Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 36
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:18-CV-372-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`APPLE INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 1
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii
`TABLE OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... iv
`I. THE ’125 PATENT ............................................................................................................... 1
`A. The SK C&C Provisional Applications ........................................................................ 1
`B. Admissions from the Specification Background .......................................................... 3
`C. The Problems to be Solved ........................................................................................... 3
`D. Summary of the Patent .................................................................................................. 4
`1. The Server Side. ...................................................................................................... 4
`2. The Mobile Device Side. ........................................................................................ 7
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 9
`III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 9
`A. The Disputed Terms Require Construction .................................................................. 9
`B. “Wallet Management Applet (WMA)” (claims 11 and 13) ........................................ 10
`C. “Widget” (claims 11, 18, and 23) ............................................................................... 16
`D. “Mobile Wallet Application” (claims 11, 18, and 23) ................................................ 20
`E. “SE Information” (claims 14 and 23) ......................................................................... 23
`F. “Mobile Device Information” (claims 14, 18, and 23) ............................................... 25
`G. “Over-the-Air (OTA) Proxy” (claim 23) and “OTA Proxy” (claim 16) .................... 26
`H. “Provision[ing]” (claims 11 and 23) ........................................................................... 30
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 30
`
`i
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 2
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 3 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................13, 14, 18, 22
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................9
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-205-LY, 2014 WL 1699063 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2014)..................................19, 24
`
`Alberta Telecommunications Research Ctr. v. AT & T Corp.,
`No. 09-cv-3883-PGS, 2012 WL 3286053 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2012) .........................................11
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-00130-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 746472 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018) .........................19, 24
`
`In re Google Litig.,
`No. 08-cv-3172-RWM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98469 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31,
`2011) ........................................................................................................................................17
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd.,
`617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................11
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`No. 2018-1449, 2019 WL 3770833 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2019) ...................................11, 13, 20
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................10, 20
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................9, 11
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
`No. 08-cv-471, 2012 WL 1940849 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2012) (Bryson, J.) ......................10, 16
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................9, 26
`
`ii
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 3
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 4 of 36
`
`Whirlpool Corp. v. TST Water, LLC,
`No. 2:15-cv-1528-JRG, 2016 WL 3959811 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) ......................10, 16, 23
`
`iii
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 4
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 5 of 36
`
`TABLE OF ACRONYMS
`
`CCA: Contactless Card Applet
`NFC: Near Field Communications
`MNO: Mobile Network Operator
`OTA: Over-the-Air
`POS: Point of Sale
`SE:
`Secure Element
`SP:
`Service Provider
`TSM: Trusted Service Manager
`WMA: Wallet Management Applet
`WMS: Wallet Management System
`
`iv
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 5
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 6 of 36
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) herein addresses the constructions of seven disputed claim terms
`present in the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (the “’125 patent”):1 (1) “wallet
`management applet,” (2) “widget,” (3) “mobile wallet application,” (4) “SE information,” (5)
`“mobile device information,” (6) “over-the-air (OTA) proxy,” and (7) “provision[ing].”
`Construing these terms is necessary to both resolve disputes between the parties regarding the
`proper scope of the claims and to assist the jury in understanding what the claims mean.
`I. THE ’125 PATENT
`The ’125 patent, titled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Wallet and its Related
`Credentials,” was filed December 2, 2011 and issued on September 23, 2014. The ’125 patent
`incorporates by reference four provisional applications2 filed on December 30, 2010 and claims
`priority to the same date. ’125, 1:8-20. In lay terms, the ’125 patent (and its provisional
`applications) relate to the underlying technology for setting up a credit card on a mobile device
`to make contactless payments (viz., making a payment with a mobile device at a card reader
`without physical contact). Id., 1:48-62. The process of setting up a credit card for contactless
`payments involves interactions between the mobile device and backend servers. Id., Figs. 1 and
`2. In slightly more technical language from the Abstract, the ’125 patent relates to a wallet
`management system that involves both the operation of a “mobile wallet application” and the
`provisioning of associated “contactless card applets” (“CCAs”) on a mobile device, and also a
`“wallet management system” (WMS) on a remote server that is used in managing the wallets and
`CCAs on a plurality of mobile devices.
