UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE
`WALLET AND ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S AUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE
`WALLET AND ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S AUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Factor 1 – Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists
`that One May be Granted if a Proceeding is Instituted ........................ 2
`Factor 2 – Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s
`Projected Statutory Deadline for a Final Written Decision ................. 4
`Factor 3 – Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court
`and Parties ............................................................................................ 5
`Factor 4 – Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in
`the Parallel Proceeding ......................................................................... 6
`Factor 5 – Whether Petitioner and Defendant in the Parallel
`Proceeding are the Same Party ............................................................. 7
`Factor 6 – Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s
`Exercise of Discretion, Including the Merits ....................................... 7
`1.
`Discretionary Denial Promotes Efficiency and Fairness ........... 8
`2.
`There are No Forum Shopping Concerns .................................. 9
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`i
`
`
`
` TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh, Corp.,
`IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2019) ............................................. 7
`Multimedia Content Management v. Dish Network,
`Civil No. 6:18-CV-00201 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) (J. Albright) .................... 3
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc.,
`6:18-cv-00308 (W.D. Tex. July 19, 2019) ........................................................... 2
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) .......................................................................................... 9
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`
`2014
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Declaration of John W. Downing in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Email dated 11-20-19 from Travis Jensen to counsel
`for Fintiv re seeking leave to file Markman order
`Email dated 11-22-19 from Travis Jensen to the
`Board requesting a conference call
`Email dated 12-2-19 from Travis Jensen to John
`Downing re intending to rely on Section II.B.6 of the
`July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update
`Email dated 12-3-19 from Travis Jensen to the Board
`confirming parties met and conferred
`July 2019 Trial Practice Guide
`Declaration of Dr. Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D.
`Second Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Dkt. 92, Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 19-cv-01238-ADA
`Minute Entry setting trial date, Dkt. 82, Fintiv, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 19-cv-01238-ADA
`Apple’s Invalidity Contentions Chart A-3 -
`Aiglstorfer Chart
`Fintiv’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`Exhibit A
`The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Ed., 2002)
`Mozido Adds Big Piece to Its Mobile-Pay Puzzle
`with CorFire Purchase, Dec. 18, 2014, available at
`https://www.paymentssource.com/news/mozido-
`adds-big-piece-to-its-mobile-pay-puzzle-with-
`corfire-purchase
`Apple Press Release, “Apple Pay Set to Transform
`Mobile Payments Starting October 20,” October 16,
`2014, available at:
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/10/16Apple-
`Pay-Set-to-Transform-Mobile-Payments-Starting-
`October-20/
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit No.
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`Description
`Braithwaite, Tom et al., “Apple Wages War on the
`Wallet,” September 15, 2014, available at:
`https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/15/apple-wages-war-
`on-the-wallet.html
`Moon, Brad, “Apple In’s Apple Pay Volume
`Skyrockets 500%,” October 26, 2016, available at:
`https://investorplace.com/2016/10/apple-inc-aapl-
`apple-pay-volume-iplace/
`Rogers, Adams, “Apple Pay Transactions Rose
`Significantly in Q4 of Fiscal 2018,” Nov. 27, 2018,
`available at:
`https://marketrealist.com/2018/11/apple-pay-
`transactions-rose-significantly-in-q4-of-fiscal-2018/
`Miller, Chance, “Apple Pay Transaction Volume
`Growing 4x as Fast as PayPal, Tim Cook Says,”
`October 30, 2019, available at:
`https://9to5mac.com/2019/10/30/apple-pay-
`transaction-volume-paypal/
`Lovejoy, Ben, “Apple Pay Revenue is Heading
`Toward a Multi-Billion Dollar Business,” February
`12, 2020, available at:
`https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/12/apple-pay-revenue/
`Financial Alchemist, “Apple Pay Revenue Estimates
`and Future Potential,” April 25, 2019, available at:
`https://financial-
`alchemist.blogspot.com/2019/04/apple-aapl-apple-
`pay-revenue-estimates.html
`Murphy, Mike, “ Apple Pay is a Sleeper Hit,”
`January 22, 2019, available at:
`https://qz.com/1799912/apple-pay-on-pace-to-
`account-for-10-percent-of-global-card-transactions/
`Resume of Michael Ian Shamos
`Agreed Scheduling Order, Dkt. 38, Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 19-cv-01238-ADA
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit No.
