaker 01: They realized that because not all telephones are created equal, some telephone numbers are associated with certain geographic areas that might be associated with higher instances of fraud. [00:03:00] Speaker 01: Some phone numbers are of certain types that lend themselves to fraud. [00:03:05] Speaker 01: For example, one type of phone number is a landline. [00:03:09] Speaker 01: Residential addresses typically used to be associated with landlines. [00:03:13] Speaker 01: They call them landlines. [00:03:15] Speaker 01: That's one type of phone. [00:03:16] Speaker 01: Another type of phone that the founders of TeleSign came up with or realized existed was VoIP. [00:03:25] Speaker 01: VoIP is an acronym. [00:03:26] Speaker 01: It stands for Voice Over Internet Protocol. [00:03:28] Speaker 01: This was a game changer. [00:03:29] Speaker 01: Can I ask a hypothetical? [00:03:31] Speaker 01: Please. [00:03:32] Speaker 04: What if I have a service where [00:03:37] Speaker 04: people all around the country get robocalls they get calls from fraudsters trying to swindle them and I have a service where I have this massive database I've collected of phone numbers and I've been able through a lot of legwork been able to investigate and figure out a whole long list of phone numbers that are [00:04:03] Speaker 04: associated with fraudsters or robocallers and things like that. [00:04:09] Speaker 04: And then people can access my website with my database for a fee. [00:04:17] Speaker 04: Would that be a patent eligible invention? [00:04:24] Speaker 01: I think clearly patent eligibility turns on the claims of a patent. [00:04:31] Speaker 04: Electronically determining whether a particular phone number is associated with a bad actor. [00:04:42] Speaker 01: I mean, I think if the claims, I mean, I would need to know the claims of the actual invention ed issue. [00:04:51] Speaker 01: I think if the claims were directed only to that electronically determining that you proposed, [00:05:00] Speaker 01: That in and of itself, I don't know, it's difficult for me to comment as to whether that would be an abstract idea as much as what would be done with that. [00:05:09] Speaker 01: What would be a next step? [00:05:12] Speaker 01: Would there be a step like the last step in our claim that would allow or disallow registering based on determining those characteristics? [00:05:22] Speaker 04: OK, here's another one, another hypothetical. [00:05:26] Speaker 04: What if I have a website? [00:05:29] Speaker 04: And I only want certain people to access my website, people that I deem to be trustworthy. [00:05:35] Speaker 04: So you want to access my website, and you give me your name. [00:05:41] Speaker 04: Maybe you give me some other personal information. [00:05:45] Speaker 04: Let's say your social security number. [00:05:48] Speaker 04: And then through a lookup table, through a massive database I have access to, I have everybody's name and social security number and their associated credit history, criminal record, any litigation they've been involved in, anything like that. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: And then through that, I'm able to electronically determine whether I deem this [00:06:15] Speaker 04: would be customer trustworthy to access my website. [00:06:22] Speaker 01: Would that be patent-eligible? [00:06:23] Speaker 01: I think what I'd want to know more about there, Your Honor, is to what extent was there a technological analysis to determine whether whatever factors you might consider would be factors that would be indicative of fraud. [00:06:39] Speaker 04: His bad credit history, you know, there's a lien on your house. [00:06:47] Speaker 04: You have a criminal record. [00:06:48] Speaker 04: You've been arrested for fraud. [00:06:50] Speaker 04: And so through those very illuminating indicia, I've concluded that no, you may not access my website. [00:06:59] Speaker 01: So your proposal is that someone was able to create an extraordinarily massive database with potentially billions of entries that would house an extraordinary amount of information [00:07:08] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:07:09] Speaker 01: And then in real time query that database upon which to make a registry or some sort of fraudulent. [00:07:13] Speaker 01: Yes, I