`A. The SK C&C Provisional Applications
`Any summary of the ’125 patent would be incomplete without some background
`discussion of the original assignee, SK C&C, and the four provisional applications incorporated
`
`1 The ’125 patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Travis Jensen filed concurrently
`herewith. All exhibits cited in this brief are attached to the Jensen Decl.
`2 The four provisional applications are Nos. 61/428,846 (“’846 provisional”); 61/428,851 (“’851
`provisional”); 61/428,852 (“’852 provisional”); and 61/428,853 (“’853 provisional”). The
`provisional applications are attached to the Jensen Decl. as Exs. 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
`
`1
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 6
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 7 of 36
`
`into the ’125 patent. The South Korean entity SK C&C, not Fintiv, was the original assignee of
`both the ’125 patent and all of its provisional applications. See, e.g., ’125, cover page. SK C&C
`is an information and communications
`technology company. See www.skcc.com.
`In the 2010 timeframe, SK C&C was
`developing a holistic mobile wallet
`ecosystem that was intended to support
`hardware devices and operating systems
`from multiple vendors (e.g., Blackberry,
`Android, Windows Mobile, Palm). See,
`e.g., ’853, Business Requirements document
`at p. 6. The figure at right, from the ’846
`provisional, illustrates the SK C&C mobile
`wallet ecosystem which includes a mobile
`device (in the center) and various external components implemented by servers. ’846, p. 31.
`Each of the four provisional applications emphasizes a different aspect of the wallet
`management system. Two provisionals include technical documents describing SK C&C’s
`wallet management system. At a high level, the provisional applications involve the following:
`" The ’846 provisional shares the same title as the ’125 patent and has a similar
`specification. However, the ’846 provisional contains additional detail regarding certain
`aspects of the wallet management system, such as the wallet management applet (WMA).
`" The ’851 provisional describes the provisioning process for mobile devices containing
`particular kinds of secure elements, and the application includes a “Requirements Use
`Cases Mobile Commerce” document describing aspects of the SK C&C system.
`" The ’852 provisional emphasizes safeguarding a mobile wallet by locking or deleting
`virtual card credentials and how to reconstruct the wallet if a device is lost or stolen.
`" The ’853 provisional involves provisioning information on mobile device based on the
`device user’s profile or attributes, and the application includes two documents describing
`aspects of the SK C&C system: i) “Business Requirements for SK C&C m-Commerce
`Platform”; and ii) “TSM Functional Features Description.”
`Particular aspects of each of these sources of intrinsic evidence will be discussed where relevant.
`
`2
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 7
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 8 of 36
`
`B. Admissions from the Specification Background
`To understand the asserted claims of the ’125 patent, it is helpful to first understand the
`purported shortcomings in the prior art described in the specification. Before turning to the
`problems to be solved, two backgrounds points admitted in the ’125 patent provide context.
`First, the ’125 patent admits that in 2010 numerous manufacturers made and sold a
`variety of mobile devices (e.g., smartphones) with different hardware components and software
`configurations. See, e.g., ’125, 2:32-33 (referring to “many competing service providers”);
`10:31-34 (manufacturers have different “hardware specifications (i.e. hardware, software,
`operating system, etc.)”).
