Apple beats patent troll, wins suit over Secure Enclave tech

AppleInsider

Apple has won a court victory in a battle against patent troll Identity Security LLC, with a jury deciding that Secure Enclave, used originally to enable Touch ID, did not violate four patents.

Touch ID and Face ID, which both rely on the Secure Enclave, shown off on iPhones.

The Secure Enclave is described by Apple as a coprocessor built into the company's system-on-chip (SoC) designs. The component requires its own boot sequence and software update mechanism, and is responsible for "all cryptographic operations for Data Protection key management and maintains the integrity of Data Protection even if the kernel has been compromised," according to the company.

Identity Security LLC sued Apple in 2021 -- eight years after the debut of the Secure Enclave. In the suit, the company claimed Apple's Secure Enclave tech violated US Patents 7,493,497, 8,020,008, 8,489,895, and 9,507,948. All four deal with methods of improving user security by creating a digital identity that resides on a unique microprocessor device.

The patents list Aureliano Tan, Jr. as the original inventor, and were initially assigned to Integrated Information Solutions in patent applications dating back to 2000. Identity Security LLC did not make note of any real-world applications of the patents in their filings, which may suggest that the original technology was never licensed to Apple or any other company.

The lawsuit lists numerous possible use cases for the Secure Enclave, including secure storage and communication of a user's name, digital picture, address, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, digital photograph, biometric information, credit card information, bank account information, along with businesses and database administrator uses.

Identity Security had asked for some $360 million in damages, as well as an ongoing royalty, Bloomberg Law said on October 4. It's not yet known if Identity Security will appeal the ruling.

The Secure Enclave first appeared in the iPhone 5s, which was the first iPhone to include Touch ID. The technology has since been updated to include Face ID.



Read on AppleInsider

rob53

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

gatorguy

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

sflocal

I know someone that got a patent to drill miles down into the earth and via a serious of heat' soaking pipes, extract the earth's heat for energy.  I asked him why he would patent something that may never come to fruition in his lifetime, he simply said that should someone do it, he'll get a piece of it.  

I kind of was disappointed him him.  

yyzguy

sflocal said:

I know someone that got a patent to drill miles down into the earth and via a serious of heat' soaking pipes, extract the earth's heat for energy.  I asked him why he would patent something that may never come to fruition in his lifetime, he simply said that should someone do it, he'll get a piece of it.  

I kind of was disappointed him him.  

Patent attorneys love getting easy money from anyone willing to pay them to file patents.  My brother is a repeat donor.

zeus423

Apple won a lawsuit? Stop the presses!

jdw

News like this always brightens my day.

Patent Trolls are SCUM.

ssfe11

Yes agreed it’s good to see Patent Trolls lose hard. How do these Patent Troll owners and workers live with themselves? Patent Troll Scum is such a correct term. 

MplsP

Ok, how about a better description of what was patented and how Apple allegedly violated the patents? Also what did the original company do and why is Identity Security LLC considered a patent troll?

I love seeing patent trolls lose but from reading the article I can’t tell it they’re really a patent troll or if they’re a small company from whom Apple actually stole IP. 

davidw

MplsP said:

Ok, how about a better description of what was patented and how Apple allegedly violated the patents? Also what did the original company do and why is Identity Security LLC considered a patent troll?

I love seeing patent trolls lose but from reading the article I can’t tell it they’re really a patent troll or if they’re a small company from whom Apple actually stole IP. 

If you had read the first sentence of the article, you should know that it wouldn't had matter if the plaintiff was a"patent troll" or a small company, the jury found that Apple did not infringe upon the patents. I don't know how you could come to any sort of conclusion that Apple might had ...... "actually stole IP". Unless you're just trolling. 

davidw

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas". Not that there were no plans of making the product.  Ideas are not patentable (under US patent laws). An actual working model based on an idea is patentable. Even if the "working model" is not an actual product but a detailed blueprint of how to build a working product. 

Otherwise Gene Roddenberry (estate) would already own the patents for devices that are based on the "Transporter", Warp Drive, Tricorder, Phaser, Cloaking Device, Tractor Beam, Dilithium Crystal and Apple iPad would be infringing upon his idea of a computer in tablet form. Not to mention "Siri". Plus Motorola StarTac flip phone would had infringed on the Roddenberry idea of a "communicator". 

https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/11/17/protecting-idea-can-ideas-be-patented/id=103389/

chasm

MplsP said:

Ok, how about a better description of what was patented and how Apple allegedly violated the patents? Also what did the original company do and why is Identity Security LLC considered a patent troll?

There are links in the article to the actual patents. Click on said links and read them for yourself.

Identity Security LLC is considered a "patent troll" because they fit the description: they do not patent anything themselves, or make any products based on the patents they buy. They just buy patents and then try suing rich companies to see if they can get a settlement. They appear to exist for no other purpose than that.

As the article notes, following a trial in which Apple explained their position and Identity Security LLC explained theirs, a jury found that Apple did not violate the patents that Identity Security LLC bought. The company has the right to appeal, but chances are high that they'll keep losing, and that will cost them a lot of money over time.

DAalseth

ssfe11 said:

Yes agreed it’s good to see Patent Trolls lose hard. How do these Patent Troll owners and workers live with themselves? Patent Troll Scum is such a correct term. 