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`2032
`2033
`2034
`2035
`2036
`2037
`
`Description
`Markman Hearing transcript, MV3 Partners LLC v.
`Roku Inc., 6:18-cv-00308 (W.D. Tex. July 19, 2019)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent Numbers 8,799,468 and
`9,465,925, Multimedia Content Management v. Dish
`Network, Civil No. 6:18-CV-00201 (W.D. Tex. May
`30, 2019) (J. Albright)
`Order Denying Transfer, In re Apple Inc., 2020-104
`(Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2019)
`Order Denying Apple’s Petition for Rehearing En
`Banc, In re Apple Inc., 2020-104 (Fed. Cir. March
`30, 2020)
`Title pages from discovery, Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Civil No. 1:19-cv-01238-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Fintiv’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Civil No. 1:19-cv-01238-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. MV3 Partners LLC, IPR
`2019-00474 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2019)
`Claim Chart B-1 referencing Wang
`Claim Chart B-2 referencing Buhot
`Claim Chart B-3 referencing Buhot
`Claim Chart B-4 referencing Buhot
`Claim Chart B-5 referencing Buhot
`Claim Chart B-6 referencing Buhot and Wang
`Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Fintiv, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., Civil No. 1:19-cv-01238-ADA (W.D.
`Tex. June 13, 2019)
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully submits its Sur-Reply
`
`(“Sur-Reply”), in response to Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply (Paper 12) and the
`
`Board’s Order. (Paper No. 11.) As explained in Patent Owner’s preliminary
`
`response (Paper 10), every single factor supports discretionary denial in this unique
`
`case. The same parties, same patent, same claims, and same invalidity references
`
`and arguments are being advanced in the district court action and in this proceeding.
`
`The district court trial is currently scheduled to occur on November 16, 2020 - six
`
`months before the Board’s estimated final written decision. (Paper 10 at 23-24.)
`
`Moreover, the parties have expended significant resources in the district court action,
`
`claim construction is complete, and a Markman order has been issued. As discussed
`
`further below, Apple does not meaningfully support any of the first five factors, but
`
`relies heavily on the sixth “other circumstances” factor to argue that discretionary
`
`denial should never be allowed based on a district court’s trial date. But Apple
`
`misses the point of discretionary denial. Factor two, the district court trial date, is
`
`not dispositive. It is used in conjunction with other factors to assess and promote
`
`efficiency and fundamental fairness in Inter Partes Review proceedings, which is
`
`appropriate in this case. (Ex. 2006, Trial Practice Guide at 23.) Here, the factors
`
`demonstrate that discretionary denial will promote efficiency and fairness as
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`opposed to continuing with two parallel proceedings covering identical parties,
`
`claims, and arguments with the district court at an advanced stage.
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1 – Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists
`that One May be Granted if a Proceeding is Instituted
`Factor one favors discretionary denial. Apple’s sole argument for factor one
`
`is that IPR stays are liberally granted. (Paper 12 at 6.) Apple’s argument is
`
`speculative. Apple does not provide any specific facts or cases that indicate that the
`
`district court would be inclined to grant a stay in this particular case. Apple instead
`
`implies that some district courts are reluctant to grant stays and those unspecified
`
`courts and judges promote forum shopping.1 (Id. at 6. n.2.) Indeed, in MV3 Partners
`
`LLC v. Roku Inc., the district court denied a motion to stay after claim construction
`
`was fully briefed and shortly before the claim construction hearing. (See, Ex. 2024,
`
`6:18-cv-00308 (W.D. Tex. July 19, 2019) at 53 (“MV3 Hearing Tr.”); Ex. 2030,
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. MV3 Partners LLC, IPR2019-00474, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B.
`
`July 16, 2019) at 1 (“MV3 Institution Decision”).) This case is even more
`
`compelling because the trial is estimated six months before, not six weeks before the
`
`estimated final written decision - and claim construction is completed and a
`
`Markman order has issued. Further, a stay is unlikely under the WDTX three factors
`
`analysis used to assess stay requests in view of an Inter Partes Review: (1) whether
`
`1 There are no forum shopping concerns in this case, as discussed below in factor
`six.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`the stay will unduly prejudice the nonmoving party, (2) whether the case is in an
`
`advanced stage, and (3) whether a stay will likely result in simplifying the case. (Ex.