`Second, the ’125 patent admits that conducting contactless credit card transactions
`between a mobile phone and card reader was already “conventional” in 2010. Id., 1:48-62. As
`stated in the “BACKGROUND” section of the patent, it was known that “user financial
`credentials, such as credit card numbers, may be provisioned onto mobile devices equipped with
`Near Field Communication chipset (NFC enabled) to make payments” and that “[t]his type of
`technology is conventionally referred to as ‘contactless’ technology and a payment made with
`this technology is referred to as ‘contactless’ payment.” Id. Using this “conventional”
`technology, separate “contactless payment applet[s]” from financial institutions like Visa and
`Mastercard are “stored in the mobile device” and contain the user’s respective credit card
`numbers. Id., 2:1-6. This “provided a way to select a contactless payment applet (i.e.,
`contactless payment virtual card) from various contactless payment applets stored in the mobile
`device for payment at corresponding point-of-sale (POS) [terminal].” Id.
`C. The Problems to be Solved
`Against this backdrop, the ’125 patent purports to identify two problems in the prior art
`that are relevant to the asserted claims. First, as a result of the disparate devices available from
`smartphone manufacturers, users would be offered for download mobile wallet applications
`incompatible with their mobile device. Users were “often be bombarded with various [mobile
`wallet] applications that may be inapplicable to the user.” ’125, 2:42-44. This occurred because
`
`3
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 8
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 9 of 36
`
`there existed at the time a “lack of standardization of hardware and software on mobile devices,”
`id., 10:48-49, and mobile wallet services were “offered to the users without regard to the mobile
`device capabilities.” Id., 2:34-36. Thus, for example, a user may try to install a Visa payment
`applet on their Blackberry device but fail because the applet was only compatible with a
`Samsung Android device.
`Second, users had limited access into their account information stored in the mobile
`device. For example, “the user may be unable to view the details related to the contactless
`payment applets (e.g., account number, expiration date, security code, balance and the like).”
`Id., 2:13-15; see also id., 2:27-28. According to the specification, limited user access to the
`financial information stored in the contactless card applet was the result of an industry standard
`security protocol that provided users only “a limited generic description” of the financial
`information stored in the contactless card applet and required storing the applet in a special chip
`on the mobile device called the “secure element.” Id., 2:23-26.
`D.
`Summary of the Patent
`As noted above, the ’125 patent (including its provisional applications) disclose a mobile
`wallet management system that includes both mobile devices and servers. See, e.g., ’125, Figs. 1
`and 2. Because asserted independent claim 18 generally relates to the server side of the system
`and asserted independent claims 11 and 23 are directed to the mobile device side of the system, a
`high-level discussion of the major aspects of both sides follows.
`1. The Server Side.
`Annotated Fig. 1 (below) from the ’125 patent illustrates the server-side components of
`the “wallet management system” (“WMS”) recited in asserted independent claim 18: the wallet
`client management component 111 (orange), widget management component 112 (blue), device
`profile management component 113 (green), rule engine 116 (yellow), and trusted service
`manager (“TSM”) (purple).
`
`4
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 9
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 10 of 36
`
`According to the ’125 patent specification, this wallet management system (WMS) solves
`the first problem identified above of users being “bombarded with various [mobile wallet]
`applications that may be inapplicable to the user” due to incompatibilities arising from different
`mobile device hardware and software configurations. ’125, 2:42-44; see also id. at 10:48-49 and
`2:34-36. The system “dynamically filter[s] the list of available applications based upon the
`mobile device attributes” and only provides compatible applications to the mobile device. Id.,
`10:42-44. Thus, the server offers an Android compatible mobile wallet application to an
`Android phone but not to a Blackberry, Palm, or Windows phone. See, e.g., ’853, Business
`Requirements document at p. 6. Each server-side component administers a different aspect of
`managing the mobile wallets for deployment on various mobile devices.
`Wallet Client Management Component. The “wallet client management component”
`is responsible for managing “the [mobile] wallet application itself,” and stores information
`“including the type of wallet application and manufacturer.” See id., 4:57-5:3. In lay terms, the
`wallet client management component acts like a warehouse for storing all of the mobile wallet
`applications available for download, much like a modern-day app store. For example, it may
`store a mobile wallet application developed by SK C&C, ’851, ¶84, a “mobile wallet application
`
`5
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 10
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 11 of 36
`
`manufactured by Google®,” ’125, 4:64-67, as well as other third-party mobile wallet
`applications, see’851, Requirements Use Cases document at p. 41.