Because at heart they are extortionists and criminals tend to not feel bad for their crimes. Actually patent trolls don’t want to go to court. they threaten to sue and hope that the company will settle, pay them their money to go away. It really is just a glorified protection racket. Patent and copyright protections are very important. It’s too bad these guys abuse the system. 

gatorguy

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas". Not that there were no plans of making the product.  Ideas are not patentable (under US patent laws). An actual working model based on an idea is patentable. Even if the "working model" is not an actual product but a detailed blueprint of how to build a working product. 

Otherwise Gene Roddenberry (estate) would already own the patents for devices that are based on the "Transporter", Warp Drive, Tricorder, Phaser, Cloaking Device, Tractor Beam, Dilithium Crystal and Apple iPad would be infringing upon his idea of a computer in tablet form. Not to mention "Siri". Plus Motorola StarTac flip phone would had infringed on the Roddenberry idea of a "communicator". 

https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/11/17/protecting-idea-can-ideas-be-patented/id=103389/

Ummm...
I never used the word "idea", nor implied any issued patent was solely one. That particular patent is probably as deserving as this one from Apple. See the "detailed blueprints" for building it.

https://trea.com/information/computer-in-an-input-device/patentgrant/af1241c7-7afd-46e8-b85b-ccf652183af2

If it looks all too confusing, it's explained in this patent discussion. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/patentlaw/comments/1emh0a8/thoughts_on_this_recent_apple_patent/

killroy

If they had won, then every time you login, you'll be logging in on a machine that violated the Patent.
It's good that they lost.

gatorguy

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas".  Ideas are not patentable 

Then the patents were not simply "ideas" were they, according to your own research? You are correct, you can't patent mere ideas.

MplsP

davidw said:

MplsP said:

Ok, how about a better description of what was patented and how Apple allegedly violated the patents? Also what did the original company do and why is Identity Security LLC considered a patent troll?

I love seeing patent trolls lose but from reading the article I can’t tell it they’re really a patent troll or if they’re a small company from whom Apple actually stole IP. 

If you had read the first sentence of the article, you should know that it wouldn't had matter if the plaintiff was a"patent troll" or a small company, the jury found that Apple did not infringe upon the patents. I don't know how you could come to any sort of conclusion that Apple might had ...... "actually stole IP". Unless you're just trolling. 

The fact that the jury found in Apple’s favor just means Apple’s lawyers did a better job of convincing 12 (ignorant) lay people than the plaintiff’s lawyers did. It has nothing to do with whether the plaintiff was a patent troll or whether Apple was right or wrong. 

I don’t know how you could make any conclusions just from the jury’s decision. 

chasm said:

MplsP said:

Ok, how about a better description of what was patented and how Apple allegedly violated the patents? Also what did the original company do and why is Identity Security LLC considered a patent troll?

There are links in the article to the actual patents. Click on said links and read them for yourself.

Identity Security LLC is considered a "patent troll" because they fit the description: they do not patent anything themselves, or make any products based on the patents they buy. They just buy patents and then try suing rich companies to see if they can get a settlement. They appear to exist for no other purpose than that.

As the article notes, following a trial in which Apple explained their position and Identity Security LLC explained theirs, a jury found that Apple did not violate the patents that Identity Security LLC bought. The company has the right to appeal, but chances are high that they'll keep losing, and that will cost them a lot of money over time.

Part of the journalist’s job is to present that information. Otherwise it’s just opinion without any facts backing it up and the entire substance of the article could be boiled down to the jury’s decision. 

Your description of Identity Security LLC is exactly what AI should have included in the article. 

davidw

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas".  Ideas are not patentable 

Then the patents were not simply "ideas" were they, according to your own research? You are correct, you can't patent mere ideas.

All you saying that the US Patent Office had never been wrong when they issued a patent?

Apple have on many occasions invalidated patents, that should not have been patented. Apple invalidated 15 patents by Masimo alone. But so far, lost a suit based on 2 patents they couldn't invalidate.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/21193/apple-to-halt-sales-of-watch-series-9-and-ultra-2-in-us

>The Patent Trial and Appeal Board evaluated 17 Masimo patents, invalidating 15, a decision that Masimo is now contesting.<

Just because they got patents doesn't mean that they should had.

Even Google have invalidated patents that they felt should not had been patented in the first place.

https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2019/03/google-obtains-victory-at-federal-circuit-by-inval

Thinking that because the US Patent Office issued a patent, it must be something that was patentable, would be like thinking that because Google did it, it couldn't have been evil. 

We all know that both of those concepts are wrong. 

gatorguy

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas".  Ideas are not patentable 

Then the patents were not simply "ideas" were they, according to your own research? You are correct, you can't patent mere ideas.

All you saying that the US Patent Office had never been wrong when they issued a patent?

Huh? Was that meant as misdirection?

Question: Were those Masimo claims invalidated because they were mear "ideas"?
Oh, you don't know? The reasons are available to you. 

You appear to have done the least amount of research you wanted to bother with, enough to give you something to say, whether pertinent or not. Strive to be better.

There's no shame in not being 100% spot-on 100% of the time. I know I'm not, and don't try to hide it. If you're inaccurate in your replies, or perhaps not as informed as you thought, just own it. You don't have to double-down. Move on, but still learn.  Adjust your understanding when you get new information. You win when you know more than you started with.

If you have the time, you could start with researching why certain patent claims were invalidated, which is not the same as invalidating a patent if you're unclear on that.