would think that's patent eligible. [00:07:15] Speaker 01: Sure, of course. [00:07:17] Speaker 01: Why is that patent eligible? [00:07:18] Speaker 01: Well, you're improving the security of a computing system. [00:07:21] Speaker 01: You found a way to make people safer. [00:07:23] Speaker 01: You found a way to increase, like I said, the security of a computing system and prevent fraud. [00:07:29] Speaker 01: What if instead of a massive database, it's just a massive book? [00:07:35] Speaker 01: I think at that point we've moved into a situation where it's not feasible that someone would be able to review a book in the time necessary to make a registration decision. [00:07:48] Speaker 01: I don't think that would be the type of activity that would [00:07:55] Speaker 04: I think your hypothetical has moved into an area that- Well, my prior hypothetical about a massive electronic database, the claim doesn't say anything about the technical act of how you're able to quickly access a given name of a person in that massive database. [00:08:16] Speaker 04: It just says electronically determined by looking through that massive database, period. [00:08:24] Speaker 01: The step two of our claim does say that, and it's all to facilitate the last step of our claim. [00:08:29] Speaker 04: But my point is, it claimed at that level of generality, there's no technical activity actually going on there. [00:08:41] Speaker 04: There's no specificity of what technical act is actually taking place, other than the broad notion of there's a database over here, go look it up. [00:08:52] Speaker 01: Yeah, correct. [00:08:54] Speaker 01: But that is, obviously, as with the proceedings before the PTAB and as with what we explained to the Northern District and even the Central District of California. [00:09:08] Speaker 01: The money shot, for lack of a better term, is in the registering. [00:09:12] Speaker 01: Sure, we store stuff in an electronic database. [00:09:15] Speaker 01: But what we did was we came up with the idea. [00:09:17] Speaker 00: But it doesn't affect computer functionality, right? [00:09:21] Speaker 00: It's just a question. [00:09:22] Speaker 00: of what information you put in the database. [00:09:25] Speaker 00: And the claimed invention is putting a supposedly unique kind of information in the database, right? [00:09:33] Speaker 01: Now that isn't incorrect. [00:09:35] Speaker 01: It does increase the computer functionality. [00:09:37] Speaker 01: It increases... What does it do other than define what the database consists of? [00:09:43] Speaker 01: It increases the efficacy of preventing fraudulent registrations. [00:09:47] Speaker 01: to register based on those characteristics. [00:09:50] Speaker 00: But it's not an efficacy that's related to computer functionality. [00:09:53] Speaker 00: It's related to the content of the database. [00:09:57] Speaker 01: To register based on those attributes increases the security of a system. [00:10:06] Speaker 01: Here's what I'll do. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: I can try to quickly compare and contrast a system that uses this and doesn't. [00:10:13] Speaker 01: In 2005, people were aware and they were trying to use two-factor authentication. [00:10:19] Speaker 01: This notion when you try to log into a bank or a bank's website, they want to send you a code. [00:10:24] Speaker 00: Let's just assume that this doesn't improve the functionality of the computer. [00:10:29] Speaker 00: Let's assume that the invention is using particular kinds of data to create a database. [00:10:35] Speaker 00: Is that a patent eligible? [00:10:38] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:10:38] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:10:39] Speaker 01: Even if it doesn't technically increase the functionality of a computer in the Infish way, Infish also says that if a process increases or improves a technological process, then it's patent eligible. [00:10:51] Speaker 01: And that's what this system does. [00:10:52] Speaker 01: This system works. [00:10:53] Speaker 01: This system is being used. [00:10:54] Speaker 01: Telesign uses this system today, and it is being used effectively to prevent fraudulent registrations. [00:11:01] Speaker 01: Facebook last year reportedly attempted to remove 5.4 billion fraudulent registrations. [00:11:08] Speaker 01: This is a massive problem that even Twilio acknowledges exists. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: And you're honored, when a company registers based on these attributes, they're able to effectively reduce and prevent fraud in a way that has never been done before. [00:11:25] Speaker 01: If one system just used two-factor authentication, because of VoIP, [00:11:33] Speaker 00: Because of Voight. [00:11:34] Speaker 00: Well, you seem to be saying that because it's useful, it's not abstract. [00:11:41] Speaker 01: Well, I do think that is an element of lack of abstraction. [00:11:47] Speaker 01: I mean, that's the hallmark of 101, any new and useful invention or improvement thereof. [00:11:51] Speaker 01: And this is a very useful invention. [00:11:54] Speaker 01: But it's also, we'd say it's not abstract. [00:11:56] Speaker 04: The Alice case, that invention was pretty useful. [00:12:01] Speaker 04: And that went down under 101. [00:12:04] Speaker 01: Our invention is unique to the internet. [00:12:09] Speaker 01: We are not saying there was some historical brick and mortar process that historically has been done, and now you just do it online. [00:12:17] Speaker 01: We're not saying that. [00:12:19] Speaker 01: What we're saying is, hey, the different types and a physical characteristic of a phone number, namely, if it's VoIP, [00:12:29] Speaker 01: That's one of the biggest ones. [00:12:30] Speaker 01: So VoiceOver Internet Protocol allows this. [00:12:33] Speaker 01: It allows something that hasn't been allowed in the past. [00:12:36] Speaker 01: It allows someone to obtain phone numbers en masse. [00:12:41] Speaker 01: VoIP, VoiceOver Internet Protocol, allows telephone numbers to be gotten, to be had en masse. [00:12:46] Speaker 01: A fraudster can obtain 1,000 or 10,000 phone numbers very cheaply. [00:12:50] Speaker 01: Now, that fraudster can go to Amazon. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: They can put in 1,000 fake names. [00:12:55] Speaker 01: They can put in their 1,000 phone numbers. [00:12:58] Speaker 01: Amazon can send two-factor authentication codes to all 1,000 of them. [00:13:03] Speaker 01: The fraudster has access to those because of VoIP. [00:13:06] Speaker 01: He or she has bought those phone numbers, feeds back, correctly parrots back those codes, and Amazon now has 1,000 fake web accounts and all the problems that are associated with those. [00:13:17] Speaker 01: Contrast that with Amazon or the likes of Amazon that would implement our invention. [00:13:22] Speaker 01: Departing from that known approach or that available approach, [00:13:26] Speaker 01: The proxter would put in the 1,000 names and addresses, the 1,000 phone numbers, and then Amazon system would do something that it hadn't done before. [00:13:37] Speaker 01: It would electronically determine the phone number characteristics and then make a registration decision based on those characteristics. [00:13:44] Speaker 01: It would realize, for example, that those are VoIP numbers. [00:13:47] Speaker 01: And if it had a rule that said VoIP numbers aren't allowed, those would be kept out of. [00:13:51] Speaker 01: Those would be not stored in Amazon system. [00:13:55] Speaker 01: That's the claim to fame of this invention. [00:13:57] Speaker 01: That's where the advancement comes. [00:14:01] Speaker 01: And Your Honor, just to confirm, by way of our blue brief on page 3. [00:14:06] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: You're running into your rebuttal time. [00:14:08] Speaker 01: Do you want to save it? [00:14:10] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:14:11] Speaker 01: Is this my rebuttal? [00:14:13] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:14:13] Speaker 00: Yes, I'll save my rebuttal time. [00:14:16] Speaker 00: OK. [00:14:16] Speaker 00: Thank you, Mr. Camacho. [00:14:17] Speaker 00: Mr. Stacey? [00:14:29] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:14:31] Speaker 02: May it please the Court? [00:14:34] Speaker 02: So I wanted to start, unless you had an immediate question. [00:14:36] Speaker 02: I apologize for my voice getting over a cold. [00:14:41] Speaker 02: But I wanted to talk about the claims themselves. [00:14:43] Speaker 02: We heard a lot about the industry, a