`Device Profile Management Component. The device profile management component
`“store[s] device specific information, such as information related to the mobile device itself
`including type of mobile device, supporting operating system (OS), mobile service provider, and
`other relevant information.” See ’125, 5:9-16.
`Rule Engine. The rule engine performs filtering “based on information related to the
`mobile device.” Id., 5:22-24. When the ’125 patent refers to “filtering,” it means that when the
`user contacts the server with their mobile device to download an application, the server displays
`a “filter[ed] list of mobile widget applications that are available for installation based upon
`corresponding mobile device attributes,” such as the mobile device’s manufacturer or operating
`system. Id., 10:9-12, 10:24-34. This filtering functionality is critical to the purported invention
`in the ’125 patent because, as noted previously, in the prior art, “many competing service
`providers” offered their services to users “without regard to the mobile device capabilities or
`mobile service providers utilized by the user.” Id., 2:30-36.
`Widget Management Component. The widget management component “is responsible
`for the individual widgets”—the “application[s] configured to interface with a user of the mobile
`device”—“stored within the wallet.” See id., 5:4-9.
`Trust Service Manager (TSM). The trusted service manager (TSM) is a server that acts
`as “an integration point for all of the external parties the mobile device may deal with, providing
`for a seamless and more efficient operation of mobile services.” Id., 5:39-46. This provides a
`single point of contact for a mobile device to interact with network providers (e.g., AT&T,
`Verizon), financial institutions (e.g., Visa, Citibank), and handset manufacturers (e.g., LG,
`Samsung). Id., 10:25-34. Thus, the TSM stores “information from various parties” allowing the
`mobile device to “interact with the TSM system individually rather than various discrete
`entities.” Id., 5:39-42. While Fig. 1 depicts the WMS as separate from the TSM, the ’125 patent
`explains that “WMS 110 may reside within TSM system 120,” and that “[f]or the purposes of
`
`6
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 11
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 12 of 36
`
`this disclosure, it will be assumed” that it does. Id., 5:28-31. Because the intrinsic evidence
`refers almost exclusively to the TSM rather than the WMS, we refer to the TSM as the operative
`network server for the remainder of this brief.
`2. The Mobile Device Side.
`Annotated Fig. 2 (below) of the ’125 patent illustrates the components of the mobile
`device recited in asserted independent claims 11 and 23: the mobile wallet application 24
`(orange), OTA proxy (green), and secure element (purple). Within the secure element are
`contactless card applets 23 (blue) and wallet management applet 21 (yellow).
`
`Mobile Wallet Application. Conceptually, a mobile wallet “may have the same
`composition as a conventional wallet, which may contain payment cards, member cards,
`transportation cards, and loyalty cards.” ’125, 1:43-46. The mobile wallet application is a
`software application, separate from the operating system, that can be independently downloaded
`and installed on the mobile device. ’125, 6:34-49; ’853, Business Requirements document pp. 6,
`30. Because the TSM houses mobile wallet applications from different providers, the user can
`select which mobile wallet application she would like to download and install. See, e.g.,’125,
`
`7
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 12
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 13 of 36
`
`4:61-67; see also id., claim 1 (“[a] method for installing a wallet application”); ’851,
`Requirements Use Cases document at p. 41 (“The system shall check what…wallet has been
`used (either SK C&C wallet or the third-party wallet.)”).
`Widget. The user is able to view each of her credit cards thanks to a “widget,” which is
`an “application configured to interface with a user of the mobile device” that corresponds to each
`card and can show that card’s information, on the mobile device’s display. Id., 5:4-9; 9:2-5.
`More directly stated, the widget is a user interface software application. Id. The widget is not
`shown in the ’125 patent figures, but “reside[s] within the mobile wallet application.” Id., 6:2-4.
