Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01238-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
`FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)
`
`Claudia Wilson Frost – Lead Counsel
`State Bar No. 21671300
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`609 Main Street, 40th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.658.6400
`Facsimile: 713.658.6401
`cfrost@orrick.com
`
`Travis Jensen
`CA Bar No. 259925
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.614.7400
`Facsimile: 650.614.7401
`tjensen@orrick.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 1
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 13
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Federal Courts Have No Authority to Declare a Patent Claim Valid. ......................... 3
`
`Fintiv’s Attempts to Cabin Claim III Do Not Bring It Within This Court’s
`Authority. ........................................................................................................................... 5
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................................... 9
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`i
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 2
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 13
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy's Labs. Inc.,
`No. CIV.A. 11-2317 JAP, 2014 WL 1292226 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2014) .............................. 5
`
`Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 4, 6
`
`Durango Associates, Inc. v. Reflange, Inc.,
`843 F.2d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1988)....................................................................................... 3, 6
`
`Dye v. Mansfield,
`504 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 6
`
`Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983)......................................................................................... 4, 6
`
`Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega systems, LLC,
`350 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.,
`No. 16-CV-02463-WHO, 2016 WL 6662996 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016) ......................... 4
`
`HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharm. Indus. Co., Ltd.,
`600 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States,
`671 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 809 (1986) ............. 4
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)....................................................................................... 3, 6
`
`Pers. Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp.,
`946 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................... 7
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`ii
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 3
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 13
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v. Nagata,
`706 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................... 4
`
`XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.,
`No. 5:13-CV-05161-PSG, 2014 WL 6687219 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014)......................... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) .......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) .......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 ............................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Rules
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`iii
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 4
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-CV-01238-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
`FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) moves to dismiss Count III of Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s (“Fintiv”) Second Amended
`
`Complaint (“SAC,” ECF No. 92) for failure to state a claim. This Court should dismiss Count III
`
`for the straightforward reason that no court can issue the relief it requests: a declaration that patent
`
`claims—which are already presumed to be valid—are valid.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On December 21, 2018, Fintiv sued Apple for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,843,125 (the “’125 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Wallet and Its
`
`Related Credentials.” Complaint ¶¶ 1-4, ECF No. 1; SAC ¶¶ 1-4.1 The ’125 Patent generally
`
`relates to management of virtual cards stored on mobile devices. See SAC ¶ 11; see also ’125
`
`Patent 2:55-3:47, ECF No. 1-1. In its original Complaint, Fintiv accused the Apple Wallet
`
`1 Apple cites to Fintiv’s various complaints only to illustrate for the Court the subject matter of the
`dispute, and because the Court must treat Fintiv’s allegations in the SAC as true for the purposes
`of this motion only. Apple does not admit the truth or relevance of any allegation or
`characterization made by Fintiv.
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 5
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 6 of 13
`
`Application on the Apple iPhone and Apple Watch (the “Accused Products”) of both direct and
`
`indirect infringement of Claims 11, 18, and 23 of the ’125 Patent in a single count. Complaint
`
`¶¶ 16-27.
`
`On April 9, 2019, Fintiv filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 28. Fintiv’s
`
`allegations—and its list of Asserted Claims—remained essentially the same, but it divided its
`
`claims of direct and indirect infringement into two separate counts. FAC ¶¶ 16-31.
`
`On October 28, 2019, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), seeking review of Claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-25 of the ’125
`
`Patent. Paper No. 1 at 1, IPR2020-00019 (the “IPR Petition”). The PTAB has not yet determined
`
`whether to institute review of the ’125 Patent; Fintiv’s preliminary response to the IPR Petition is
`
`due on Feb. 18, 2020 and an institution decision is expected on or about May 15, 2020.
`
`On January 30, 2020, Fintiv filed its Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 92. Once
`
`again, Fintiv hardly altered its factual allegations. However, Fintiv asserted direct and indirect
`
`infringement of all claims of the ’125 Patent challenged by the IPR Petition. SAC ¶¶ 16, 27
`
`(adding Claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-22, and 24-25 to the existing Counts). It also added a new Count
`
`III, noting the filing of the IPR Petition, asserting that its newly asserted claims “are not invalid
`
`based on any argument raised in the IPR Petition,” and seeking a “declaration and judgment that
`
`claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-25 of the ’125 Patent are valid pursuant to Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code.” SAC § VI.C; id. ¶¶ 33-38.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under Rule 12(b)(6), a cause of action should be dismissed “when the facts asserted do not
`
`give rise to a legal remedy, or do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibility.” Laguna
`
`Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). No set
`
`of alleged facts can save a claim for relief that the court is not authorized to grant. See, e.g.,
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`2
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 6
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 7 of 13
`
`Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega systems, LLC, 350 F.3d
`
`1327, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The district court’s determination that it had no authority to take
`
`action in this case is essentially a conclusion that Ferguson has failed to state a claim upon which
`
`relief may be granted.”). In particular, where a district court is not authorized to issue a declaration
`
`sought by the plaintiff, the court “should … dismiss[] the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because no
`
`private right of action exists.” HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharm. Indus. Co., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1347,
`
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`I. Federal Courts Have No Authority to Declare a Patent Claim Valid.
