`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`VISA INC., and VISA U.S.A. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 16, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
`
`
`MARK D. SELWYN
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California, 94304
`650.858.6031
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`
`MONICA GREWAL
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`617.526.6223
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`Alexander J. Nemtzow, Wilmer Hale
`Andrew N. Stein, Apple
`Matthew A. Argenti, Visa Inc. and Visa USA Inc.
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JAMES M. GLASS
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue
`22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`212.849.7142
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER A. MATHEWS
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street
`10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`213.443.3261
`chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`Kenneth Weiss, Universal Secure Registry, LLC
`Arthur Hagopian, Universal Secure Registry, LLC
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matters came on for consolidated hearing on
`
`Tuesday, July 16, 2019, commencing at 1:15 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 300 River Place South, Suite 2900, Detroit, Michigan.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE SCANLON: Good afternoon. This is the
` consolidated hearing for IPR2018-00809, involving
` patent number 9,530,137, and IPR2018-00810 and 813,
` which both involve patent number 9,100,826. I'm Judge
` Scanlon. Judge Braden and Judge Melvin are joining us
` on the panel. So let's start with appearances,
` beginning with Petitioner. Please identify who will be
` doing the arguing, and who else is here with us today.
` MR. SELWYN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My
` name is Mark Selwyn, and together with my colleague,
` Monica Grewal and lead counsel, we will be presenting
` on behalf of Petitioner Apple. With us in the
` courtroom today from Apple is senior IP litigation
` counsel Andrew Stein.
` JUDGE SCANLON: All right. Great. Thank
` you. And Patent Owner?
` MR. GLASS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Lead
` counsel for Patent Owner, Jim Glass. With me today is
` backup counsel, my partner, Chris Mathews. Chris will
` be presenting on behalf of Patent Owner today. With us
` in the courtroom as well is Ken Weiss, the Chairman and
` Chief Executive Officer of USR, and Arthur Hagopian,
` the President of USR.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` JUDGE SCANLON: All right. Great. Thank
` you. Welcome to everyone. So as set forth in the
` Hearing Order -- Judge Melvin?
` (Off the record at 1:08 p.m.)
` (Back on the record at 1:15 p.m.)
` JUDGE SCANLON: As I was about to say before,
` as set forth in the Hearing Order, each party will have
` 60 minutes to present its arguments. Petitioner will
` present its case first; may reserve time for rebuttal.
` The Patent Owner will then present its case, after
` which Petitioner may use any time reserved to -- for
` rebuttal. Also Patent Owner may request an opportunity
` to present a brief surreply to Petitioner's rebuttal.
` I typically ask everyone to be sure to speak into the
` microphone. Normally it works pretty well, but the
` idea is everyone will be able to hear, so, you know,
` we'll use -- I'll say that, to please speak into the
` microphone, and hopefully it'll work. But anyway, with
` all that, I'll let Petitioner take the podium. Do you
` intend to reserve any time for rebuttal?
` MR. SELWYN: We do, Your Honor. We would
` like to reserve half an hour for rebuttal.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay. All right. Well, with
` that, please begin when you're ready.
` MR. SELWYN: And we have prepared and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` submitted a set of slides with the -- any of the issues
` that we've had. It may be easier to work off of the
` ones that have been submitted, and I will refer to
` slides as I go.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Yes. That's perfect. Judges
` Braden and Melvin will have copies of those slides.
` And if you refer to the slides by slide number -- both
` sides -- it's helpful to refer by slide number, so we
` can follow along.
` MR. SELWYN: I'll be sure to do that. And
` with the Board's approval, this is how Apple would like
` to allocate the one hour available to us for
` presentation.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Okay.
` MR. SELWYN: I will begin by presenting
` arguments on certain common issues to all three IPRs.