`
`2025, Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, Multimedia
`
`Content Management v. Dish Network, Civil No. 6:18-CV-00201 at 2 (W.D. Tex.
`
`May 30, 2019) (J. Albright) (“Multimedia”).) Under factor one, undue prejudice,
`
`the trial date scheduled before an anticipated final written decision weighs in favor
`
`of no stay, which is the case here. (Id. at 4.) Under factor two, advanced stage, the
`
`completion of Markman and a scheduled trial date also favors no stay, which is also
`
`the case here. (Id. at 4-5.) Additionally, the parties have served final infringement
`
`and invalidity contentions, exchanged multiple rounds of written discovery, and
`
`briefed venue-related issues. (Ex. 2023 at 5 (showing invalidity contention
`
`deadline); (Exs. 2026 & 2027, Fed. Circuit orders affirming transfer); (Ex. 2028,
`
`Exemplary title pages from discovery.) Finally, factor three, simplification of case
`
`issues weighs heavily against granting a stay. Apple’s supplemental IPR petition
`
`asks the Board to reconsider all seven of the district Court’s claim constructions.
`
`(Paper 7 at 1 (“Apple respectfully submits that its construction should be applied in
`
`this proceeding.”); Paper 10 at 9-10 (chart showing differences between district court
`
`and Apple’s constructions).) This would not simplify the district court case, but may
`
`result in conflicting constructions, covering all seven disputed terms, with a much
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`smaller record, and therefore, may not resolve patentability disputes at the district
`
`court. Factor one favors denial.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2 – Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s
`Projected Statutory Deadline for a Final Written Decision
`Factor two weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Apple’s argument that the
`
`trial date will be continued, and its implicit argument that it will be continued for
`
`more than six months, because district courts modify trial schedules, is just
`
`speculation. (Paper 12 at 7.) Apple relies on docket navigator statistics and median
`
`time to trial statistics in the Western District of Texas to advance its position that a
`
`four month or above delay in the trial case has a 40% chance of occurring. (Id. at
`
`3.) But these statistics are only general and relate to a variety of cases all over the
`
`country. Apple’s statistics ignore the reality that district court judges set their
`
`schedules a variety of different ways and reasons. As shown in Exhibit 2009, Judge
`
`Albright waited until November 8, 2019, more than eleven months from the filing
`
`of the complaint to set a trial date when the case progressed to an appropriate stage.
`
`Apple doesn’t challenge Fintiv’s timeline that trial will occur six months
`
`before a final written decision. (Paper 10 at 23-24.) Apple instead argues that
`
`COVID-19 complications or other unspecified circumstances may affect the district
`
`court’s schedule, but does not make any specific arguments regarding the likelihood
`
`that any purported delay will occur, let alone, cause a six month delay to the current
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`schedule. Patent Owner is sensitive to issues surrounding the COVID-19 virus and
`
`will use good faith efforts to address any concerns regarding scheduling. Apple’s
`
`reliance on COVID-19 or other unspecified circumstances to support factor two,
`
`however, is just speculation. Based on the current schedule entered after claim
`
`construction, there is no evidence that the PTAB’s final written decision will precede
`
`trial. This factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3 – Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court and
`Parties
`Factor three weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Apple’s argument that
`
`the parties have not made significant investments in the district court is plain wrong.
`
`The Parties have already expended significant time and resources. Claim
`
`construction is complete, a Markman order has issued, and a trial date has been set.
`
`(Paper 10 at 23-26.) The parties have served final infringement and invalidity
`
`contentions, exchanged multiple rounds of written discovery, and depositions have
`
`been taken. (Ex. 2028) The parties have also briefed venue-related issues at the
`
`district court and Federal Circuit including two appeals to the Federal Circuit. (Exs.
`
`2026 & 2027.) As noted above, the Western District of Texas has found that claim
`
`construction and trial dates indicated the litigation reached an advanced state. (Ex.