`Secure Element (SE). The secure element or “SE” is a chip on the mobile device where
`sensitive information can be securely stored. Id., 1:40-43 (the SE “may be a smart card chip
`capable of storing multiple applications, including of account specific information that may not
`be easily accessed by external parties.”).
`Contactless Card Applet (CCA). Each contactless card applet or “CCA” corresponds
`to a conventional card, such as a credit card, found in a physical wallet. For example, a
`“VISA©” CCA corresponds to a Visa credit card. Id., 8:61-62. Because the CCA stores
`sensitive information like credit card account information, it is located in the mobile device’s SE.
`Id., 8:23-28. The CCA is a “contactless” applet because it uses near field communication (NFC)
`protocol to “make payments to another NFC compatible device by coming near within a few
`centimeters of one another without physically contacting each other.” Id., 1:54-62.
`Wallet Management Applet (WMA). The wallet management applet (WMA) is at the
`heart of the ’125 patent’s solution to the purported problem of users’ inability to view credit card
`information stored in a CCA. See id., 2:13-15 (“the user may be unable to view the details
`related to the contactless payment applets (e.g., account number, expiration date, security code,
`balance and the like)”; see also id., 2:23-28 (“the user may be unable to view any account
`specific information stored within the SE”). The ’125 patent discloses that, for each CCA, there
`is a corresponding WMA that stores a duplicate copy of the CCA’s “account specific”
`information. Id., 8:66-9:5. This duplicate copy of the account information is important because
`
`8
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 13
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 14 of 36
`
`it is both securely stored in the SE, but unlike the information in the CCA itself, can be displayed
`to the using the corresponding widget in the mobile wallet application. Id.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“[I]n interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of
`record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the
`prosecution history. Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally
`operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In particular, the specification “is always highly relevant to the
`claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of
`a disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing id.).
`Provisional applications incorporated by reference are effectively part of the specification
`as if “explicitly contained therein.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d
`1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As such, provisional applications are as relevant to the claim
`construction analysis as the face of the specification itself. See, e.g., Trustees of Columbia Univ.
`in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing id.).
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. The Disputed Terms Require Construction
`Apple proposed seven claim terms for construction: (1) “wallet management applet,” (2)
`“widget,” (3) “mobile wallet application,” (4) “SE information,” (5) “mobile device
`information,” (6) “over-the-air (OTA) proxy,” and (7) “provision[ing].” Fintiv contends that no
`claim terms require construction, proposed “plain and ordinary meaning” for all seven of Apple’s
`identified claim terms, but has also proposed alternative constructions for each. The parties
`dispute whether certain terms had a plain and ordinary meaning in 2010, but even where the
`parties agree that a plain and ordinary meaning existed, they dispute what the plain and ordinary
`meaning was (with the sole exception of the term “provision[ing]”). Indeed, Fintiv’s proposed
`alternate constructions serve to demonstrate the parties’ disputes.
`
`9
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 14
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 15 of 36
`
`In both circumstances—i.e., where there is no plain and ordinary meaning and where the
`parties dispute the plain and ordinary meaning—claim construction is required as set forth in O2
`Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. and its progeny. 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (“[W]hen a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s
`‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute. … claim construction requires the court
`to determine what claim scope is appropriate in the context of the patent.”). In this case, there is
`a clear dispute as to the proper scope of the terms addressed herein (except for “provision[ing]”),
`and therefore, a construction to resolve each dispute is required. A finding of “plain and
`ordinary meaning,” as Fintiv proposes, will not resolve each dispute and is, therefore, legally
`insufficient.
