IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
`AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 6,237,095
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA
`INVENTS ACT
`
` SV: 80825-9
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ...................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ....................................... 1
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................................. 3
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ................................ 7
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.203) ................................................................................. 8
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.304 .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ........................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Eligibility Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302.......................... 11
`
`Timing Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.303 .............................. 11
`
`The ’095 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent .............. 11
`
`Citation of Prior Art ................................................................................ 22
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(1) &
`(b)(2)) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ..................................... 25
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 28
`
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.304(b)(4)) ........................................................................................ 28
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(5)) .................................. 28
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’095 PATENT ........................................................... 29
`
`A. Overview of the ’095 Patent ................................................................... 29
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Summary of the ’095 Patent ................................. 30
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’095 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................... 31
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art .................................................................................................. 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Hawkes Chapters (Ex. 1003) ....................................................... 32
`
`Cremin (Ex. 1004) ....................................................................... 35
`
`Ishiguro (Ex. 1005) ...................................................................... 37
`
`Ingalls (Ex. 1006) ......................................................................... 38
`
`B.
`
`Ground I: Hawkes Chapters, Cremin and Ishiguro Render
`Obvious Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .......................... 39
`
`C. Ground II: Combination of Hawkes Chapters, Cremin, Ishiguro
`and Ingalls Renders Obvious Claim 3 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ............ 59
`
`D. Ground III: Claims 1-7 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ................. 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-7 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second
`Paragraph ..................................................................................... 61
`
`Claim 5 Is Further Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 2 and 6 If
`the Board Does Not Adopt Petitioner’s Construction of “Memory
`Means” ......................................................................................... 65
`
`E.
`
`Ground IV: Claims 1-7 Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................... 67
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Sending and Receiving Encrypted Data Is an Abstract Idea ...... 67
`
`Generic Recitations of Generic Computing Structure Do Not
`Amount to an Inventive Concept ................................................. 68
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 77
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
`573 U.S. ____, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)........................................................passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. SightSound Tech., LLC,
`Case No. CBM2013-00019..........................................................................passim
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 65
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U. S. 593 (2010) ........................................................................................... 67
`
`Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert PTY Ltd.,
`CBM2013-00005, Paper No. 18 ......................................................................... 19
`
`CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper 17 .......................................................................... 12, 16
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 12, 62
`
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ................................................................. 76
`
`Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. RPost Commc’n Ltd.,
`CBM2014-00010, Paper 20 ................................................................................ 14
`
`In re Donaldson Co., Inc.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ............................................................ 66
`
`Gates Learjet Corp. v. Duncan Aviation,
`851 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 15 ................................................................................ 20
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)........................................................... 67, 77
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. ____, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014)................................................... 62, 65, 67
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ...................................................................................... 73, 75
`
`PNC Bank N.A. et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00041, Paper No. 3 ............................................................................. 1
`
`PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`CBM2014-00032, Paper 13 ................................................................................ 15
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 ................................................................................ 13
`
`State of Ala. ex rel. Siegelman v. U.S. E.P.A.,
`911 F.2d 499 (11th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 9
`
`In re Swanson,
`540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 64
`
`Volusion, Inc., v. Versata Software, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00018, Paper No. 8 ........................................................................... 13
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................... 22, 23, 24, 32, 35, 37, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................... 24, 31, 39, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................... 24, 27, 31, 61, 65, 66
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 31
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 ............................................................................................. 1, 8, 9, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. §328(a) .................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .............................................................................................. 1, 3, 6, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ....................................................................................... 11, 15, 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ............................................................................................... 8, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................... 8, 24, 25, 28
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 12
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012)....................................................................... 12
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,755, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................... 3
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................. 16, 19, 25
`
`18A Charles Allan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper,
`Federal Practice & Procedure §4449 (2d ed. 2011)........................................ 9, 10
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095
`INTEGRATED CIRCUIT CARDS, TAGS AND TOKENS (P.L. Hawkes et
`al. eds., 1990) (collectively, the “Hawkes Chapters”):
`• P.L. Hawkes, Preface and Introduction (“Hawkes Preface
`& Introduction”);
`• A.R. Lessin, Smart Card Technology – A US Pioneer’s
`Viewpoint (“Hawkes Ch. 2”);
`• J. McCrindle, A Contactless Smart Card and Its
`Applications (“Hawkes Ch. 3”);
`• W.L. Price & B.J. Chorley, Secure Transactions with an
`Intelligent Token (“Hawkes Ch. 6”); and
`• D.W. Davies, Cryptography and the Smart Card (“Hawkes
`Ch. 8”)
`Int’l Pub. No. WO 83/03018 to P.V. Cremin et al. (“Cremin”)
`European Pat. Pub. 0588339 A2 to G. Ishiguro et al. (“Ishiguro”)
`Daniel H.H. Ingalls, Design Principles Behind Smalltalk, BYTE
`MAG. (Aug. 1981) (“Ingalls”)
`Complaint, Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase &
`Co., Case No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (Oct. 1, 2012 E.D. Tex.)
