`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JOHN D’AGOSTINO
`Patent Owner
`
`––––––––––
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00543 (Patent No. 8,036,988)
`Case IPR2014-00544 (Patent No. 7,840,486)
`
`––––––––––
`
`PETITIONER MASTERCARD’S
`OPENING BRIEF ON REMAND
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................ 1
`
`A. The Single Merchant Claims are Anticipated under 35 USC § 102
`by Cohen ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`Cohen’s “Single Use” Card Anticipates the Single Merchant
`Limitation ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Cohen’s “Any Computer Store” Card Anticipates the Single
`Merchant Limitation ................................................................................ 5
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument that the Single Merchant Limitation
`Requires Multiple Transactions is Wrong and, Nonetheless,
`Foreclosed ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Even If The Single Merchant Limitation Requires Multiple
`Transactions, Cohen Discloses This ...................................................... 10
`
`
`B. The One or More Merchant Claims are Anticipated under 35 USC
`§102 by Cohen ........................................................................................... 11
`
`Cohen’s “Chain of Stores” Card Anticipates the One or More
`Merchants Limitation ............................................................................. 12
`
`Cohen’s “Type of Stores” and “Group of Stores” Card
`Anticipates the One or More Merchants Limitation .............................. 14
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On appeal from the Board’s Final Written Decisions (“FWDs”), the Federal
`
`Circuit altered the construction of the “single-merchant limitation” and remanded
`
`these cases to the Board to further consider whether “aspects of Cohen other than
`
`the chain-store discussion might satisfy the single-merchant claim limitation.”
`
`D’Agostino v. MasterCard Int’l Inc., 844 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`evidence of record establishes that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988 (“the
`
`’988 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,840,486 (“the ’486 Patent”) are invalid under
`
`the Federal Circuit’s revised construction.
`
`Specifically, U.S. Pat. No. 6,422,462 (“Cohen”) discloses at least two use-
`
`cases, each of which anticipate the single merchant limitation: (1) Cohen’s “single
`
`use” cards and (2) a card valid at “any computer store”. These examples in Cohen
`
`also anticipate the “one or more merchants” limitation as the Board held (and
`
`Patent Owner admitted) that the “one or more merchants” limitation encompasses
`
`the single merchant limitation. In addition, Cohen also discloses additional use-
`
`cases, which anticipate the one or more merchants limitation, including the “chain
`
`store” use-case the Board previously analyzed.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER THE
`FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Federal Circuit identified step (b) in claim 21 of the ’988 patent as
`
`representative of the single merchant limitation (“receiving a request from said
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`account holder for a transaction code to make a purchase within a payment
`
`category that at least limits transactions to a single merchant, said single merchant
`
`limitation being included in said payment category prior to any particular merchant
`
`being identified as said single merchant”). D’Agostino, 844 F.3d at 948. The
`
`Federal Circuit construed the single merchant limitation as follows:
`
`The single-merchant limitation thus requires, simply, that, when the
`transaction code is requested, the request limits the number of
`authorized merchants to one but does not then identify the merchant,
`such identification occurring only later.
`Id. at 950.
`
`The ’988 Patent comprises two categories of claims (the “single merchant”
`
`claims and the “one or more merchant” claims), whereas the ’486 Patent includes
`
`only “single merchant” claims. Under the Federal Circuit’s claim construction,
`
`Cohen anticipates both the Single Merchant Claims (claims 21, 23-25, 27-30 of the
`
`’988 Patent, and claims 1-15, 22-30 of the ’486 Patent) and the One or More
`
`Merchant Claims (claims 1-10, 15-20, 22, 31-33, 35-38 of the ’988 Patent).
`
`In the FWDs, the Board found the remaining claims (claims 11-14, 26, and
`
`34 of the ’988 Patent, and claims 16-21 of the ’486 Patent) obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103 over the combination of Cohen and Musmanno. See ’988 FWD,
`
`IPR2014-00543 Paper 28, at 21-22; ’486 FWD, IPR2014-00544 Paper 22, at 19-
`
`20. The Federal Circuit did not remand this case for further consideration of the
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`Board’s obviousness analysis regarding Musmanno. Thus, to the extent the Board
`
`concludes the intervening claims are anticipated over Cohen, these claims are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Musmanno for the reasons previously set
`
`forth in the Board’s FWDs.
`
`Under the Federal Circuit’s construction, the single merchant and the one or
`
`more merchant claims are anticipated by various credit card use-cases in Cohen.
