CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.
Infringement action filed 19 Mar 2026 in the U.S. Supreme Court and closed 20 Apr 2026, with US8620039B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: petition dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8620039B2
- Application no.
- US12/063650
- Case no.
- 25-1104
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Court level
- Supreme Court
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Judicial review
- Filed – Closed
- 19 Mar 2026 – 20 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 32 days
- Basis of termination
- Petition Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Card device security using biometrics
- Validity challenges
- 5 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Card device security using biometrics
The disclosed Biometric Card Pointer arrangements store (207) a card user’s biometric signature in a local memory (124) in a verification station (127) the first time the card user uses the verification station (127) in question. The biometric signature is stored at a memory address (607) defined by the card information (605) on the user’s card (601). All future uses of the particular verification station (127) by someone submitting the aforementioned card (601) requires the card user to submit both the card and a biometric signature, which is verified against the signature stored at the memory address defined by the card information (605) thereby determining if the person submitting the card is authorized to do so.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 Dec 2013
- Earliest priority
- 12 Aug 2005
- Est. expiry
- 13 Apr 2031
- Validity challenges
- 5 on recordIPR2022-00600 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2022-01093 · Other · filed by ASSA ABLOY ABIPR2022-00600 · Patentability · filed by CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTDIPR2022-01094 · Patentability · filed by ASSA ABLOY ABIPR2022-01094 · Patentability · filed by CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BURKE, CHRISTOPHER, JOHN
- Classification
- G06K9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Crowell
- Examiner
- JOHNS, ANDREW W
Parties of record
CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd.
- Core tech
- G06K9/00
- Counsel
- George Clark Summerfield Jr.
- Firm
- K&L Gates, LLP
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brian Robert Matsui
- Firm
- Morrison & Foerster, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| George Clark Summerfield Jr. | CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Brian Robert Matsui | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Petition DENIED”
Case 25-1104 · U.S. Supreme Court · closed 20 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 25-1104?
25-1104 is a patent infringement action brought by CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. against Apple, Inc., filed on 19 Mar 2026 in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case closed on 20 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 25-1104?
US8620039B2 (“Card device security using biometrics”), assigned to CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD, currently active. The record also lists Card device security using biometrics.
How was case 25-1104 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is petition dismissed. The termination text reads: “Petition DENIED”
How long did case 25-1104 take?
32 calendar days, from filing on 19 Mar 2026 to closure on 20 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1104?
George Clark Summerfield Jr. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff CPC Patent Technologies PTY. Brian Robert Matsui appears for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1104 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.