`Special Master’s Report and Recommendation Re: Claim
`Construction, In re Maxim Integrated Prods, Inc., Case No. 2:12-
`mc-244, MDL No. 2354 (Oct. 9, 2013, W.D. Pa.)
`Memorandum Opinion (re: claim construction), In re Maxim
`Integrated Prods, Inc., Case No. 2:12-mc-244, MDL No. 2354
`(Dec. 17, 2013, W.D. Pa.)
`Transcript of Proceedings, In re Maxim Integrated Prods, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:12-mc-244, MDL No. 2354 (Mar. 20, 2013, W.D. Pa.)
`May 21, 2014 email from PNC withdrawing from Joint Defense
`Group
`Stipulation of Dismissal, In re Maxim Integrated Prods, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:12-mc-244, MDL No. 2354 (May 21, 2014, W.D. Pa.)
`JPMorgan Chase & Co., Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended Dec. 31,
`2013
`The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Form 10-K, Fiscal Year
`Ended Dec. 31, 2013
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`
`Description
`Declaration of Steven Bristow
`Curriculum Vitae of Steven Bristow
`Rivest, et al., A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and
`Public-Key Cryptosystems, 21 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2,
`120 (1978)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,900,904
`U.S. Patent No. 4,864,618
`
`- vii -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties in interest for this petition for Covered Business Method
`
`patent (“CBM”) review are JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
`
`N.A. (collectively “Chase”).
`
`A previous petition for Covered Business Method patent review of the same
`
`patent was filed on November 22, 2013. PNC Bank N.A. et al. v. Maxim
`
`Integrated Prods, Inc., CBM2014-00041, Paper No. 3. The petitioners and real
`
`parties-in-interest in that review proceeding were PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC”) and
`
`Chase. The Board denied the Petition on June 3, 2014 because before the petition
`
`was filed, PNC had filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of
`
`the subject patent. CBM2014-00041, Paper No. 19. The Board based its decision
`
`on 35 U.S.C. §325(a)(1), which provides that “A post-grant review may not be
`
`instituted . . . if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the
`
`petitioner or a real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a
`
`claim of the patent.”
`
`Prior to the Board’s dismissal of the petition, PNC had requested adverse
`
`judgment on April 1, 2014, CBM2014-00041, Paper No. 11, and had settled the
`
`litigation with the Patent Owner as of May 23, 2014. CBM2014-00041, Paper No.
`
`16. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that PNC had already exerted substantial
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`control over the proceedings by its joint filing of the petition and that an adverse
`
`judgment against PNC would not obviate that control. CBM2014-00041, Paper
`
`No. 19 at 4. The Board thus dismissed the petition in its entirety, while noting that
`
`“We express no opinion regarding the likelihood that any party other than PNC
`
`would prevail in establishing that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable for
`
`the reasons set forth in the Petition.” Id. at 3. The Board made no decision on the
`
`merits of the patentability of any claim of the subject patent.
`
`PNC has had no participation or control in the filing of this Petition and is
`
`not a real party-in-interest in this proceeding. PNC has no interest in the outcome
`
`of this proceeding in light of the fact that PNC has settled the controversy with
`
`Patent Owner over the validity of the subject patent and the civil litigation between
`
`PNC and Patent Owner has been dismissed. Ex. 1012, Stipulation of Dismissal.
