IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Identity verification patents were invalid for being directed to abstract ideas, (May 1, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for verifying a user’s identity using contextual rules or a dedicated smartphone app were invalid because they were directed at abstract ideas and lacked any inventive concept or specific improvement to the technology at issue.

Patent claims relating to user identity verification on a computer network were invalid as reciting only abstract concepts, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. Each of the asserted patents claimed longstanding human activities of identity verification and simply directed that they be performed using computers or smartphones (Fraud Free Transactions LLC v. Ping Identity Corp., No. 1:24-cv-01218-GBW (D. Del. Apr. 29, 2025)).

Fraud Free Transactions, LLC (Fraud Free) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 12,093,950 (the ’950 patent) and 11,551,215 (the ’215 patent), both of which were directed to identity verification on a computer network. The ’950 patent claimed the use of a set of contextual rules to determine the level of verification required for any given access request and the ’215 patent claimed the use of a separate “fraud prevention app” on a user’s smartphone to authenticate a user.

Fraud Free brought suit for infringement of both patents against Ping Identity Corporation (Ping). Ping moved to dismiss on the ground that the asserted patents were invalid for being directed at an abstract idea. The court applied the two-step Alice test.

Abstract idea. On step one of the Alice test, the court found that the asserted claims of the ’950 patent were directed to an abstract idea because it simply listed a set of steps that a person would expect to go through in their mind; namely, receiving an access request, applying a set of rules to evaluate the risk associated with that request, selecting a verification process based on that risk, and applying that verification process. The patent simply directed that these rules be carried out by a computer, without identifying any technological improvement or explaining how to achieve the results described.

The ’215 patent was likewise directed to the abstract idea of requiring authentication from multiple sources, and did so by simply directing that this longstanding business practice be performed using a smartphone app, without any specific technological improvements. The court held that limiting the use of the abstract idea to a phone, as opposed to any other source, did not make the idea any less abstract.

Inventive concept. On step two of the Alice test the court held that neither patent contained any additional features or any other ordered combination of steps that could save patentability. Both patents simply restated the abstract ideas and applied them with a computer.

The court granted Ping’s motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-01218-GBW.

Judge: Williams, G.

Attorneys: Helena C. Rychlicki (Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC) for Fraud Free Transactions LLC. Kelly E. Farnan (Richards, Layton & Finger, PA) for Ping Identity Corp.

Companies: Fraud Free Transactions LLC; Ping Identity Corp.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet DelawareNews