`
`A. The Single Merchant Claims are Anticipated under 35 USC § 102
`by Cohen
`
`Cohen discloses two use-cases that anticipate the single merchant limitation:
`
`the “single use” card and the “any computer store” card. The Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction for the single-merchant limitation has two required elements: “when
`
`the transaction code is requested, the request [1] limits the number of authorized
`
`merchants to one”, but [2] “does not then identify the merchant, such identification
`
`occurring only later.” D’Agostino, 844 F.3d at 950. In other words there must be a
`
`“separation in time” between limiting the card to a single merchant and then
`
`identifying the merchant. Id. Both of these examples in Cohen meet the Federal
`
`Circuit’s construction.
`
`1.
`
`Cohen’s “Single Use” Card Anticipates the Single Merchant
`Limitation
`
`Cohen discloses a credit card number that could be used for a single
`
`transaction with one merchant:
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`These credit cards or credit card numbers are generated for a one
`time, single transaction basis, after which they are disposed of, or
`thrown away. The numbers can be used by a user over the Internet or
`any other communications system, whether open or secure, to effect a
`single transaction. After a one time use of the credit card number, the
`number is deactivated by the issuing credit card company such that it
`is no longer available for use.
`Cohen at 2:35-43 (emphasis supplied).
`
`Cohen’s single use card satisfies both of the Federal Circuit’s requirements
`
`for the single merchant limitation. First, the single use card by definition limits the
`
`number of authorized merchants to one, as it can only be used at one merchant to
`
`make a single transaction. After a one time use, the card is deactivated so that it
`
`cannot be used to make any further transactions, thus limiting the number of
`
`authorized merchants to one. See Grimes Dec., IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶40-41.
`
`Second, the single use card does not identify the merchant when the user
`
`requests the transaction code. In fact, Cohen discloses no merchant limitation on
`
`the single use card other than it can only be used “to effect a single transaction.”
`
`Cohen at 2:39-40. When the user requests the single use card, the user does not
`
`need to identify the merchant where the card will be used—the single use card may
`
`be generally used at any merchant. Cohen makes this clear by explaining that a
`
`single use card could be for “general” use (in contrast to a “limited” use
`
`embodiment). Id. at 5:17-19 (“The present invention could also be used to provide
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`a disposable card for a single transaction to users in general (or a customized
`
`card for a limited use).”) (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the user only
`
`identifies the merchant later when he uses the single use card to make a purchase.
`
`See Grimes Dec., IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶41 (the “particular merchant” is not
`
`identified until the transaction code is used). Thus, the single use card anticipates
`
`the single merchant limitation as construed by the Federal Circuit.
`
`This argument was previously set forth in the Petitions and the Reply briefs.
`
`See ’988 Petition/Reply, IPR2014-00543 Paper 1 at 16, 27-28, Paper 17 at 5-9;
`
`’486 Petition/Reply, IPR2014-00544 Paper 1 at 18-19, Paper 12 at 5-9. The
`
`argument was supported by the expert testimony. See IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008,
`
`¶40-41, 44, p. 138-39; IPR2014-00544 Ex. 1008, ¶39-40, 43, p. 124-25.
`
`2.
`
`Cohen’s “Any Computer Store” Card Anticipates the Single
`Merchant Limitation
`
`Additionally, Cohen discloses a credit card number that could be used at
`
`“any computer store”:
`
`As one example, an employee could be given authorization to
`purchase a new computer system. A customized credit card could be
`issued to the user which is only valid for use for that particular type of
`charge … Any of the features in the present application can also be
`combined—thus, the employee could be given a card for use in any
`computer store which is good for a total purchase of up to, for
`example, $2000 in value.
`Cohen at 8:25-39 (emphasis supplied).
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`Cohen’s “any computer store” card also satisfies the Federal Circuit’s
`
`requirements for the single merchant limitation. First, the “any computer store”
`
`card limits the number of authorized merchants to one. A card that allows a user to
`
`make “a total purchase of up to … $2000” at “any computer store” – singular –
`
`necessarily restricts the card to use at a single store. While the user can choose
`
`“any computer store” to use the card, the card is limited to that one merchant. See
`
`Grimes Dec., IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, p.138-139 (noting that the “any computer
`
`store” card “discloses a payment category limiting transactions to a single
`
`merchant”). Moreover, Cohen discloses details regarding the use of the “any
`
`computer store” card that support its limitation to a single merchant. Cohen
`
`explains that this card is intended to be given to an employee “to purchase a new
`
`computer system.” Cohen then explains that the card allows the employee to
`
`purchase the desired computer system at “any computer store” — noting that the
`
`price of the computer system could be further restricted (by another feature) to
`
`$2000 in value. Accordingly, the employee can only use the card at a single
`
`merchant to make transactions for a computer system up to the purchase limit of
`
`$2000. Thus, the number of authorized merchants is restricted to one.
