`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`