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. 5,949,880
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA
`INVENTS ACT
`
` SF: 201549-7
`SF: 201549-10
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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)) .................................................. 4
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ................................ 7
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ........................................... 8
`
`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 ’880 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent ............... 11
`
`Citation of Prior Art ................................................................................. 21
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(1) &
`(b)(2)) ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ..................................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“module” (independent claim 1) ................................................... 23
`
`“mathematical operation” (independent claim 1) ........................ 24
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................... 25
`
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.304(b)(4)) ......................................................................................... 26
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(5)) ................................... 26
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’880 PATENT ............................................................ 26
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’880 Patent .................................................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Exemplary Embodiment Applicable to Independent Claim 1 .... 28
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 3 and 4 ........................................................ 35
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Summary of the ’880 Patent .................................. 35
`
`V.
`
`AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’880 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................... 36
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art .................................................................................................... 36
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,684 to Akiyama at al. (Ex. 1004) ............ 36
`
`Ground I: Akiyama Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a). ........................................................................................ 44
`
`Ground II: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 Fail to Claim Patentable Subject
`Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................. 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Transfer of Value Is an Abstract Idea ................................... 58
`
`The Limited Structure Recited in the ’880 Patent Does Not
`Amount to an Inventive Concept .................................................. 62
`
`The Dependent Claims Do Not Introduce An Inventive Concept
` ........................................................................................................ 65
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ............................................................................................ 58
`
`Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert PTY Ltd.,
`CBM2013-00005, Paper No. 18 ......................................................................... 20
`
`CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper 17 .......................................................................... 12, 16
`
`Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. RPost Commc’n Ltd.,
`CBM2014-00010, Paper 20 ................................................................................ 15
`
`Gates Learjet Corp. v. Duncan Aviation,
`851 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................... 58, 63
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ............................................................................................ 61
`
`PNC Bank N.A. et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00039, 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
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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, 36, 37, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. §132(a) .................................................................................................... 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ............................................................................................. 36, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 ............................................................................................. 1, 8, 9, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. §328(a) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .............................................................................................. 1, 4, 7, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ....................................................................................... 12, 16, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ............................................................................................... 8, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ......................................................................................... 8, 22, 26
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 12
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 12
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,755, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................... 3
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................. 17, 19, 23
`
`18A Charles Allan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal
`Practice & Procedure §4449 (2d ed. 2011) ..................................................... 9, 11
`
`
`
`
`- 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
`Ex. 1015
`
`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 to Curry et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,684 to Akiyama et al.
`INTEGRATED CIRCUIT CARDS, TAGS AND TOKENS (P.L. Hawkes et
`al. eds., 1990) (collectively, the “Hawkes Chapters”):
`• P.L. Hawkes, Preface & Introduction (“Hawkes Preface &
`Introduction”);
`• 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”)
`Joint Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice of Claims by the PNC
`Financial Services Group. Inc. and PNC Bank, National
`Association and Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., C.A. No. 2:12-
`cv-89-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket Item #844 (5/21/14)
`JPMorgan Chase & Co., Form 10-K, Annual report pursuant to
`Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Dec.
`31, 2013
`The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Form 10-K, Annual
`report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
`Act of 1934, Dec. 31, 2013
`Email from Elizabeth Laughton re Maxim-Stipulation of
`Dismissal and Withdrawal as Liaison Counsel, May 21, 2014.
`Complaint in Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase
`& Co., No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket Item # 1
`(10/1/12)
`Declaration of Stephen Bristow
`Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Bristow
`U.S. Patent No. 4,900,904
`U.S. Patent No. 4,864,618
`Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, New Directions in
`Cryptography, IEEE TRANS. INFORM. THEORY IT-22, 6 (Nov.
`1976), 644-654.
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1016
`
`Description
`Rivest, et al., A method for obtaining digital signatures and
`public key crypto-systems, COMMUNICATIONS OF ACM, Volume
`21, Number 2 (1978).
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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., CBM2014-00039, 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. CBM2014-00039, 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, CBM2014-00039, Paper No. 11, and had settled the
`
`litigation with the Patent Owner as of May 23, 2014. CBM2014-00039, Paper No.
`
`16. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that PNC had already exerted substantial
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`control over the proceedings by its joint filing of the petition and that an adverse
`
`judgment against PNC would not obviate that control. CBM2014-00039, 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. 1006, Joint Stipulated Dismissal
`
`with Prejudice of Claims by the PNC Financial Services Group. Inc. and PNC
`
`Bank, National Association and Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., C.A. No. 2:12-
`
`cv-89-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket Item #844 (5/21/14). 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. Exs.