`
`Second, when a user requests an “any computer store” card, the user does
`
`not need to identify the merchant where the card will be used. Instead, the card
`
`allows the user to identify the merchant by using the card at a particular merchant.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`The card limits the type of authorized merchant to “any computer store,” but does
`
`not identify the specific computer store where the card is to be used. Importantly,
`
`the purpose of a card that can be used in “any computer store” is that the computer
`
`store where the card is used does not need to be identified in advance. The user
`
`only identifies the merchant later when he uses the “any computer store” card to
`
`make a purchase. Accordingly, the “any computer store” card also anticipates the
`
`single merchant limitation as construed by the Federal Circuit.
`
`This argument was previously set forth in the Petitions and the Reply briefs.
`
`See ’988 Petition/Reply, IPR2014-00543 Paper 1 at 16, 27-28, Paper 17 at 5-9;
`
`’486 Petition/Reply, IPR2014-00544 Paper 1 at 18-19, Paper 12 at 5-9. The
`
`argument was supported by previously submitted expert testimony. See IPR2014-
`
`00543 Ex. 1008, p.138-139; IPR2014-00544 Ex. 1008, p.124-125.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument that the Single Merchant
`Limitation Requires Multiple Transactions is Wrong and,
`Nonetheless, Foreclosed
`
`In its prior briefing before the PTAB (but not in its appeal to the Federal
`
`Circuit), Patent Owner argued that the single merchant limitation requires a
`
`transaction code that could be used for multiple transactions with a single
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`merchant.1 But, this argument, if raised once again, should be rejected for at least
`
`three separate and independent reasons.
`
`First, the Federal Circuit identified step (b) in claim 21 of the ’988 patent as
`
`representative of the single merchant limitation, and construed it as follows:
`
`The Claim’s “Single-Merchant
`Limitation”
`“receiving a request from said account
`holder for a transaction code to make a
`purchase within a payment category that at
`least limits transactions to a single
`merchant, said single merchant limitation
`being included in said payment category
`prior to any particular merchant being
`identified as said single merchant”
`
`
`Federal Circuit Construction
`
`“The single-merchant limitation thus
`requires, simply, that, when the
`transaction code is requested, the
`request limits the number of
`authorized merchants to one but does
`not then identify the merchant, such
`identification occurring only later”
`
`D’Agostino, 844 F.3d at 948, 950. Thus, the Federal Circuit already reviewed the
`
`claim language above (including the very words upon which the Patent Owner
`
`relied previously) but the Court did not require the single merchant limitation to
`
`
`1 In its briefing at the PTAB, Patent Owner made this argument with respect to
`
`claims 21 and 23-30 of the ’988 Patent and claims 1-15 and 22-30 of the ’486
`
`Patent. See IPR2014-00543 Paper 7 at 22, Paper 16 at 24-25; IPR2014-00544
`
`Paper 6 at 20-22, Paper 11 at 18-19.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`include a transaction code that could be used for multiple transactions; a single
`
`transaction would suffice. Id. at 950.
`
`Second, Patent Owner waived this argument on remand because it failed to
`
`raise it with the Federal Circuit on appeal. Parties cannot raise issues on remand
`
`that were not raised in the initial appeal. See Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`
`166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“An issue that falls within the scope of the
`
`judgment appealed from but is not raised by the appellant in its opening brief on
`
`appeal is necessarily waived. Unless remanded by this court, all issues within the
`
`scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and
`
`thus are precluded from further adjudication.”). Thus Patent Owner is now
`
`precluded from raising this argument on remand.
`
`Third, even if the issue were preserved (which it is not), Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is wrong, as it contradicts the surrounding claim language, which does
`
`not require a transaction code that can be used for multiple transactions. For
`
`example, claim 21 of the ’988 Patent simply recites that the “account holder”
`
`requests “a transaction code to make a purchase…”2 Thus, under the broadest
`
`2 Similarly, for each of the independent claims at issue for the ‘486 Patent (i.e.,
`
`claims 1, 24, 25 and 29) the surrounding claim text is not restricted to multiple
`
`transactions. The claims specify: “limiting purchases to a single merchant for at
`
`least one transaction” (cl. 1); “limiting purchases to a single merchant” (cl. 24);
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, the single merchant limitation encompasses
`
`making only one transaction with a single merchant. While it could also
`
`encompass multiple transactions at a single merchant, that is not a requirement of
`
`the claim—and to require multiple transactions would be reading an additional
`
`limitation into the claim.