lot about the history in the past. [00:14:48] Speaker 02: But that's not what the claim of the 034 that matters, claim one, actually recites. [00:14:53] Speaker 02: And if you look at the claim language, one issue that's kept coming up is this is not a fraud restricted claim. [00:14:59] Speaker 02: This is a claim that the judge identified as verifying identity. [00:15:04] Speaker 02: That's the limit. [00:15:05] Speaker 02: Nowhere does it say anything about fraud. [00:15:07] Speaker 02: And in fact, the specification talks about multiple reasons. [00:15:10] Speaker 02: Targeted advertising, like the Nebraska exclusion clause on column 8. [00:15:15] Speaker 02: We don't want to service warranties out of Nebraska, so we're going to exclude Nebraska. [00:15:19] Speaker 02: And then fraud is the preferred embodiment. [00:15:22] Speaker 02: But when you really get down to it, the claim is not fraud limited. [00:15:26] Speaker 02: So this is the real problem with 034 Claim 1 is its breadth. [00:15:30] Speaker 02: And that was one of the issues that was coming up here. [00:15:32] Speaker 02: What are the restrictions on that claim? [00:15:35] Speaker 02: And if you look, it's not limited to fraud. [00:15:38] Speaker 02: And then look at the next step on how the information is determined. [00:15:42] Speaker 02: So when you go to the prosecution, it was originally just determined. [00:15:46] Speaker 02: And then in response to a 101 rejection, they put in electronically determined. [00:15:50] Speaker 02: That means nothing. [00:15:51] Speaker 02: It means looking it up in a database. [00:15:53] Speaker 02: And in fact, the patent itself discloses what electronically determining means. [00:15:58] Speaker 02: In column 8, it talks about using the 10-digit phone number. [00:16:04] Speaker 02: All of this special information that Mr. Camacho talked about is already in that phone number. [00:16:09] Speaker 02: It has been for all of history. [00:16:11] Speaker 02: You can look at the phone number and understand geography. [00:16:14] Speaker 02: Area code tells me where I'm from. [00:16:16] Speaker 02: 806 tells me I'm from Amarillo, Texas, or at least the Panhandle. [00:16:20] Speaker 02: You can look at the next digits, and you know whether it's Southwest. [00:16:23] Speaker 03: I'm sorry, for landlines. [00:16:24] Speaker 02: For landlines. [00:16:25] Speaker 02: You can look at the next digits. [00:16:26] Speaker 03: And even they have been portable for a decade or more. [00:16:32] Speaker 02: since 2003? [00:16:33] Speaker 03: I call people all the time who have Texas cell phones, at least. [00:16:38] Speaker 03: Maybe this is only on the mobile side. [00:16:39] Speaker 03: I don't actually think it is only on the mobile side, is it? [00:16:42] Speaker 02: Well, even on the mobile side, they are assigned to specific carriers. [00:16:45] Speaker 03: Right, but you have no idea where they live. [00:16:48] Speaker 03: They grew up in Texas, and they haven't been in Texas for 20 years. [00:16:51] Speaker 02: Correct, except my accent maybe kicks it out. [00:16:54] Speaker 02: But what you can see is from the database, [00:16:58] Speaker 02: what carrier owns the phone numbers. [00:17:00] Speaker 02: And that's admitted in the patent. [00:17:02] Speaker 02: That's what enables portability. [00:17:04] Speaker 02: You know what carrier owns what number. [00:17:08] Speaker 02: In the old days, the next three digits, 806 and 396, would tell you it was Southwestern Bell. [00:17:14] Speaker 02: And now there are two. [00:17:15] Speaker 02: There's a 753. [00:17:16] Speaker 02: It tells you it's the local co-op. [00:17:19] Speaker 02: But the patent itself admits that. [00:17:21] Speaker 02: But when you look, there's nothing in the claim that we're talking about, about VoIP, about [00:17:27] Speaker 02: This modern time about changing from landlines to cell phones, it's just generic. [00:17:32] Speaker 02: So there's nothing about determining. [00:17:34] Speaker 02: And then you look at the next piece about the analysis step. [00:17:38] Speaker 03: Did registering get a claim construction here? [00:17:42] Speaker 02: No, it did not. [00:17:43] Speaker 02: And first of all, no claim construction was requested at the district court. [00:17:47] Speaker 02: But second, we can look at it. [00:17:49] Speaker 03: Is there a dispute here? [00:17:50] Speaker 03: I don't remember here about what registering might mean. [00:17:52] Speaker 02: So a small issue in the briefing, and I think it's two ships passing in the night, [00:17:57] Speaker 02: At the district court, the judge separated and talked about registering, and then based on two separate things. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: And then in the briefing, I believe, Telesign talked about registering based on, with a dot, dot, dot in there. [00:18:11] Speaker 02: Registering is the act of storing. [00:18:13] Speaker 02: And you can see that in their complaint, I believe, at paragraph 140 of their complaint, where they actually put in the EG. [00:18:21] Speaker 02: When they're accusing us of infringement, they explain, [00:18:24] Speaker 02: under the pleading standard, what registering means. [00:18:27] Speaker 02: It means just storing. [00:18:28] Speaker 02: So there's nothing special about registering. [00:18:31] Speaker 02: And then based on? [00:18:32] Speaker 04: I mean, the limitation says registering the user. [00:18:35] Speaker 04: So what is that? [00:18:36] Speaker 04: It doesn't mean storing the user. [00:18:38] Speaker 02: It's storing information related to the identity of the user. [00:18:45] Speaker 02: And you can find that in the appendix. [00:18:49] Speaker 02: I believe it's paragraph 140 of the complaint. [00:18:54] Speaker 02: get you that exact site so it just means you're I mean according to the storing user specific information appendix 73 paragraph 140 and that's straight out of the complaint perfectly usable here and it shows that registering has been used in its broadest sense it's just storing information about the user and then the next piece based on [00:19:21] Speaker 02: There's no definition of what based on means. [00:19:23] Speaker 02: All it means is that we have to use those three pieces of information and the verification code. [00:19:28] Speaker 02: The verification code, this court's already said, was abstract in the Asgari case. [00:19:34] Speaker 02: And Tell-A-Side admits in its brief that people were using verification codes of routine before 2005. [00:19:40] Speaker 04: This may or may not. [00:19:43] Speaker 04: be relevant to the claims in this case, but do you think the first person who came up with two-factor authentication had a patent-eligible invention? [00:19:54] Speaker 02: No. [00:19:56] Speaker 02: Why not? [00:19:56] Speaker 02: The idea of two-factor authentication minus the technology is nothing except an abstract idea. [00:20:02] Speaker 02: I'm going to verify you based on one thing and then another thing. [00:20:05] Speaker 02: That's all two-factor authentication. [00:20:06] Speaker 04: But now we're bringing in telephones. [00:20:09] Speaker 04: And now you're, I guess, texting some after someone's accessed or attempted to access a website and use the password of some sort. [00:20:18] Speaker 04: Now the website is communicating to that user or hopefully communicating to that user through text some verification code that then the user enters into the website. [00:20:31] Speaker 04: That's how two-factor authentication works? [00:20:34] Speaker 02: That would be an SMS implementation of two-factor authentication, yes. [00:20:40] Speaker 02: And I think this court had the opportunity to look at that in the Ascari case and said that was abstract. [00:20:45] Speaker 02: And I think that patent dated back to 1998. [00:20:49] Speaker 04: Was Ascari two-factor authentication? [00:20:53] Speaker 02: Yes, it was related to verification codes. [00:20:56] Speaker 02: So I don't think it uses the word two-factor authentication. [00:21:00] Speaker 02: But it is related to the concept of two-factor authentication. [00:21:05] Speaker 04: What is that one-factor authentication? [00:21:11] Speaker 02: It's the authentication code piece of it. [00:21:13] Speaker 02: So my apologies. [00:21:15] Speaker 02: It would be one-factor authentication. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: It matches this claim in the 034, which is similar one-factor authentication. [00:21:21] Speaker 04: Was that SCARI of Rule 36? [00:21:23] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:21:24] Speaker 02: OK. [00:21:26] Speaker 02: Yes, it was. [00:21:27] Speaker 02: So in that patent had a priority date of 2001 compared to the 2005 priority date here. [00:21:33] Speaker 02: So when you're looking at the breadth of these claims, that separates it from all of the story about what was going on in the art and the world. [00:21:41] Speaker 02: Basically, what they're trying to do is preempt the use of those three pieces of information along with an SMS code. [00:21:48] Speaker 02: Those three pieces of information are embedded in the phone number. [00:21:51] Speaker 02: So if you're using the phone number and looking up information in publicly available databases, then [00:21:57] Speaker 02: That's going to be preempted because there are no other restrictions on claim one. [00:22:03] Speaker 02: The other issue that came up in the questions was whether the computer functionality was changed. [00:22:08] Speaker 02: And if you look at these claims, it does not do anything with computer functionality other than use the computers in the way they are intended to be used. [00:22:16] Speaker 02: Compare this to ANCORA, for example. [00:22:19] Speaker 02: And you could see where in Acora you were modifying the bias and where you were putting information. [00:22:25] Speaker 02: And it was important. [00:22:26] Speaker 02: I'm using these parts of the computer and interacting. [00:22:30] Speaker 02: And if you look at DDR, for example, DDR was basically spoofing the computer to make it operate in a specific way that it didn't want to operate. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: I think that's the language DDR uses, and that follows in Fair Warning and Bridge and Post about making the computer operate in an abnormal way. [00:22:50] Speaker 02: Nothing about these claims makes the computer operate in an abnormal way. [00:22:53] Speaker 02: What it's doing is just using the computer to do things. [00:22:56] Speaker 02: And I think that was illustrated wonderfully with the example about what if my database is really big? [00:23:03] Speaker 02: Well, the answer was that would be, from the other side, the answer was that would keep it from being an abstract idea because you'd have to have a computer. [00:23:11] Speaker 02: But that's not what the case law has held here. [00:23:15] Speaker 02: This court said that speed provided by a computer is not sufficient to get past abstract idea. [00:23:20] Speaker 02: And that's what we're really looking at here, this idea of real time doesn't get past abstract idea. [00:23:28] Speaker 02: And what they're wanting to do is say, well, because there are a lot of phone numbers to look up and we have to go in this database and look at all of this information, that keeps it from being an abstract idea. [00:23:37] Speaker 02: Well, you could do that from a phone book. [00:23:39] Speaker 02: And in fact, these claims are so broad, they let you do it from a phone book or from a small database. [00:23:46] Speaker 02: It could be just Amarillo, Texas. [00:23:48] Speaker 02: And that doesn't take long to get through. [00:23:52] Speaker 02: So this case looks a lot like several others the court's already seen. [00:23:57] Speaker 02: You notice the district court criticized Telesign for avoiding claim-to-claim comparison. [00:24:02] Speaker 02: It's been kind of an ongoing fight in this case is to match the 034 claim, the actual language, which you didn't hear much about in the opening, to the other cases. [00:24:11] Speaker 02: And if you look, content extraction [00:24:15] Speaker 02: Is a wonderful case that fits very closely to these claims and content extracted there was collection of data There was recognizing certain data within that collected data, so I pick up my phone number. [00:24:27] Speaker 02: I recognize my Information that's in that phone number the geography the carrier the phone type which is all describing the patent as Prior knowledge and then I store something based on what I'm recognizing that was content extraction [00:24:43] Speaker 02: And this court found that to be an abstract idea. [00:24:48] Speaker 02: Another one that I think is very close is Bridge and Post. [00:24:53] Speaker 02: When you look at Bridge and Post, it had that same kind of idea about using identifiers and information within identifiers. [00:25:02] Speaker 02: Again, it was abstract. [00:25:03] Speaker 