` First, I will address reasons to combine the references
` on which Apple relies, second, I will turn to the issue
` of secondary considerations, which also cuts across the
` IPRs, and then third, I will offer certain observations
` about the expert testimony across the IPRs that Apple
` submits will be important for the Board to consider. I
` anticipate that will take me about 30 minutes, and will
` reserve, as I said, the balance of our time for
` rebuttal. To the extent that USR makes arguments with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` respect to the conditional motion to amend, Ms. Grewal
` may address those as part of the rebuttal. So, Your
` Honor, we've submitted demonstrative slides for each of
` the IPRs, some of which I'll refer to today. We
` obviously have far more demonstratives than we can
` realistically address this afternoon, but it's our hope
` that the demonstratives will assist the Board even
` after today in identifying the particular portions of
` the briefs and evidence that pertain to each of the
` disputes. So just to give Your Honor a little bit of a
` roadmap of the demonstratives, each of the slide decks
` begins with a high level overview of the invalidity
` grounds for our representative claim and reasons to
` combine as documented in the record. Following that is
` a summary slide listing the disputes that are addressed
` in USR's surreply and where Apple's response can be
` found in the record. So hopefully that will provide
` the Board with a bit of a roadmap, even after today, if
` you were match up the various disputes. The
` demonstratives then address USR's secondary
` consideration arguments. That is followed by slides
` regarding the substitute claims that USR has proposed
` in its conditional motion to amend. So I will turn now
` to the first common issue that I would like to address,
` which is the reasons to combine the references on which
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` Apple has relied for obviousness. The 809 IPR, which
` is the ‘137 patent, and the 810 IPR, which is the ‘826
` patent, rely on a combination of three references,
` Jakobsson ‘585 patent, which I'll refer to as the ‘585
` prior art, Maritzen, and Niwa. The 813 proceeding,
` which is the ‘826 patent, asserts anticipation by
` Jakobsson for most of the claims, and then a
` combination of the ‘585 prior art, Verbauwhede and
` Maritzen for four dependent claims, and the ‘585 prior
` art in Gullman for two dependent claims. For a number
` of the limitations, the reliance on a combination was
` frankly a conservative, kind of belts and suspenders
` approach, because we believe that the primary reference
` fully discloses claims for which we have also cited a
` secondary reference, and that's also what the Board
` concluded in its institution decisions for various
` claims. For example, in the institution decision for
` 809, the Board had found that for the independent
` claims, no combination was even necessary, because
` everything was disclosed in the primary reference, the
` ‘585 prior art, and similarly, in the institution
` decision for the 810, the Board had found that the
` primary reference Maritzen discloses all the
` limitations of independent Claim 1, and that it wasn't,
` in fact, necessary to do a combination with Niwa and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` the ‘585 prior art. But for purposes of today, I'm
` assuming conservatively that a combination is
` necessary, and I want to explain why there are strong
` reasons to combine the references on which we rely for
` each IPR, which as the Board found, at least on a
` preliminary basis, in its institution decisions. So
` let me begin with the combinations for the 809 and 810,
` which each involve the same three references, and I'll
` begin with slide 15 from the deck that we submitted for
` the 809 proceeding. As the Board will recall in its
` institution decision for the 809 proceeding, the Board
` had determined that Apple had adequately justified all
` the asserted combinations, and the Board also
` determined that for the independent claims, which are 1
` and 12, no combination was required because of the
` Board's construction of transaction. As to dependent
` Claim 6, the Board determined that a POSITA would be
` motivated to combine Maritzen and the ‘585 prior art to
` improve the overall security by adding a layer of
` encryption. And as to dependent Claim 10, the Board
` also agreed with Apple's explanation, because, quote,
` the combination involves nothing more than applying
` Jakobsson's system to a financial transaction such as
` the one taught in Maritzen. And last, the Board
` determined that Maritzen and Jakobsson are analogous
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` art, and that, quote, Maritzen and Jakobsson both
` address the common problem of electronic fraud using
` authentication and encryption methods, notwithstanding
` other problems that are addressed by each reference.
` And as I'll show in a moment, the evidence that's been
` developed in the record of these proceedings has
` confirmed the Board's initial conclusion that there is,
` in fact, a strong motivation to combine the ‘585 prior
` art with Maritzen, and for dependent Claim 5, also
` Niwa. And I should say --
` JUDGE BRADEN: Counsel, I just want to make
` sure that we're aware that the decision on institution
` was under a standard of reasonable likelihood, whereas
` now the burden is on Petitioner to show, to prove its
` case, including rationale to combine by a preponderance
` of the evidence. So I'm concerned that this reliance
` on our decision to institute may be misplaced, given
` the fact that it's under a different standard. So I
` want to make sure that you're aware that you do have to
` prove this by a preponderance of the evidence at this
` stage of the proceedings.