`
`2025 at 4-5; and Ex. 2024 at 53.) Petitioner seeks to excuse its delay in filing its
`
`petition, arguing it waited to file its IPR until after it learned of asserted claims.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`(Paper 12 at 9-10.) Yet, Fintiv served its initial disclosures of asserted claims on
`
`May 20, 2019 (Ex. 2029, Initial Claim Disclosures at 2,) and Fintiv waited more than
`
`five months from receiving notice of the asserted claims before filing its IPR petition
`
`(October 28, 2019), and waited over ten months from when the Complaint was filed
`
`(December 21, 2018), at the end of the statutory deadline. Apple references the
`
`Board’s order granting Apple’s Motion to supplement to argue that Apple’s IPR was
`
`timely. (Paper 12 at 8 n.4 (citing Paper 6 at 3.) But, the Order addressed prejudice
`
`based on Fintiv’s statutory time to respond to the IPR, not that Apple filed its IPR
`
`too early. (Paper 6 at 3) (“Patent Owner argues it would suffer prejudice if we
`
`authorize Petitioner’s request because the filing deadline for its preliminary response
`
`is February 15, 2019.”) This factor favors discretionary denial.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4 – Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in
`the Parallel Proceeding
`Factor four weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Apple’s preliminary reply
`
`does not dispute Fintiv’s assertion that the IPR and district court raise “identical”
`
`arguments. (Paper 10 at 24-25.) Apple also cannot dispute that it served final
`
`invalidity contentions on January 21, 2020, after the IPR was filed on October 28,
`
`2019, again choosing to proceed on the same grounds. Apple cannot dispute that the
`
`final Aiglstorfer chart references obviousness combinations with Buhot and Wang
`
`(See e.g. Ex. 2010, Chart A-3 (Aiglstorfer Claim Chart referencing Charts B1-B6;
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`Ex. 2031, Chart B-1 at 18 (Wang); Ex. 2032, Chart B-2 at 8 (Buhot); Ex. 2033, Chart
`
`B-3 at 5 (Buhot); Ex. 2034, Chart B-4 at 9 (Buhot); Ex. 2035, B-5 at 4 (Buhot; Ex.
`
`2036, B-6 at 32 and 61 (Buhot and Wang).)
`
` Apple argues that its invalidity contentions contain more than the asserted
`
`IPR combinations (Paper 12 at 9), but this has no bearing on this factor. Apple’s
`
`argument that it waited before filing its IPR petition until after Fintiv identified
`
`asserted claims (Id. at 9-10), even if true, also has no bearing on this factor. Because
`
`the arguments in the district court and disclosed in Apple’s IPR are identical, factor
`
`four weighs heavily in favor of discretionary denial. See E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh,
`
`Corp., IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 at 6, 9-10 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2019) (denying
`
`institution under § 314(a) based, in part, on “substantial overlap” between the
`
`grounds in the petition and the invalidity contentions).
`
`E.
`
`Factor 5 – Whether Petitioner and Defendant in the Parallel
`Proceeding are the Same Party
` Apple does not dispute factor 5 (Paper 12 at 10) supporting denial.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6 – Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise
`of Discretion, Including the Merits
`Apple does not raise additional factors for the Board to consider in weighing
`
`discretionary denial, but instead argues that discretionary denial as a whole is
`
`inappropriate because (1) it negates the statutory period for filing an IPR, (2)
`
`encourages forum shopping, and (3) conditions institution on district court trial
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`timing,2 which can change. (Paper 12 at 10.) These factors are not appropriate
`
`because they do not provide additional information for the Board to consider to
`
`weigh the facts and circumstances in order to decide the issue of discretionary denial,
`
`but instead are policy-based arguments that argue that the entire analysis is wrong.
`
`Nonetheless, each of the additional arguments do not weigh in favor of Apple.
`
`Discretionary Denial Promotes Efficiency and Fairness
`1.
`Congress enacted the AIA to promote efficiency and fairness in patent
`
`matters. Although Congress did implement a one-year filing window, the Board’s
`
`use of the six discretionary denial factors does not undermine the AIA’s objectives.