`
`This argument was previously set forth in the Reply briefs. See ’988 Reply,
`
`IPR2014-00543 Paper 17, at 6; ’486 Reply, IPR2014-00544 Paper 12, at 6.
`
`4.
`
`Even If The Single Merchant Limitation Requires Multiple
`Transactions, Cohen Discloses This
`
`Even if (as Patent Owner contended previously, but not on appeal) the single
`
`merchant limitation requires multiple transactions with a single merchant, Cohen
`
`discloses this feature. For example, the “any computer store” card allows multiple
`
`transactions with a computer store: “for a total purchase of up to, for example,
`
`$2000 in value.” Cohen at 8:37-39 (emphasis supplied). This embodiment
`
`discloses the use of a payment category comprising an unidentified “computer
`
`store” (i.e., the “single merchant”) and allowing for multiple transactions up to a
`
`
`“limits a nature, of a series of subsequent purchases to a single merchant” (cl. 25);
`
`and “limits a nature of a subsequent purchase to a single merchant” (cl. 29). The
`
`claim text encompasses a single transaction or purchase with the merchant.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`certain value. Accordingly, the user can continue to use the card to make
`
`transactions at the single merchant until reaching the purchase limit.
`
`In addition, Cohen discloses other examples which encompass multiple
`
`transactions with a single merchant. In one example, “[t]he card could be valid
`
`only for purchase on that particular day, to a certain designated purchase limit,
`
`and even, if desired only in a certain store…” Cohen at 8:43-46 (emphasis
`
`supplied). While any of Cohen’s use-cases discussed above support multiple
`
`transactions with a single merchant, Cohen makes clear that the features in
`
`different use-cases can be combined. Cohen at 2:65-3:2 (“Although reference is
`
`occasionally made to either the disposable credit card embodiment or the
`
`customized credit card embodiment herein, the features disclosed in association
`
`with one can likewise be applied to the other, as well.”); Cohen at 8:35-36 (“Any
`
`of the features in the present invention can also be combined...”).
`
`This argument was previously set forth in the Reply briefs. See ’988 Reply,
`
`IPR2014-00543 Paper 17, at 6-7; ’486 Reply, IPR2014-00544 Paper 12, at 6-7.
`
`B.
`
`The One or More Merchant Claims are Anticipated under 35
`USC §102 by Cohen
`
`In the FWD for the ’988 Patent, the Board held that the scope of the “one or
`
`more merchants” claims encompass the scope of the “single merchant” claims.
`
`IPR2014-00543 Paper 28, at 16-17 (“if Cohen meets the ‘single merchant’
`
`limitations of claims 21 and 23–30, Cohen must necessarily meet the limitations of
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`claims 1–10, 15–20, 22, and 31–38.”). For this reason alone, the one or more
`
`merchants claims3 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Cohen for the same
`
`reasons provided above for the single merchant claims.
`
`In addition, Cohen discloses multiple use-cases that satisfy the one or more
`
`merchants limitation. The Federal Circuit stated in its opinion that it (1) only
`
`addressed the single merchant claims, and (2) only considered the portion of Cohen
`
`concerning “a chain of stores.” See D’Agostino, 844 F.3d at 948. Thus, the
`
`Federal Circuit’s decision does not require the Board to revisit its conclusion as to
`
`the “one or more merchant” limitation. Id. at 951 (“Nor, as we have already noted,
`
`are we deciding … whether the ‘one or more merchants’ limitation might call for a
`
`different analysis from that which governs the single-merchant limitation.”).
`
`Accordingly, Cohen discloses multiple use-cases that anticipate the one or more
`
`merchants limitation.
`
`1.
`
`Cohen’s “Chain of Stores” Card Anticipates the One or
`More Merchants Limitation
`
`Cohen discloses a “chain of stores” card that a customer could use at one or
`
`more merchants. In explaining the feature, Cohen discloses that “[t]he card could
`
`even be customized for use in … a particular chain of stores (such as … a
`
`particular chain of restaurants).” Cohen at 8:33-35 (emphasis supplied). A
`
`chain of stores comprises “one or more” merchants. See Grimes Dec., IPR2014-
`
`
`3 Claims 1-10, 15-20, 22, 31-33, 35-38 of the ’988 Patent.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`00543 Ex. 1008, ¶38. For example, a chain of restaurants may include ten
`
`restaurants. A customer can choose to make a transaction with any of the
`
`restaurants; therefore, each restaurant is a different merchant. So, if the card is
`
`customized for use in that particular chain of restaurants, it is limited in use to
`
`those ten (i.e. “one or more”) merchants.