` MR. SELWYN: Of course, Your Honor, and
` that's actually a perfect segue to the next set of
` slides, where I will review some of the evidence that
` has been adduced in the proceedings since the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` institution decision. So I'm referring first to slide
` 15. And with respect to each of the references on
` which we rely, they share substantial similarities with
` respect to key features, and I'll highlight four of
` them. They all use local and remote authentication, by
` which I mean, authentication at a first local device,
` and of a second remote device. They all rely on
` biometric input from the user in generating an
` authentication code that is transmitted to a network to
` a server for authentication. They're all directed at
` reducing the risk of stolen authentication credentials,
` and they're all in the same field of secure transaction
` systems, and all address the same problem of electronic
` fraud. So turning to slide 16, let's look a little bit
` more closely at the architecture that's described in
` these systems. As we can see here, they all use local
` and remote authentication, and more particularly, each
` reference involves a personal user device, which we
` have shown in yellow, which communicates with an
` intermediary node shown in brown, and the transaction
` is then received by a remote device, which we've shown
` in blue. In each, the user device is a handheld
` device, and the remote device in each is an
` authentication server. So they all have the same basic
` architecture, which is one of the things that makes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` them readily combinable. If we go to slide 17, we've
` highlighted here how they all use biometric information
` as part of their process for authentication. So
` briefly and certainly the papers we've submitted go
` into much more detail, the ‘585 prior art discloses
` deriving data from a biometric observation. Maritzen
` discloses checking a biometric input and creating a
` biometric key from that input. And Niwa -- which
` again, is incorporated expressly in Maritzen, so
` therefore forms a single reference -- Niwa discloses
` comparing a fingerprint from a customer with a stored
` fingerprint. If we go to slide 18, this focuses on
` what the references' goals are, and we can see that
` each shares a similar goal. They're all designed to
` reduce the risk of stolen authentication information.
` And, again, just briefly, the ‘585 prior art describes
` the risk of stolen security tokens, Maritzen describes
` fraudulent transactions at vehicle access payment
` gateways, and Niwa describes the need to authorize
` transactions between parties in a network to provide
` confidence to the parties that the transaction is, in
` fact, authorized. If we look at slide 19, further on
` the issue of what their goal is, they all share the
` common goal of securing financial transactions. So the
` ‘585 prior art describes authenticating access to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` financial services and records. Maritzen similarly
` describes securing real time settlement of financial
` transactions. And Niwa is directed to the growing use
` of electronic commerce between users over the Internet.
` As I mentioned at the outset, the 810 relies on the
` same three references, and we would submit the same
` strong reasons to combine apply.
` JUDGE SCANLON: Quick question. So you're
` talking a lot about similarities among the three
` references, but is there anything in either Petition
` that would point us to a reason to make the specific
` modification you're proposing?
` MR. SELWYN: Yes. That is they all talk --
` they all basically present a tool kit, and the
` combinations that we're presenting are for particular
` limitations that can be substituted easily and are
` well-known in the tool kit for a person of skill in the
` art at the time that is focused on cryptography. So,
` for example, we have a combination that involves the
` use of biometric authentication from Niwa that's not
` found in another reference. This is all part of the
` tool kit that would be available at the time, and
` there's a reasonable motive -- reasonable expectation
` of --
` JUDGE MELVIN: So if I understand --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` MR. SELWYN: -- success as well.
` JUDGE MELVIN: -- if I understand your
` contention then, using this word “tool kit,” your point
` is that because of the similarities between these
` references, you've sufficiently given a reason to mix
` and match any of the teachings in the references?
` MR. SELWYN: Not any of the teachings, but
` the particular teachings that we're focused on for the
` particular limitations. And it's only a few
` limitations where the combination is, in fact,
` required. But each of the references are speaking to a
` similar structure, similar goal, and similar function
` in the way they are set up, and there would be an
` expectation, as the declarations that have been
` submitted from the experts show, that they can be
` combined in a way that would achieve the same intent as
` the invention.
` JUDGE MELVIN: Okay. But that's an
` expectation that they can be combined. What about why?
` MR. SELWYN: Well --
` JUDGE MELVIN: And one could say, perhaps,
` that there's -- a teaching in one reference might be
` substituted for a teaching in another reference. And
` you could argue that's supported under KSR without any
` further justification. But that doesn't sound like
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` what you're doing. It sounds to me like you're saying,
` well, these references are similar, and so they
` therefore provide a tool kit, and, for example, the
` biometric fingerprint reader in Niwa itself gives
` reasons to be used with the system of Jakobsson.