`
`Chase retained different counsel to prepare the present Petition from the counsel
`
`who prepared the previous Petition. Furthermore, PNC and Chase are two entirely
`
`separate and unrelated corporate entities with no common ownership (other than
`
`some number of public stockholders who may own shares in both banks) and no
`
`common control. See Ex. 1013, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Form 10-K for 2013; Ex.
`
`1014, PNC Financial Services Group, Form 10-K for 2013.
`
`As the Trial Practice Guide points out, “at a general level, the ‘real party-in-
`
`interest’ is the party that desires review of the patent. Thus, the ‘real party-in-
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`interest’ may be the petitioner itself, and/or it may be the party or parties at whose
`
`behest the petition has been filed.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,755, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`In this case, the only party that desires review of the patent is Chase, and this
`
`Petition is not in any sense filed at the “behest” of PNC, who has no interest in the
`
`validity of the subject patent. No party other than Chase has funded, directed or
`
`controlled the filing or the content of this Petition. See id. at 48760 (pointing out
`
`that “a party that funds and directs and controls an IPR or PGR petition or
`
`proceeding constitutes a ‘real party-in-interest.’”). Furthermore, as the Trial
`
`Practice Guide notes, a mere association between two parties or participation in a
`
`joint defense arrangement (which was the case before PNC settled with Patent
`
`Owner) is not normally sufficient to qualify the associated parties as “real parties-
`
`in-interest” to one another. Id. In fact, as of May 21, 2014, PNC and Chase are no
`
`longer co-signatories to any joint defense agreement with respect to the subject
`
`patent. Ex. 1011, Email from PNC withdrawing from Joint Defense Group.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095 (“the ’095 Patent”) is currently the subject of
`
`litigation against multiple defendants, including the action captioned Maxim
`
`Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D.
`
`Pa.) (the “JPMC Litigation”). The ’095 Patent has also been asserted in 17 other
`
`cases consolidated into multidistrict litigation as In re: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`MDL No. 2354, Misc. No. 12-244-JFC (W.D. Pa.) (“MDL Litigation”). However, as
`
`of the filing date of this Petition, several of those cases have been terminated from the
`
`MDL proceedings as indicated below:
`
`• PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`
`00089-JFC (W.D. Pa.) (Terminated)
`
`• KeyCorp v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00860-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Vanguard Grp., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00862-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., No. 2:12-cv-00863-
`
`JFC (Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Comerica Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00869-JFC
`
`• Fidelity Brokerage Servs. LLC v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`
`00871-JFC (Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. First United Bank & Trust Co., No. 2:12-cv-
`
`00876-JFC (Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00877-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00878-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00879-
`
`JFC (Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Bank of the West, No. 2:12-cv-00880-JFC
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Groupon, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00881-JFC
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Union Bank, N.A., No. 2:12-cv-00882-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., No. 2:12-cv-00883-
`
`JFC (Terminated)
`
`• Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`
`00887-JFC (Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. QVC, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00891-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Clairmail Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00923-NBF
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`
`00945-JFC
`
`• BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`
`01538-JFC
`
`• Deutsche Bank AG v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01604-JFC
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01628-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Target Corp., No. 2:12-cv-01629-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 2:12-cv-01639-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-01640-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 2:12-cv-01642-JFC
`
`• Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01643-JFC
`
`(Terminated)
`
`The ’095 Patent has also been asserted in Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Branch Banking & Trust Co., 4:12‐cv‐00369‐RAS (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’095 Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/004,510,
`
`filed September 29, 1995. A Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,105,013, which claims priority to the same provisional application, has
`
`been filed by Petitioner on even date herewith.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Andrea G. Reister (Reg. No. 36,253)
`
`Jay I. Alexander (Reg. No. 32,678)
`
`areister@cov.com
`
`jalexander@cov.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`
`Covington & Burling LLP
`
`Covington & Burling LLP
`
`1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
`1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`T: (202) 662-5141; F: (202) 778-5141
`
`T: (202) 662-5622; F: (202) 778-5622
`
`Additional Back-up Counsel
`
`Gregory S. Discher (Reg. No. 42,488)
`
`
`
`
`
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`
`Covington & Burling LLP
`
`1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`T: (202) 662-5485; F: (202) 778-5485
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`II.