02: This court's had that chance to look at this data that is not different. [00:25:09] Speaker 02: It's just typical data. [00:25:11] Speaker 03: The one that I think comes up in the briefing that... When you say typical data, does your argument go so far as to say, for example, that a registration system that demands the submission of a fingerprint or other biometric information, presumably one per account, that that would be ineligible? [00:25:43] Speaker 02: Depending on the claim, if the claim was broad to just using biometric information to confirm identity, then yes. [00:25:51] Speaker 02: But if it was something specific about how you were doing that, using a fingerprint to confirm identity, that would be the definition of abstract at that level. [00:26:04] Speaker 02: if you're going that broad. [00:26:06] Speaker 02: If you're looking at something specific in there about the techniques, about looking at the ridges and mapping one ridge to the next, if you study your fingerprint analysis, it's an art form, not a science. [00:26:20] Speaker 00: Is that because fingerprint identification was well known? [00:26:25] Speaker 02: The concept of fingerprint identification is well known. [00:26:28] Speaker 02: But this court has a case that talks about, if you're taking something that used to be subjective, [00:26:33] Speaker 02: and moving it to something that's scientific, mathematical. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: And I think that's what fingerprint analysis was. [00:26:39] Speaker 02: The examiners were subjective before, because you were kind of comparing smudges to smudges. [00:26:46] Speaker 02: And when the first fingerprint systems came out, they actually looked at ridges and did a mathematical algorithm. [00:26:51] Speaker 02: So if you were doing the algorithm and using the computer system, you'd have something very different. [00:26:57] Speaker 02: But if it's just the broad idea of using a computer to analyze or to [00:27:02] Speaker 02: to analyze biometric data, it would be abstract. [00:27:06] Speaker 02: And I think that takes us to SRI, which is the case they lean on a lot. [00:27:11] Speaker 02: And SRI is very distinguishable from this current case. [00:27:17] Speaker 02: And they like SRI because it uses this broad, based-on type of language and this list of events, kind of like they use, looking at a phone number, looking at geography. [00:27:29] Speaker 02: But SRI, which is the only eligible case that they really rely on heavily, doesn't map up nicely. [00:27:37] Speaker 02: There are a couple reasons. [00:27:38] Speaker 02: And this court pointed out, one, that SRI actually is limited to detecting suspicious data. [00:27:44] Speaker 02: It's in the claim. [00:27:45] Speaker 02: And the court specifically found that the human mind isn't geared or capable of looking at the type of data that they were detecting and determining whether or not it was suspicious. [00:27:58] Speaker 02: Because the type of data here was something very specific to the nature of the fraud, things like network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors. [00:28:10] Speaker 02: And then the SRI court went on and said, by the way, you're doing more than just [00:28:15] Speaker 02: storing that information. [00:28:17] Speaker 02: You're actually integrating those reports. [00:28:19] Speaker 02: And that was a specific comment about integrating the reports into a hierarchical monitor. [00:28:24] Speaker 00: So suppose you had a claim that said to identify a fraudulent phone call, we've discovered that if there's a two second delay in the person answering the phone, [00:28:42] Speaker 00: picking it up to talk to you, plus another beep that occurs or something like that. [00:28:51] Speaker 00: There are several different identifiers which weren't known before. [00:28:57] Speaker 00: Would that be patent eligible as a method of detecting a fraudulent phone call? [00:29:05] Speaker 02: in a specific way, that gets a lot closer because you're dealing with the technology. [00:29:11] Speaker 02: I'm listening. [00:29:11] Speaker 02: And that idea actually shows up in their patent. [00:29:15] Speaker 02: They talk about looking for signal quality and going down that level of true computer detail. [00:29:22] Speaker 02: But that's not what shows up in the 