`
`In its SAC, Fintiv asks this Court to declare that the asserted claims of the ’125 Patent are
`
`valid “pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code.” SAC § VI.C; id. ¶¶ 33-38. But while
`
`declaratory judgments of invalidity are commonplace, neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor
`
`Title 35—nor any other authority—permits a federal court to issue a declaration of validity.
`
`The Federal Circuit definitively settled the question more than three decades ago: “It is
`
`neither necessary nor appropriate for a court to declare a patent valid. A trial court is required by
`
`Congress to say only whether the patent challenger carried its burden of establishing invalidity in
`
`the particular case before the court.” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1569-
`
`70 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted) (Panduit II). If a defendant carries its burden, “the
`
`court should declare the patent invalid.” Id. at 1570 (emphasis added). But if the defendant fails
`
`and “the burden has not been carried, a court need only so state,” at which point “the patent simply
`
`remains valid.” Id. The court does not issue a declaration of validity. The Federal Circuit repeated
`
`its conclusion in many other early cases, and noted multiple legal principles that led to the same
`
`conclusion. See, e.g., Durango Associates, Inc. v. Reflange, Inc., 843 F.2d 1349, 1356 n.4 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988) (“A patent should not be declared ‘valid’ by a court because other challengers may be
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`3
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 7
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 8 of 13
`
`able to prove invalidity using different evidence.”); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d
`
`1082, 1096 & n.21 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A suit brought only for a declaration that a patent is valid
`
`would be as stated an anomaly . . . . A patentee who in an infringement suit asks the court to hold
`
`his patent ‘valid and infringed’ states a redundancy . . . . The unnecessary request for a ‘valid’
`
`holding also suggests a blurring of the burden assignment.”), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S.
`
`809 (1986) (Panduit I); Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 713 F.2d 693, 699 n.9
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“It is not necessary that a district court hold a patent valid. In an appropriate case,
`
`it is necessary to hold only that the challenger of a patent’s validity failed to carry his burden of
`
`proving invalidity [which] avoids concern that a patent held valid may be held invalid on a different
`
`record in another case.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has continued to reaffirm ever since, in even stronger terms, that
`
`“courts do not declare patents to be valid, and only declare that they have not been proved to be
`
`invalid, if such is the case.” Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555
`
`F.3d 984, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v. Nagata, 706 F.3d
`
`1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (no federal cause of action for assignor estoppel because such relief
`
`“is akin to seeking a declaratory judgment of patent validity, which is not a viable cause of action”).
`
`Unsurprisingly, district courts throughout the country have uniformly followed suit. See, e.g.,
`
`Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 16-cv-02463-WHO, 2016 WL 6662996, at *5
`
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016) (“GeoVector’s [declaratory judgment] request is improper because ‘a
`
`declaratory judgment of patent validity . . . is not a viable cause of action.’” (quoting
`
`Semiconductor Energy)); XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-05161-PSG,
`
`2014 WL 6687219, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) (“A defendant may seek a declaration of
`
`invalidity as an affirmative defense to a charge of patent infringement, but no corresponding
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`4
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 8
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 9 of 13
`
`affirmative cause of action is available.”); AstraZeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy's Labs. Inc., No. 11-2317
`
`(JAP), 2014 WL 1292226, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2014) (“While invalidity of a patent is an
`
`available affirmative defense in a patent infringement action, Plaintiff cites nothing to support the
`
`notion that a patentee has an affirmative cause of action to seek a declaration that a patent is valid.
`
`Indeed, the opposite appears to be true. . . . [T]here is no basis upon which the Court may enter the
`
`judgment Plaintiffs seek.”).
`
`Like these district courts and the Federal Circuit, undersigned counsel has not located a
`
`single case, at any level, holding that a federal court is authorized to declare a patent claim valid.
`
`Instead, case after case holds the opposite. Fintiv’s Count III asks for relief that lies beyond the
`
`Court’s power to grant, and must be dismissed.
`
`II. Fintiv’s Attempts to Cabin Claim III Do Not Bring It Within This Court’s Authority.
`
`Seeking to avoid this straightforward conclusion, Fintiv attempts to hedge its way around
`
`the authority above. Fintiv suggests that the Court might declare the asserted claims valid only
`
`“as they relate to the References,” which it defines to be the prior art combinations asserted in the
`
`IPR Petition. SAC § VI.C; id. ¶¶ 34-35. But Fintiv’s Prayer for Relief is not so limited—it seeks
`
`a broader declaration that the asserted claims “are valid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code, particularly 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” SAC § VI.C. Notably, Apple’s IPR petition did
`
`not even raise a § 102 anticipation argument, a fact that Fintiv tacitly acknowledges in ¶ 35 of its
`
`SAC which states that “[t]he IPR Petition raises two 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness grounds.” More
`
`fundamentally, however, it simply does not matter which references or prior art grounds Apple
`
`raised in its IPR—this Court does not have the authority to grant the relief Fintiv requests.