`
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.203)
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge $30,000 ($12,000 request fee;
`
`and $18,000 post-institution fee) to Deposit Account No. 50-0740 for the fees set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) for this Petition for Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Review. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that
`
`might be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above referenced
`
`Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a), the ’095 Patent is eligible for CBM
`
`review (“CBMR”) because Petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.302 and the ’095 Patent is a covered business method patent.
`
`Moreover, Chase cannot be estopped from maintaining the present Petition
`
`by virtue of the Board’s decision to deny Covered Business Method review of the
`
`subject patent in CBM2014-00041, Paper No. 19. Congress specifically defined
`
`the circumstances under which a party may be estopped from requesting or
`
`maintaining a post-grant review proceeding such as the instant CBM Petition in 35
`
`U.S.C. §325(e)(1). Estoppel cannot arise under Section 325(e)(1) unless the Board
`
`previously issued a “final written decision under Section 328(a).” By its terms, a
`
`final written decision under Section 328(a) can exist only in cases where “a post-
`
`grant review is instituted and not dismissed.” 35 U.S.C. §328(a). The Board’s
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`decision in CBM2014-00041 cannot qualify as such a “final written decision”
`
`because it was a decision denying the petition in that proceeding. The Board was
`
`careful to point out in its order that it “express[ed] no opinion regarding the
`
`likelihood that any party other than PNC would prevail in establishing that any of
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable for the reasons set forth in the Petition.”
`
`Id., Paper No. 19 at 3. This statement constutites an implicit recognition that
`
`another Petition, filed by a different real party-in-interest, could be maintained.
`
`Chase is also not barred by 35 U.S.C. §325(a)(1) because Chase has not
`
`previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of the ’095 Patent. As
`
`discussed above, PNC, a petitioner in CBM2014-00041, previously filed such a
`
`civil action but is not a real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Chase is also not
`
`barred under Section 325(a)(1) by the Board’s decision in CBM2014-00041
`
`because the ground for dismissal was based on PNC’s conduct, not Chase’s
`
`conduct. It is a well-accepted common law principle that “a party is bound only as
`
`to matters … litigated as to him rather than between other parties alone.” 18A
`
`Charles Allan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice &
`
`Procedure §4449 (2d ed. 2011) (“Wright & Miller”). See also, e.g., State of Ala. ex
`
`rel. Siegelman v. U.S. E.P.A., 911 F.2d 499, 503 (11th Cir. 1990); Gates Learjet
`
`Corp. v. Duncan Aviation, 851 F.2d 303, 305 (10th Cir. 1988). In the previous
`
`proceeding, the basis of the denial of the petition was an issue litigated between
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`Patent Owner and PNC alone: PNC’s previous filing of a declaratory judgment
`
`action that created a bar under Section 325(a)(1) as to PNC. That bar could not
`
`have applied, and was not applied, to Chase individually in the previous
`
`proceeding and no reason exists to apply it here.
`
`Patent Owner may argue that Chase is barred even though it was not a
`
`previous declaratory judgment plaintiff because Chase was a real party-in-interest
`
`in the CBM2014-00041 proceeding that was dismissed by the Board under Section
`
`325(a)(1) due to PNC’s declaratory judgment filing. Patent Owner may argue that
`
`some vague policy against the same party being involved in multiple CBM review
`
`proceedings against the same patent counsels against allowing this Petition to
`
`proceed. That argument would be unavailing because the plain language of the
`
`only possible applicable statutory provisions—35 U.S.C. §325(e)(1) and
`
`325(a)(1)—does not apply to Chase.
`
`Moreover, viewing this argument simply from a policy standpoint, the Board
`
`did not institute the prior proceeding and thus made no adjudication on the merits
`
`of the validity of the ’095 Patent and expended no effort or resources in
`
`considering those merits. Chase has therefore not had its “day in court” on the
`
`merits of the validity of the ’095 Patent and this Petition is in no sense
`
`“duplicative” of the previous proceeding.
`
` See Wright & Miller, §4449
`
`(referencing “[o]ur deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`own day in court”). Congress took care to prevent duplicative proceedings when it
`
`designed the statutory provisions of the AIA. In so doing, it balanced the interests
`
`of Patent Owners and Petitioners by expressly requiring that for a subsequent
`
`proceeding to be estopped, a final written decision on the merits must have
`
`occurred in a previously instituted proceeding. No estoppel can arise here because
`
`this Petition does not fit within the situation defined by Congress as giving rise to
`
`estoppel.