03-4 claim. [00:29:25] Speaker 02: It's much broader than that. [00:29:26] Speaker 02: If we had that level of specificity, we'd be having a different discussion. [00:29:31] Speaker 03: I thought it's been a while since I read SRI. [00:29:39] Speaker 03: Doesn't SRI cover the use of the information, the content, the payload of the packet, and not just characteristics of the packet and its transmission history? [00:29:55] Speaker 03: I thought it did. [00:29:57] Speaker 02: So I'm looking at the claim here, and it's talking about deploying a plurality of network monitors in an enterprise network. [00:30:04] Speaker 02: And then it detects with those network monitors suspicious network activity [00:30:09] Speaker 02: And then based on an analysis of network traffic data selected from the following categories. [00:30:15] Speaker 02: And then it gives that very specific list of information. [00:30:18] Speaker 03: I haven't looked at it recently, so maybe you don't know. [00:30:24] Speaker 03: But I thought that those categories did not exclude, which meant the claim covered, the use of the payload of packets. [00:30:38] Speaker 03: and not any of the essentially technological transmission information. [00:30:49] Speaker 02: I'm just looking at the claim here. [00:30:50] Speaker 02: At that level, I just can't answer your question. [00:30:54] Speaker 03: Because that would begin to perhaps seem rather like [00:30:58] Speaker 03: selecting information that you have decided from your knowledge of the world is a pretty good indicator of undesirable communicants? [00:31:10] Speaker 02: Possible. [00:31:11] Speaker 02: But the way SRI was written, it talks about that this type of activity is not something that the human mind [00:31:19] Speaker 02: would ever detect or understand looking at this network data. [00:31:23] Speaker 02: It is an unusual type of data that we're not used to dealing with. [00:31:27] Speaker 02: Compare that to what's going on with the 034 patent, where they admit that the phone number itself contains all of the information that we're looking at, geography, phone type, carrier. [00:31:39] Speaker 02: You just need to get it out of there. [00:31:41] Speaker 02: Either you can do it through looking it up in a book, or you can look it up in a big database, and that would make it fast. [00:31:47] Speaker 02: And just because it's fast, you're dealing with lots of data, doesn't get us where we need to be past the level of abstraction. [00:31:54] Speaker 00: OK. [00:31:54] Speaker 00: Thank you, Mr. Statesman. [00:32:24] Speaker 01: Your Honor, this counsel is incorrect that all the information is just in the phone number. [00:32:28] Speaker 01: There's a lot that goes into actually determining those attributes. [00:32:33] Speaker 01: That's in the patent at column one. [00:32:34] Speaker 01: We call out the notion that someone with a 310 area code might not really be in LA precisely because of the weight. [00:32:42] Speaker 01: But Counsel Fertulio led off with a key point. [00:32:44] Speaker 01: He argued that this patent might not be related to fraud. [00:32:49] Speaker 01: And therein lies the problem. [00:32:50] Speaker 01: is that the lower court, the Northern District, never did a directed to analysis. [00:32:56] Speaker 01: And, Your Honors, four groups of people have looked at this patent. [00:33:01] Speaker 01: Telesign, Twilio, the Central District of California, and the PTAB. [00:33:05] Speaker 01: Twilio argued, all four of these, all four agree, that this patent is related to reducing fraud. [00:33:11] Speaker 01: Twilio, in its own words at its red brief, page 24, said, this patent is directed to reducing fraudulent account creation. [00:33:19] Speaker 01: This isn't just storing information. [00:33:20] Speaker 01: This has to do with not storing information at all, keeping bad stuff off the books, reducing fraudulent account creation by using characteristics of the user's telephone number. [00:33:30] Speaker 01: Your honors, that is not abstract. [00:33:32] Speaker 01: The PTAB said something similar. [00:33:34] Speaker 01: We put it on our blue brief on page three. [00:33:36] Speaker 01: The central district said the same thing. [00:33:38] Speaker 01: That's what our blue brief on page 24. [00:33:40] Speaker 01: And obviously, we said something similar.