`
`1007, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Form 10-K, Annual report pursuant to Section 13
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Dec. 31, 2013; Ex. 1008, The
`
`PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Form 10-K, Annual report pursuant to
`
`Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Dec. 31, 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-
`
`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. 48755, 48759 (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.
`
`1009, Email from Elizabeth Laughton re Maxim-Stipulation of Dismissal and
`
`Withdrawal as Liaison Counsel, May 21, 2014.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880 (“the ’880 Patent”) is currently the subject of
`
`
`
`litigation against multiple defendants, including the action captioned Maxim
`
`Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D.
`
`Pa.) (“JPMC Litigation”). The ’880 Patent has also been asserted in 17 other cases
`
`consolidated into multidistrict litigation as In re: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. 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)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`• 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)
`
`• 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)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`• 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
`
`• 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 ’880 Patent has also been asserted in Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Branch
`
`Banking & Trust Co., 4:12‐cv‐00369‐RAS (E.D. Tex.).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`
`
`The ’880 Patent is a division of U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (“the ’510 Patent”).
`
`A Petition for Covered Business Method Review of the ’510 Patent has been filed by
`
`Petitioner on even date herewith.
`
`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
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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.
`
`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 ’880 Patent is eligible for CBM
`
`review (“CBMR”) because Petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.302 and the ’880 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 CBM2014-00039, 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
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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
`
`decision in CBM2014-00039 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 constitutes 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 ’880 Patent. As
`
`discussed above, PNC, a petitioner in CBM2014-00039, 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 CBM2014-00039
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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
`
`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 CBM2014-00039 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 ‘880 Patent and expended no effort or resources in
`
`considering those merits. Chase has therefore not had its “day in court” on the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`merits of the validity of the ‘880 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
`
`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 ’880 Patent in the JPMC
`
`Litigation 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 ’880 Patent.
`
`As such, a petition requesting covered business method patent review of the ’880
`
`Patent may be filed at any time.
`
`The ’880 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
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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
`
`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 ’880 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,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`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,
`
`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 ’880 Patent is
`
`directed to a financial product or service.
`
`Starting with the claims, claim 1 of the ’880 Patent, the only independent
`
`claim, recites “[a] method for electronically transferring units of exchange” and
`
`“passing a first value datum.” ’880 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added). Claim 2,
`
`which is dependent from claim 1, recites “wherein said first value datum represents
`
`a monetary equivalent.” Id. at Claim 2 (emphasis added). “Electronically
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`transferring” a “monetary equivalent” clearly relates to “monetary matters” and
`
`qualifies the patent for CBM review. See CRS, CBM2012-00005, Paper 17 at 7.
`
`Thus, the plain language of claim 2 shows that it is directed to a financial product
`
`or service.
`
`Moreover, an examination of the specification of the ’880 Patent confirms
`
`that the claimed invention is directed to the practice of a financial product or
`
`service. The abstract of the patent states, “the disclosed system, apparatus and
`
`method are useful for enabling a user to fill a portable module with a cash
`
`equivalent and to spend the cash equivalent at a variety of locations.” ’880
`
`Patent, Abstract (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:63-63 (“The portable module
`
`can be used as a cash equivalent when buying products and services in the market
`
`place.”), 2:1-2:4 (“The portable module can be . . . filled with electronic money at
`
`an add-money station, and be debited by a merchant when a product or service is
`
`purchased by the consumer.”). The specification goes on to “present[] practical
`
`applications of the system.” id. at 7:9. The only two “practical applications”
`
`described in the specification are “transferring units of exchange out of a portable
`
`module,” id. at 7:13, and “transferring units of exchange into the portable module,”
`
`id. at 8:30. It is clear that the “units of exchange” referred to are a cash-equivalent,
`
`having a “monetary value,” id. at 7:26, and the “units of exchange” can be used “to
`
`take cash out of an ATM machine,” id. at 8:35. Given that the only disclosed
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. 020358.0206-US06
`
`“practical applications” relate to digital monetary transactions, one of which also
`
`includes physical cash from an ATM, the claims of the ’880 Patent clearly “have
`
`utility to financial processes.” Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. RPost Commc’n
`
`Ltd., CBM2014-00010, Paper 20, 6-7.
`
`The litigation behavior of patent owner Maxim further confirms that the
`
`’880 Patent is directed to a financial product or service. Maxim has sued numerous
`
`financial institutions, including Chase, for alleged infringement of the ’880 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1010, Complaint in Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
`
`No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket Item # 1 (10/1/12). Maxim’s
`
`allegations are expressly directed toward Chase’s mobile banking applications.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 8-9. By making such allegations, Maxim admits that the ’880
`
`Patent is at the very least incidental to a financial product or service. While
`
`allegations made in litigation are not dispo