`Moreover, all the disputed terms are technical in nature or are used in a highly technical
`context. The jury is unlikely to be familiar with the disputed terms and without a construction
`will be left to its own devices to guess as to what terms like WMA, widget, and OTA proxy
`mean. See, e.g., Whirlpool Corp. v. TST Water, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-1528-JRG, 2016 WL
`3959811, at *11 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) (“[t]hese disputed terms are technical terms and are
`potentially confusing, so ‘[t]he Court believes that some construction of the disputed claim
`language will assist the jury to understand the claims’”) (citing TQP Dev., LLC v. Merrill Lynch
`& Co., Inc., No. 08-cv-471, 2012 WL 1940849, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2012) (Bryson, J.)).
`B.
`“Wallet Management Applet (WMA)” (claims 11 and 13)
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`“software application for storing duplicate
`account specific information accessible to
`the mobile wallet application”
`
`Fintiv’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction the plain and ordinary
`meaning is “integrated functionality that enables
`management of a wallet related applet.”
`
`As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether the claim term “wallet management
`applet (WMA)” requires construction. Construction is necessary because WMA is a coined
`term, not a term of art, and had no plain and ordinary meaning outside the context of the patent
`in 2010. This is demonstrated by contemporaneous dictionary definitions—from both general
`
`10
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 15
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 16 of 36
`
`purposes and technical dictionaries—which lack an entry for this term. See Exs. 6, 7, 8, and 9.
`That WMA is a term coined by the patentee is further established by a search of issued U.S.
`patents and published applications prior to Dec. 30, 2010, the alleged priority date of the ’125
`patent. Among the millions of issued U.S. patents and publications, the phrase “wallet
`management applet” did not appear once before the alleged priority date. See Exs. 10 and 11.
`See, e.g., Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 2018-1449, 2019 WL 3770833,
`at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2019); Alberta Telecommunications Research Ctr. v. AT & T Corp., No.
`09-3883 PGS, 2012 WL 3286053, at *37 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2012) (construction should provide
`“assistance to the jury in helping them understand the meaning of this coined term”). Even if
`WMA were not a coined term, construction would still be appropriate so the jury is not left to
`guess what the highly technical phrase “wallet management applet” means. See, e.g., Intervet
`Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[i]diosyncratic language, highly
`technical terms, or terms coined by the inventor are best understood by reference to the
`specification”) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13).
`Where a claim term is a “coined term, meaning it has no ordinary and customary
`meaning,” it is necessary to turn to the intrinsic evidence to ascertain the “objective boundaries
`to the scope of the term.” Iridescent Networks, 2019 WL 3770833, at *6. When coined terms
`are involved, the canon that claims should not be limited by the specification does not apply, and
`courts should look to the intrinsic evidence “for guidance without having to first find a clear and
`unmistakable disavowal.” Id.; see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364,
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`The Court should construe WMA as a “software application for storing duplicate account
`specific information accessible to the mobile wallet application.” This construction follows from
`the intrinsic evidence, including numerous references and explanations in the specification. For
`example, the ’846 provisional states that “[the WMA] is a software application [residing] within
`the secure element of the mobile device which stores account specific information such as a
`
`11
`
`Apple Ex. 1016, p. 16
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 71 Filed 09/12/19 Page 17 of 36
`
`credit card number.”3 ’846, ¶42; see also ’125, 7:16-19 (“The WMA 21 container is a software
`application …”). The ’846 provisional further explains that “[the WMA] is unique in that, its
`primary purpose is to cause contactless card applet 23 account information to be stored within
`the mobile device’s SE separate from the contactless card applets.” ’846, ¶42. In other words,
`the defining characteristic that makes the WMA “unique,” is that it stores a copy of the CCA
`account specific information “separate from” the CCA.
`This same message is repeated numerous times throughout the ’125 specification and in
`every one of the provisional applications:
`" “Once account specific information is installed into WMA 21, the respective mobile
`device may access the information periodically.” ’846, ¶59.
`" “[A]s mobile devices cannot access the payment applets directly, a separate WMA 501 is
`required….WMA 501 will store duplicate payment applet account information so that
`mobile wallet application may access the account specific information stored within the
`SE.” ’851, ¶¶89-90.
`