SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn

SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn, 2-16-cv-07349 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2017) 


  • 6,003,135 | Entitled “Modular security device”
  • 6,088,802 | Entitled “Peripheral device with integrated security functionality”


Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Abstract Idea:


Something More:



Performing security operations from a peripheral device on a host device


The key claim of a first patent was not directed to an abstract idea, but instead tied to a specific structure that produced a technological improvement. The claim is directed to a “physical structure that contains a combination of components, not a method or system that uses a general computer to secure access to secret information.” Similar, the claim of a second patent has steps that “occur for the purpose of creating a technological improvement, which is to enhance security operations, so this claim is not an abstract idea.”