`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`PAYPAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`IOENGINE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`Case No.: IPR2019-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`Issue Date: September 17, 2013
`Title: Apparatus, Method and System for a Tunneling Client Access Point
`____________
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`____________
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PayPal Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2093
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”) requests IPR of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14,
`
`16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047 (the “’047 patent,” Ex. 1001). This petition is
`
`focused on dependent claims 5, 10-11, and 17. All other claims of the ’047 patent
`
`are challenged in PayPal’s concurrently filed IPR2019-00846. Discussion of claims
`
`1, 3, 7, 9, 14, and 16 is identical to IPR2019-00846 and is included here only because
`
`these claims underlie dependent claims 5, 10-11, and 17.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are PayPal, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`PayPal Holdings, Inc., and PayPal Holdings, Inc.
`
`1. Related Matters
`
`The following judicial or administrative matters may affect, or be affected by,
`
`a decision in this proceeding: IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-
`
`cv-00452-WCB (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2018) (the “PayPal case”) and Ingenico Inc. v
`
`IOENGINE, LLC, 1:18-cv-00826-WCB (D. Del. June 1, 2018) (the “Ingenico
`
`case”). In both cases, patent owner IOENGINE, LLC (“IONEGINE”) asserts
`
`infringement of the ’047 patent. In addition to the ’047 patent, IOENGINE is
`
`asserting infringement of two additional patents related to the ’047 patent (i.e., U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,059,969 and 9,774,703) separately against PayPal and Ingenico in
`
`1
`
`PayPal Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2093
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`
`in the early stages with the Markman hearing still five months away and trial not
`
`scheduled until July 27, 2020. PayPal case, Dkt. 49. Finally, given that PayPal’s
`
`IPRs are starkly different than the IPR filed by Ingenico, the Board is justified in
`
`expending its resources to consider PayPal’s IPRs, and there is no known reason the
`
`Board cannot issue final determinations within one year of institution. For these
`
`reasons, the instant IPR should be instituted. See General Plastic Industrial Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15-22 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 6, 2017).
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`The ’047 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting IPR of the challenged claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`1. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-17 in this petition.
`
`2. Prior Art and Statutory Grounds
`
`The prior art references relied upon herein are:
`
`9
`
`PayPal Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2093
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`
`Patent/Publication
`
`Filing Date
`
`Issue/Pub. Date
`
`Ex. No.
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,385,729
`(“DiGiorgio”)
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0099665
`(“Burger”)
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0010689
`(“Awater”)
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0004912
`(“Fung”)
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,362,894
`(“Shima”)
`
`May 26, 1998
`
`May 7, 2002
`
`1010
`
`Oct. 1, 2001
`
`Jul. 25, 2002
`
`1011
`
`Jan. 16, 2001
`
`Aug. 2, 2001
`
`1049
`
`May 18, 2001
`
`Jan. 10, 2002
`
`1013
`
`Nov. 25, 1998 Mar. 26, 2002
`
`1048
`
`The pre-AIA §102(b) date for the ’047 patent is March 23, 2003, based on the
`
`earliest effective filing date of March 23, 2004. DiGiorgio, Burger, Awater, Fung,
`
`and Shima are all prior art under §102(b).
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are obvious under §103 in view of
`
`DiGiorgio in combination with Burger.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious under §103 in view of DiGiorgio in
`
`combination with Burger and Awater.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 10 and 17 are obvious under §103 in view of DiGiorgio
`
`in combination with Burger and Fung.
`
`Ground 4: Claim 11 is obvious under §103 in view of DiGiorgio in
`
`combination with Burger and Shima.
`
`10
`
`PayPal Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2093
`Page 4 of 4
`
`