` MR. SELWYN: Not exactly. Each of the
` references describes a similar goal and a similar
` function.
` JUDGE MELVIN: Right.
` MR. SELWYN: So one who is trying to design a
` system would be looking at the references across one
` another and knowing that they would all achieve a
` similar function, similar goal, and have a similar
` structure to them. So for those reasons, they would be
` readily combinable in the way that they're presented;
` same structure, same function, and same goal. So the
` motivation to combine is presented in the articulation
` of the goals of each of the references themselves,
` together with how the structure of them is described.
` And as you can see from slide -- I think it's 16, which
` shows the structure, they all have a very similar to
` that. And when you put that together with the
` articulation of what the goal is as expressed, there
` would be a very clear reason that you do combine them.
` If we look to the 813, just briefly, there are two
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` other references that are presented there. And I'm now
` looking at slide 15 from the 813 deck. And to your
` question, what I would like to highlight from those is,
` again, the similarity of the structure. So in slide
` 15, we see the structure of the Verbauwhede reference,
` and it discloses a handheld authentication device
` called a thumbpod, and a remote authentication server
` that authenticates a user based on biometric
` information. It, too, uses local and remote
` authentication. It, too, is designed to reduce the
` risk of stolen authentication credentials and to secure
` financial transactions. And to the question, looking
` at the structural perspective of the reference, it also
` design -- discloses a design that involves a personal
` user device -- we've highlighted that in yellow -- the
` intermediary node in gray, and the remote device in
` blue. And this reference, Verbauwhede, actually calls
` the remote device an authentication server. With
` respect to Gullman, if we turn to slide 19 -- and we
` cited this for two dependent Claims 8 and 15 -- it
` discloses that the biometric template can be stored for
` multiple users, which is also what was at least
` preliminarily found in the institution decision. If we
` look at slide 21, we can see that Gullman, too, has a
` very similar structure to the ‘585 prior art to which
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` we are suggesting it be combined, and that both use
` local and remote authentication. And as slide 22
` shows, Gullman receives a biometric input from a user,
` then compares that input to a template. And just like
` the ‘585 patent, that which we're suggesting it would
` be combined, it generates an authentication code that
` is sent to a server for authentication, and it also has
` the same goal. As shown in slide 23, it's specifically
` directed to reducing the risk of stolen authentication
` credentials. Verbauwhede is concerned with lost or
` stolen authentication cards. The ‘585 patent is
` concerned with stolen authentication tokens. Very
` similar. That takes us through what we had intended to
` present on the first combination of reasons to combine.
` I'd like to turn now, if I may, briefly to a second
` cross-cutting issue which relates to USR's assertion of
` certain secondary considerations, and let me begin with
` slide 57 from the 809 demonstratives. We would
` respectfully suggest that the extent to just USR's
` expert, Dr. Jakobsson, has stretched in his opinions
` that he has offered is typified by the opinion that he
` has given on secondary considerations. As we can see
` in slide 57, Dr. Jakobsson swore in his declaration
` under penalty of perjury that the claimed inventions
` are practiced by Apply Pay and by Visa Checkout, so he
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` made an allegation of infringement, which is a serious
` charge. He offered no support for that allegation in
` his declaration in support of purported secondary
` considerations, and his deposition likewise revealed he
` had absolutely no basis to make that sworn statement to
` the Board, or, indeed, to make any suggestion of a
` nexus between the success of Apple Pay and Visa
` Checkout and the claimed invention. If we look at
` slide 58, Dr. Jakobsson admitted that he had never
` compared the patent claims to any Apple or Visa product
` or service. In fact, he testified he wasn't even asked
` to make such a comparison, notwithstanding that he had
` sworn under oath that those products practiced the USR
` patents. He also acknowledged in his deposition that
` he hadn't identified any commercial success on the part
` of the Patent Owner, USR, so there was, in short, no
` justification for Dr. Jakobsson to offer that opinion.
