Proxense Sues Mastercard on Biometric Authentication Patents Over MDES Tokenized Payments.

The complaint

The case is Proxense, LLC v. Mastercard International Incorporated and Mastercard Incorporated, No. 1:26-cv-09333 (S.D.N.Y.), a 25-page complaint for patent infringement filed October 26, 2026, Document 1. The plaintiff, Proxense, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Bend, Oregon. The defendants, Mastercard Incorporated and Mastercard International Incorporated, are Delaware corporations that the complaint places at their global headquarters in Purchase, New York, within the district. The complaint describes Mastercard International Incorporated as the principal operating subsidiary of Mastercard Incorporated and alleges, on information and belief, that the two act as a single integrated enterprise in operating MDES, the Mastercard network, and the Mastercard Rules. Proxense demands a jury.

Jurisdiction and venue

The complaint pleads subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). It alleges general personal jurisdiction because each defendant's principal place of business and global headquarters is in Purchase, New York, and specific jurisdiction based on operating MDES and the Mastercard network from that headquarters. It alleges venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because each defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in the district.

The patents and claims

The complaint asserts two Patents-in-Suit and alleges Proxense is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in each, including the right to recover past damages. It states the asserted claims are method claims to which marking under 35 U.S.C. 287 does not apply.

U.S. Patent 8,352,730, Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication, issued January 8, 2013. Its original claims 1 to 17 have been cancelled, and the complaint says claims 18 to 34, added by ex parte reexamination, are the claims in effect. Asserted claims are 29 and 31. Claim 29 covers a method for authenticating a verified user that receives codes including a device ID code uniquely identifying an integrated device and a secret decryption value associated with a biometrically verified user, the device ID being registered with a third-party trusted-authority agent that lists legitimate devices; requests authentication of those codes by the agent; receives an access message at an application from the agent; and, on a positive access message, allows the biometrically verified user access to the application to complete a transaction between the user and the application, where the application is selected from a listed group including an ATM machine, computer software, a web site, and a file. Claim 31 depends from claim 29 and further requires establishing a secure communications channel with a biometric key from which the codes and data values are received.

U.S. Patent 8,886,954, Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication, issued November 11, 2014, from an application filed December 10, 2012, as a continuation of the application that issued as the '730 patent. Asserted claims are 16, 18, and 19. Claim 16 covers a method that wirelessly receives codes including a device ID uniquely identifying an integrated device associated with a biometrically verified user, the device ID registered with a third-party trusted authority; requests authentication by that authority; receives at an application an access message indicating successful authentication; and allows the biometrically verified user access to the application. Claim 18 depends from claim 16 and adds establishing a secure communications channel with the integrated device from which the codes are received. Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and further requires that the application include one or more of a listed set including computer software and a financial account.

The Patent Office record

Inter Partes Review Certificate US 8,352,730 K1, issued September 24, 2025, reflects the results of IPR2024-00232, joined with IPR2024-01333 and IPR2024-00775, and states that claims 1 to 17 of the '730 patent are cancelled. Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate US 8,352,730 C1, issued January 29, 2026, on Reexamination Request No. 90/015,052 filed June 8, 2022, also cancels claims 1 to 17 and adds new claims 18 to 34, determined to be patentable. Claims 29 and 31, asserted here, are among the added claims.

The accused products

The complaint accuses Mastercard Digital Enablement Service (MDES), the Mastercard Token Vault, Mastercard Tokens, and tokenized contactless Mastercard payments, including when a cardholder uses Apple Pay or another digital wallet with biometric device authentication (Face ID, Touch ID, fingerprint, or iris scan) at a contactless point-of-sale terminal. It alleges Mastercard validates the token and cryptogram, maps the token to the underlying account number, and forwards authorization to the issuer.

The infringement allegations

Count I asserts claims 29 and 31 of the '730 patent. Count II asserts claims 16, 18, and 19 of the '954 patent. Both counts allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), including as a single actor directing and controlling steps performed by issuers, acquirers, merchants, and pass-through digital wallet operators through the Mastercard Rules and MDES specifications; induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b); and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). The complaint alleges that Mastercard has known of both patents at least since the filing and service of the complaint, and that its continued infringement after notice is willful.

The relief sought

The prayer asks for a judgment of direct and indirect infringement of one or more claims of each patent; damages of at least a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284; enhanced damages up to three times; an accounting and supplemental damages; ongoing royalties or, alternatively, a permanent injunction for any post-judgment infringement; a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285; pre- and post-judgment interest and costs; and other relief.

What to watch next

Watch for service on the two Mastercard defendants and for their answer or a motion under Rule 12. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.