`
`(Paper 10 at 1.) Apple’s argument that discretionary denial negates the one-year
`
`filing period (Paper 12 at 10) assumes that the district court trial date is the only
`
`factor that is reviewed by the Board. But the trial date (factor two), is only one of
`
`six factors used to determine whether institution will promote efficiency and
`
`fundamental fairness. (See Ex. 2006, Trial Practice Guide at 23.) These factors are
`
`“balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances of the case, including the
`
`merits.” (Paper No. 11 at 6.) They test whether the Board’s efficiency goals are
`
`met, they do not focus alone on the district court’s trial date, as Apple argues. (Paper
`
`12 at 2.) Apple’s Preliminary Reply does nothing to explain how the same parties
`
`in two duplicate proceedings arguing the same claims and prior art arguments
`
`2 Fintiv addresses this argument in factor two.
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`advances either efficiency or fairness, because Apple cannot. Apple raises patent
`
`quality and reduction of costs issues (Paper 12 at 2), but its preliminary reply does
`
`nothing to explain why maintaining two proceedings covering the same issues and
`
`parties promotes these goals. See Ex. 2006, Trial Practice Guide at 23 (“The AIA
`
`was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system …” (citing
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post-grant
`
`reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”).
`
`There are No Forum Shopping Concerns
`2.
`There is no forum shopping and Apple has shown none. The Supreme Court
`
`addressed venue in patent cases in TC Heartland, which now restricts Plaintiffs from
`
`filing lawsuits in a district unless the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and
`
`established place of business. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). Apple has a substantial presence in the Western District of
`
`Texas – through its extensive Austin facilities. MV3, therefore, did not choose the
`
`Western District of Texas as an appropriate venue for a patent lawsuit, Apple did.
`
`Apple argues that it has challenged venue (based on convenience) in the Western
`
`District of Texas and argues it is not getting a “fair shake.” (Paper 12 at 3.) But
`
`Apple omits that it filed a motion to transfer to the Western District of Texas – Austin
`
`Division, which the district court granted. (Ex. 2037, Apple’s Motion to Transfer at
`
`1 (“Apple respectfully request that this action be transferred to NDCA, or in the
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`alternative, to the Austin Division of WDTX.”) Although Apple filed a mandamus
`
`petition arguing that the district court should have granted its first choice, the NDCA,
`
`instead of its second choice, the WDTX - Austin division, the Federal circuit
`
`affirmed the district court’s order and found that Apple chose the Austin division.
`
`(Ex. 2026, Fed. Circuit Order at 3 (“Nor can Apple now take back its previous
`
`assertion to the district court that the Austin Division ‘is clearly more convenient for
`
`both parties.’”); Ex. 2027, Fed. Circuit Order at 1 (denying panel rehearing).)
`
`Apple argues that applying NHK outside of the General Plastic factors is
`
`inappropriate. But the PTAB’s July Practice Guide amendment disagrees and
`
`confirms that discretionary denial may be appropriate outside the General Plastic
`
`factors and “follow on” petition context in situations that favor discretionary denial
`
`based on efficiency. (Ex. 2006, Trial Practice Guide at 25-26.) This includes events
`
`in other proceedings related to the same patent and prior art arguments. (Id.) In any
`
`case, both parties acknowledge that Aiglstorfer, the main referenced used by Apple
`
`for its 103 combinations, was disclosed to the PTO and cited as prior art. (Paper 10
`
`at 27; Paper 1 at 21.) Moreover, Apple filed a supplemental petition because the
`
`district court did not agree with Apple’s construction of “OTA Proxy” (Paper 7)
`
`showing that there are merit based reasons to deny Apple’s petition under factor six.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Petition should be denied.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Date: April 3, 2020
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Registration No.: 50,334
`Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 453-5170
`Facsimile: (650) 453-5171
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PAGE COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Authorized Sur-Reply contains 10 pages excluding a table of contents, a table
`
`of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8, a certificate of service or word count,
`
`or appendix of exhibits or claim listing.
`
`Dated: April 3, 2020
`
`/s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Jonathan K. Waldrop, Reg. No. 50,334
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 3, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner's Authorized Sur-Reply to be served via electronic mail
`
`upon the following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Travis Jensen
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`tjensen@orrick.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`K. Patrick Herman
`Tyler Miller
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`t61ptabdocket@orrick.com
`p52ptabdocket@orrick.com
`tmiller@orrick.com
`pherman@orrick.com
`Apple-Fintiv_OHS@orrick.com
`
`Dated: April 3, 2020
`
`/s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Jonathan K. Waldrop, Reg. No. 50,334
`
`
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