` And furthermore, while Dr. Jakobsson suggested in his
` deposition that he had seen confidential Visa source
` code -- and I'm now referring to slide 59 from the 809
` deck -- USR served an errata on June 27th, a couple of
` weeks ago. It has not yet filed that or asked to file
` it with the Board, but in that errata, Dr. Jakobsson
` backtracked and now says he, in fact, didn't see any
` Visa code, and in total, he made 11 other changes to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` his testimony that he represented in the errata were
` needed to, quote, conform to the facts. If we look at
` slide 60 from the 809 deck, his deposition also revealed
` that he had no basis to suggest that the patents met
` some supposed long-felt need as he swore to in his
` declaration. On slide 60, it has the deposition
` testimony that he gave, he admitted that the features
` that he had suggested to the Board were long-felt needs
` were actually known in the art. He admitted, for
` example, that it was known to use time varying codes to
` protect against fraudulent transactions. He admitted
` that it was known that PINs and biometric information
` could be combined to authenticate a user. And as slide
` 61 shows, he admitted that the ‘137 patent disclosed no
` innovative ideas with respect to time varying values.
` Finally, if we look at slide 62, relevant to secondary
` considerations, he admitted that he, himself, had never
` heard of USR's patents before the lawyers contacted him
` about the possibility of being retained,
` notwithstanding that Dr. Jakobsson has worked in the
` area of cryptography for several decades, and he also
` testified relevant to secondary considerations that he
` wasn't aware of any praise, acclaim, or awards for the
` patents. In short, Dr. Jakobsson and USR has come
` forward with no support for any secondary
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` considerations of non-obviousness, and Dr. Jakobsson's
` sworn opinions on that subject simply did not have any
` basis. The last cross-cutting issue that I'd like to
` address relates to the expert testimony offered in
` these proceedings, and I'll begin with slide 23 from
` the 809 deck. The ‘585 prior art, as the Board knows,
` is a primary reference for the 809 and 813 proceedings,
` and it's a key reference as well for the 810
` proceedings. And in the respective Petitions, Apple
` has relied on that reference to show many, and in some
` cases, all the limitations of the challenged claims.
` So the Board, of course, will need to evaluate the
` basis and credibility of the expert opinions in these
` proceedings. We would respectfully suggest that USR's
` expert, Dr. Jakobsson, who is one of the three named
` inventors of the ‘585 prior art, has offered
` interpretations of this reference that simply cannot be
` squared, if not outright ignore its plain text. As the
` Board knows, Petition has submitted a responsive
` declaration from Dr. Ari Juels, another one of the
` co-inventors of the ‘585 prior art, which USR is trying
` to keep out of these proceedings, we believe
` inappropriately. If we look at slide 96 from the 809
` deck, this is a snippet from Dr. Juels's testimony. And
` Dr. Juels and Dr. Jakobsson are colleagues. They're
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` co-inventors of the ‘585 prior art. They've worked
` together over the years. But as Dr. Juels said in his
` deposition, he was very distressed by Dr. Jakobsson's
` declarations in the testimony about the ‘585 prior art,
` of which Dr. Juels is a co-inventor. As Dr. Juels
` explained in his deposition, quote, I don't have
` particular respect for the declarations he filed, not
` for the material in his deposition I found misleading
` and disingenuous in many cases. That's one of the
` reasons that we thought it important to submit a
` declaration from Dr. Juels. Now, if we turn to slide
` 24 from the 809 deck, I don't have time today to respond
` to all of Dr. Jakobsson's misstatements, but let me
` give you a few representive examples. One dispute has
` been whether the ‘585 prior art discloses that the user
` device 120 can be a credit card, and here is what the
` reference says. Quote, a credit card sized device 120
` is a card, such as a credit card, including a magnetic
` strip or other data stored on one of the sides. It
` could not be clearer. You don't need to be a
` cryptographer to know that sentence discloses a credit
` card. But on the same slide, we've shown Dr.
` Jakobsson' deposition testimony, where he tries to
` frankly twist those words to conclude that it is not a
` credit card. He testified that the authentication
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00809 (Patent 9,530,137 B2)
`IPR2018-00810 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`IPR2018-00813 (Patent 9,100,826 B2)
`
` device in paragraph 45 -- 41 of the ‘585 prior art,
` quote, is not a credit card, and a person of ordinary
` skill in the art would not be mistaken reading the
` reference as such to think that this sentence describes
` a credit card. That testimony which is typical of Dr.
` Jakobsson in this proceeding is neither fair expert
` opinion nor even fair advocacy. If we turn to slide
` 26, another issue in these proceedings is whether a
` one-way function is required in the combination
` function disclosed in the ‘585 prior art. And here,
` the ‘585 prior art makes clear that there a number of
` ways to perform the combination, only one of which is a
` one-way function. Note all of the ors in the sentence
` that's shown on the sl
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