`
`Eligibility Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302
`
`1.
`Petitioner has been sued for infringement of the ’095 Patent in the JPMC
`
`Litigation, Ex. 1007 (Complaint), and, as discussed above, is not estopped from
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified in the present petition.
`
`Timing Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.303
`
`2.
`The requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) cannot be met for the ’095 Patent.
`
`As such, a petition requesting covered business method patent review of the ’095
`
`Patent may be filed at any time.
`
`The ’095 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`3.
`The AIA and USPTO rules define a “covered business method patent” as “a
`
`patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for
`
`technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`statutory scheme sets forth a two-part test to determine whether a patent is eligible
`
`for CBMR: (1) the patent must claim a method or apparatus for performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service, and (2) the claimed invention cannot be a
`
`technological invention. A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered
`
`business method to be eligible for review, even if the patent includes additional
`
`claims. Google, Inc. v. Inventor Holdings, LLC, CBM2014-00002, Paper No. 16, 6
`
`(citing 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012)). The ’095 Patent meets both
`
`parts of the test and is thus eligible for CBMR.
`
`a)
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Directed to a “Financial
`Product or Service”
`
`The Board has stated that “financial product or service” should be
`
`“interpreted broadly.” Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-00020,
`
`Paper No. 14, 11. It encompasses patents claiming “activities that are financial in
`
`nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.”
`
`CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc., CBM2012-00005, Paper 17, 7
`
`(quoting 77 Fed. Reg. 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012)). Patents are eligible for CBMR if
`
`they cover “any ancillary activities related to a financial product or service,
`
`including . . . marketing, customer interfaces, Web site management and
`
`functionality, transmission or management of data, servicing, underwriting,
`
`customer communications, and back office operations-e.g., payment processing,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`stock clearing.” Statement of Sen. Schumer, 157 Cong. Rec. S1364–65 (daily ed.
`
`Mar. 8, 2011).
`
`The Board has explained that a patent that “relates to a commercial
`
`transaction . . . is itself financial in nature” Volusion, Inc., v. Versata Software,
`
`Inc., CBM2013-00018, Paper No. 8, 6, and that “the term financial is an adjective
`
`that simply means relating to monetary matters.” SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev.
`
`Grp., Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 36, 23. The Board has also held that “[t]he
`
`electronic sale of something, including charging a fee to a party’s account, is a
`
`financial activity, and allowing such a sale amounts to providing a financial
`
`service.” Apple, CBM2013-00020, Paper No. 14 at 11. Here, the claims, the
`
`specification, and the patent owner’s litigation history all show the ’095 Patent is
`
`directed to a financial product or service.
`
`Starting with the claims, claim 7, which depends from independent claim 1,
`
`recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 1 wherein said first data object includes a base
`
`monetary amount and wherein said second data object includes a transaction
`
`monetary amount.” ’095 Patent, Claim 7 (emphasis added). By its own terms,
`
`claim 7 clearly relates to “monetary matters” and thus qualifies the patent for CBM
`
`review. See SAP, CBM2012-00001, Paper 36, 23. Because “[d]ependent claims
`
`are generally narrower in scope than the claims from which they depend,” Glaxo
`
`Grp. Ltd. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 262 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001), claim 1
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US03
`
`(and its other dependent claims) also include a “base monetary amount” and
`
`“transaction monetary amount.” Thus, the plain language of the claims shows that
`
`they are directed to a financial product or service.
`
`The language contained in claim 7 alone is dispositive because, in
`
`determining whether a patent is eligible for CBMR, “the focus is on the claims.”
`
`Agilysys, CBM2014-00014, Paper No. 19 at 10. Moreover, an examination of the
`
`specification of the ’095 Patent confirms that the claimed invention is directed to
`
`the practice of a financial product or service. The abstract of the patent states, “the
`
`present invention relates to an electronic module . . . capable of passing
`
`information back and forth between a service provider’s equipment via a secure,
`
`encrypted technique so that money and other valuable data can be securely
`
`passed electronically.” ’095 Patent, Abstract (emphasis added); see also id. at