`
`The “chain of stores” use-case also meets the Board’s timing requirement
`
`that “any group, category, or type of merchant is included in the payment category
`
`prior to the customer selecting a particular merchant for a transaction.” ‘988
`
`Institution Decision, IPR2014-00543 Paper 8, at 8-9. When the customer requests
`
`the card, the particular merchant is not identified, only the particular chain. Cf.
`
`D’Agostino, 844 F.3d at 950 (“If Target is more than one merchant, then telling the
`
`authorizing entity to limit transactions to Target is not limiting the number of
`
`merchants . . .to one.”). So if the customer customizes the card for use in the chain
`
`of restaurants discussed above, the card is limited in use to those ten merchants.
`
`However, the customer does not select the particular restaurant at which the card is
`
`to be used until he makes a transaction with one of the restaurants in the chain. See
`
`Grimes Dec., IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶39 (the “particular merchant” is not
`
`identified until the transaction code is used). Thus, the particular merchant is not
`
`identified until later, when the customer uses the card.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`This argument was previously set forth in the ‘988 Petition. See IPR2014-
`
`00543 Paper 1, at 17. The argument was supported by the expert testimony
`
`previously submitted by Petitioner. See IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶38-39, 44.
`
`2.
`
`Cohen’s “Type of Stores” and “Group of Stores” Card
`Anticipates the One or More Merchants Limitation
`
`Cohen also discloses several other use-cases involving one or more
`
`merchants. For example, Cohen teaches a card usable at certain “type of stores” or
`
`a “group of stores”. Cohen at 8:43-47 (“The card could be valid only for purchase
`
`on that particular day, to a certain designated purchase limit, and even, if desired
`
`only in a certain store, or group of stores or types of stores (e.g. clothing stores),
`
`or types of purchases or items.”) (emphasis supplied); Id. at 8:26-28 (“A
`
`customized credit card could be issued to the user which is only valid for use for
`
`that particular type of charge (computer hardware and software stores)…”)
`
`(emphasis supplied). A type of stores (or group of stores) card is a limitation to
`
`one or more merchants. See Grimes Dec., IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶38. For
`
`example, a type of stores card may be limited in type to clothing stores, which will
`
`include one or more clothing stores (each of which is a separate merchant).
`
`In addition, the type/group of store card meets the Board’s timing
`
`requirement that “any group, category, or type of merchant is included in the
`
`payment category prior to the customer selecting a particular merchant for a
`
`transaction.” When the customer requests the card, the card is only limited to a
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544
`
`particular type/group of stores, but does not identify the particular merchant (i.e.,
`
`“the merchant with whom the customer is transacting”). See ’988 FWD, IPR2014-
`
`00543 Paper 28, at 11-12. If the user customizes the card for use in clothing stores,
`
`he does not select the clothing store where the card is to be used until he makes a
`
`transaction with a clothing store. See Grimes Dec., IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶39.
`
`Accordingly, the customer does not identify the particular merchant until later
`
`when he uses the card.
`
`This argument was previously set forth in the ‘988 Petition. See IPR2014-
`
`00543 Paper 1, at 17. The argument was supported by the expert testimony
`
`previously submitted by Petitioner. See IPR2014-00543 Ex. 1008, ¶38-39, 44.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-10, 15-25, 27-33, 35-38 of the ’988
`
`Patent, and claims 1-15, 22-30 of the ’486 Patent are anticipated by Cohen. In
`
`addition, claims 11-14, 26, and 34 of the ’988 Patent and claims 16-21 of the ’486
`
`are obvious under Cohen and Musmanno for the reasons set forth by the Board in
`
`its prior Final Written Decisions.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`/s/ Robert Scheinfeld__________
`Robert Scheinfeld
`Reg. No. 31,300
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`- 15 -
`
`March 13, 2017
`
`
`
`Eliot Williams
`Reg. No. 50,822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the 13th day of March, 2017, a complete
`
`and entire copy of Petitioner MasterCard’s Opening Brief On Remand was served
`
`via e-mail to counsel of record for Patent Owner below:
`
`Stephen J. Lewellyn
`Brittany J. Maxey
`Maxey Law Offices, PLLC
`15500 Roosevelt Blvd.
`Suite 305
`Clearwater, Florida 33760
`s.lewellyn@maxeyiplaw.com
`b.maxey@maxeyiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`
`/s/ Robert Scheinfeld__________
`Robert Scheinfeld
`Reg. No. 31,300
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`Phone: (212) 408-2512
`Facsimile: (212) 408-2501
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL
`INCORPORATED
`
`
`
`
`
`Eliot Williams
`Reg. No. 50,822
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7511
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7611
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
