Dynapass Ip Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.a.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1222
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:22-cv-00210-JRG-RSP,
Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
Decided: June 11, 2026
______________________
FRED WILLIAMS , Williams Simons and Landis PC, Aus-
tin, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
S TEPHEN R OGER D ARTT.
EIMERIC REIG -PLESSIS , Winston Taylor LLP, San Fran-
cisco, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also repre-
sented by D USTIN JAMES E DWARDS , W ILLIAM LOGAN ,
Houston, TX; CLAIRE A. FUNDAKOWSKI, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 25-1222 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN , Circuit Judge, and
BISSOON , Chief District Judge.1
M OORE, Chief Judge.
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC (Dynapass) appeals the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas’ order dismissing with prejudice Dynapass’ claim
that Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America,
N.A. (BOA) infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658. For the fol-
lowing reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Dynapass owns the ’658 patent, which relates to sys-
tems and methods for user authentication in which user
tokens are supplied through communication devices.
’658 patent at 1:1–7. The system authenticates users using
a password, which is based on a passcode and a token. Id.
at 4:36–65. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of authenticating a user on a first secure
computer network, the user having a user account
on said first secure computer network, the method
comprising:
associating the user with a personal communication
device possessed by the user, said personal commu-
nication device in communication over a second net-
work, wherein said second network is a cell phone
network different from the first secure computer
network;
1 Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Case: 25-1222 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 3
receiving a request from the user for a token via the
personal communication device, over the second net-
work;
generating a new password for said first secure com-
puter network based at least upon the token and a
passcode, wherein the token is not known to the user
and wherein the passcode is known to the user;
setting a password associated with the user to be the
new password;
activating access the user account on the first secure
computer network;
transmitting the token to the personal communica-
tion device;
receiving the password from the user via the first se-
cure computer network; and
deactivating access to the user account on the first
secure computer network within a predetermined
amount of time after said activating, such that said
user account is not accessible through any password,
via said first secure computer network.
Id. at 11:43–12:13 (emphases added).
Dynapass sued BOA, accusing the two-factor authenti-
cation feature of BOA’s Mobile Banking Application of in-
fringing claims 1–7 of the ’658 patent. J.A. 116–24. Based
on the district court’s construction of “receiving the pass-
word,” J.A. 17–19, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of
Non-Infringement and Motion for Entry of Final Judg-
ment, J.A. 943–48. The district court treated the motion
as a motion for dismissal and dismissed the case with prej-
udice. J.A. 955. Dynapass appeals. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Case: 25-1222 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 4
D ISCUSSION
We review a district court’s claim construction based
on intrinsic evidence de novo and review any findings of
fact regarding extrinsic evidence for clear error. Speed-
Track, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2021) (citation omitted).
Dynapass argues the district court erred in construing
“receiving the password” in claim 12 to preclude separate
receipt of the “passcode” and “token” components of the
password. Appellant’s Br. 23–36; see J.A. 17–19. Specifi-
cally, Dynapass argues the district court limited “receiving
the password” to the preferred embodiment where “the
user 108 combines the passcode 154 and the token to form
a password” and improperly excluded an alternative em-
bodiment where “the passcode 154 and the token 156 are
submitted separately.” Appellant’s Br. 32–34; ’658 patent
at 4:52–61. We do not agree.
While the written description discloses multiple em-
bodiments for authenticating a user, the patentee’s chosen
claim language unambiguously does not extend to the al-
ternative embodiment where the passcode and token are
received separately. TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips &
Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(“[T]he mere fact that there is an alternative embodiment
disclosed in the [asserted] patent that is not encompassed
by district court’s claim construction does not outweigh the
language of the claim, especially when the court’s construc-
tion is supported by the intrinsic evidence.”). Claim 1 re-
cites (1) “generating a new password . . . based at least
upon the token and a passcode;” (2) “setting a pass-
word . . . to be the new password;” and then (3) “receiving
the password from the user . . . .” This language requires
2 Independent claim 5 similarly recites “receive the
password.” ’658 patent at 12:20–48.
Case: 25-1222 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 5
generating a password from the passcode and token before
receiving the password. Receiving the passcode and token
separately would not constitute “receiving the password”
since the individual passcode and token components are
not the claimed “password.”
The written description supports this construction. In
the alternative embodiment, the written description never
refers to separate reception of the passcode and token as
receiving the password. ’658 patent at 4:59–61 (“In an al-
ternative embodiment, the passcode 154 and the token 156
are submitted separately.”). The written description also
repeatedly juxtaposes the password with the passcode and
token components. See e.g., ’658 patent at 5:8–10 (describ-
ing authenticating a user based on “a supplied password
158 or a passcode 154 and a token 156 combination”); 5:18
(juxtaposing “password data” with “passcode and token
data”); 7:41–45 (“In the preferred embodiment, the user
108 combines the passcode 154 and the token 156 by con-
catenation to form the password 158. In an alternative em-
bodiment, the passcode 154 and the token 156 are
submitted separately.”). This repeated and consistent jux-
taposition between the password and its requisite compo-
nents confirms that separately receiving the passcode and
token does not constitute “receiving the password.” GPNE
Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“We have recognized that when a patent repeatedly and
consistently characterizes a claim term in a particular way,
it is proper to construe the claim term according to that
characterization.”) (internal quotation and citation omit-
ted). We see no error in the district court’s construction of
“receiving the password” to preclude separate reception of
the passcode and token.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Dynapass’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Because the district court did
not err in construing “receiving the password,” we affirm.
Case: 25-1222 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 6
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs to BOA.
Case: 25-1222 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 6 of 6 --