`
`Patent claims are either valid or invalid; they are not valid with respect to particular prior
`
`art references, arguments, or parties, and invalid regarding others. Indeed, this is a major theme
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`5
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 9
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 10 of 13
`
`of the authorities on this issue. When one defendant proves invalidity using a single reference or
`
`combination, the patent claim is invalid for all purposes and as to all parties, so the court may issue
`
`a declaration. But if that particular defendant fails to establish invalidity, the most the court can
`
`say is that the arguments before it did not meet the required burden with respect to the references
`
`and other evidence before it. Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 994; Panduit II, 810 F.2d 1569-70; Envtl.
`
`Designs, 713 F.2d at 700. Meanwhile, other parties, arguments, and references (or combinations
`
`of references) might establish invalidity in a future case. Durango, 843 F.2d at 1356 n.4. But the
`
`problem does not stop there. Other challenges might successfully rely on the same References,
`
`but cite to different portions of the documents. Even a challenge that used precisely, and only, the
`
`exact same passages cited in the IPR Petition could succeed by identifying different extrinsic
`
`evidence, presenting a more convincing expert, or even just making more persuasive arguments.
`
`That is why a court’s judgment establishes, at most, that a particular defendant failed to prove
`
`invalidity through the arguments and evidence it presented in a particular case; “like all holdings,
`
`[a declaratory judgment] is based on the record of the case at hand.” Envtl. Designs, 713 F.2d at
`
`699 n.9.
`
`Moreover, in inviting this Court to take up and purportedly decide arguments raised in a
`
`different tribunal, administered by a different branch of the federal government that operates under
`
`a different evidentiary standard, Fintiv misunderstands both the role and the power of this Court.
`
`To begin, district courts are not empowered to adjudicate issues presented to a different
`
`tribunal. Instead our adversarial system charges a court with resolving the disputes before it on
`
`the facts and arguments presented by the parties before it. See, e.g., Dye v. Mansfield, 504 F.3d
`
`1289, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (refusing to issue an “advisory opinion” because courts “customarily
`
`decide only the issues presented in the cases before them and not issues that may arise in other
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`6
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 10
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 11 of 13
`
`contexts in other cases.”). This core insight—grounded in the separation of powers at the heart of
`
`the Constitution—underlies innumerable legal principles in American jurisprudence, ranging from
`
`waiver rules, to abstention doctrines, to Chevron deference. Arguments and disputes presented to
`
`the executive branch are exclusively for that branch of government to resolve.
`
`Nor would this Court have power over IPR proceedings in any case. It cannot overturn a
`
`final decision from the PTAB; indeed, any PTAB decision invalidating the ’125 Patent would moot
`
`Fintiv’s claims here. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1339–40
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). Likewise, appeals from a PTAB decision, including an IPR, go “only to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” not to a district court. 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c),
`
`319; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (giving the Federal Circuit “exclusive jurisdiction” over
`
`appeals from an IPR decision). Collateral attacks on an IPR are equally unavailable; no “district
`
`court [has] jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of [a PTAB] decision.” Pers. Audio,
`
`LLC v. CBS Corp., 946 F.3d 1348, 1351-53 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Neither could this Court’s purported
`
`declaration of validity cut off later PTAB proceedings. The PTAB judges the invalidity of claims
`
`in an IPR under a preponderance of the evidence standard, see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), rather than the
`
`clear and convincing standard that governs a district court proceeding. Novartis AG v. Noven
`
`Pharm. Inc., 853 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As a result, “the PTAB properly may reach a
`
`different conclusion based on the same evidence” considered by a district court, or even the Federal
`
`Circuit on review of a district court proceeding. Id. Thus, regardless of how broadly or narrowly
`
`Fintiv has framed its request for a declaratory judgment of validity, this Court lacks the authority
`
`to grant the requested relief.
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`7
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 11
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 12 of 13
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Count III of
`
`Fintiv’s Second Amended Complaint because it fails to state a claim on which this Court is
`
`authorized to grant relief.
`
`Dated: February 13, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost – Lead Counsel
`State Bar No. 21671300
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`609 Main Street, 40th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.658.6400
`Facsimile: 713.658.6401
`cfrost@orrick.com
`
`Travis Jensen
`CA Bar No. 259925
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.614.7400
`Facsimile: 650.614.7401
`tjensen@orrick.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`8
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 12
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01238-ADA Document 93 Filed 02/13/20 Page 13 of 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on February 13, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed
`
`to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the
`
`Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served
`
`by a facsimile transmission or first-class mail.
`
`/s/ Travis Jensen
`Travis Jensen
`
`
`
`4129-5974-4290
`
`9
`
`Apple Ex. 1047, p. 13
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`