Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 25
`
`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
`
`C?4<AF<99 9<AF<H’ <A6)kE OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 1
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`JYV q,-0 GReV_e ...................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`The Accused Apple Devices .................................................................................. 2
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................... 2
`THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ................................................................................... 4
`A.
`nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o $:]RZ^d ,, R_U -.% .................................... 5
`B.
`nhZUXVeo $R]] RddVceVU T]RZ^d% .............................................................................. 10
`C.
`n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o $R]] RddVceVU T]RZ^d% ................................................ 11
`D.
`nI< Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_o $:]RZ^d ,/ R_U -.% .................................................................. 13
`E.
`n^‘SZ]V UVgZTV Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_o $:]RZ^d ,/’ ,3’ R_U -.% ......................................... 14
`F.
`n‘gVc-the-RZc $FJ8% ac‘ijo $:]RZ^ -.% R_U nFJ8 ac‘ijo $T]RZ^ ,1% ............... 15
`G.
`nac‘gZdZ‘_PZ_XQo $:]RZ^d ,, R_U -.% ................................................................... 17
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`-i-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 2
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 3 of 25
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.,
`700 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`)LJ>NH )LJJ@VKO$ /K@& R& .>NNFO )LNM&,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................3
`
`Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................5
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................4
`
`IntVl Biomedical, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`No. 1-14-CV-397-LY, 2015 WL 7431408 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2015) ....................................7
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp.,
`175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................3
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................11
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), >CCVA, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................2, 13
`
`Meetrix IP, LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`No. 1:16-CV-1033-LY, 2017 WL 5986191 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2017) ................................3, 4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)....................................................................2, 3, 4, 15
`
`Pisony v. Commando Construction, Inc.,
`W-17-CV-00055-ADA, 2019 WL 928406 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2019) ........................... passim
`
`SunRace Roots Enter. v. SRAM Corp.,
`336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................7
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................9, 15
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................4
`
`-ii-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 3
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 4 of 25
`
`8ELNKBN R& 7LKU )LJMQPBN +KPJVP ’J& 22),
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................3
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., L.P.,
`No. 1:06-cv-653-LY, 2008 WL 5731945 (W.D. Tex. July 1, 2008) .........................................3
`
`-iii-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 4
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 5 of 25
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, @_T) $n=Z_eZgo% RddVced K)I) GReV_e E‘) 3’3/.’,-0 $eYV nq,-0 GReV_eo ‘c
`
`nGReV_e-in-IfZeo% RXRZ_de ;VWV_UR_e 8aa]V @_T) $n8aa]Vo%) =Z_eZg T‘_eV_Ud eYRe 8aa]Vqd ZGY‘_V
`
`R_U MReTY UVgZTVd feZ]ZkZ_X 8aa]Vqd ^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_ Z_WcZ_XV eYV q,-0 GReV_e)
`
`=Z_eZg U‘Vd _‘e SV]ZVgV eYRe R_j eVc^d ‘W eYV q,-0 GReV_e cVbfZcV T‘_decfTeZ‘_) E‘_VeYV]Vdd’
`
`to the extent the Court deems constructions necessary, Fintiv has proposed constructions that rely
`
`principally on the claim language and the specifications. In contrast, Apple sets out proposed
`
`T‘_decfTeZ‘_d eYRe5 $R% cVRU eYV acVWVccVU V^S‘UZ^V_ed ‘fe ‘W eYV T]RZ^d ‘W eYV q,-0 GReV_e’ $S%
`
`import limitations from the specification without providing evidence of a clear intent to limit the
`
`claims, and (c) make claim limitations superfluous. This is never a proper approach to construing
`
`T]RZ^d) =‘c eYVdV cVRd‘_d R_U Rd dVe W‘ceY ^‘cV Wf]]j SV]‘h’ eYZd :‘fce dY‘f]U cV[VTe 8aa]Vqd
`
`proposed constructions and adopt those of Fintiv. Each of the disputed terms should be afforded
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the Court determines that any constructions are
`
`_VTVddRcj’ =Z_eZgqd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_d dY‘f]U SV RU‘aeVU)
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`FVS k+,/ COaS[a
`
`JYV q,-0 GReV_e cV]ReVd e‘ ^R_RXV^V_e ‘W gZcefR] TRcUd stored on mobile devices and
`
`discloses provisioning a contactless card in a mobile device with a mobile wallet application. The
`
`daVTZWZTReZ‘_ ‘W eYV q,-0 GReV_e
`
`ZUV_eZWZVd eVTY_ZTR] ac‘S]V^d Z_ eYV acZ‘c Rce R_U T]RZ^d
`
`improvement to these problems. For Z_deR_TV’ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ Via]RZ_d eYRe acZ‘c Rce ]RT\VU nR_
`
`VWWVTeZgV ^VR_d e‘ ^R_RXV gRcZ‘fd aRj^V_e Raa]Ved cVdZUZ_X hZeYZ_ eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTV)o $q,-0
`
`Patent at 1:63-12)% D‘cV‘gVc’ acZ‘c Rce Z^a]V^V_eReZ‘_d UZU _‘e V_RS]V R fdVc e‘ ngZVh R_j RTT‘f_e
`
`specific information stored within the SE [Secure Element] or manage such applications with or
`
`hZeY‘fe eYV fdV ‘W GFI PG‘Z_e ‘W IR]VQ VbfZa^V_e)o Id. at 2:19-29. The specification further
`
`-1-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 5
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 6 of 25
`
`Via]RZ_d eYRe nPRQ_‘eYVc ]Z^ZeReZ‘_ ‘W TfccV_e ^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]Zcations is the lack of support
`
`providing for such technology . . . . Accordingly, users may often be bombarded with various
`
`applications that may be inapplicable to the user, making the process more difficult than
`
`_VTVddRcj)o
`
`Id. at 2:30-44. Finally, the prior art did not allow for an easy way to update
`
`Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_5 n8d gRcZ‘fd dVcgZTV ac‘gZUVcd ‘aVcReV Z_UVaV_UV_e]j Wc‘^ ‘_V R_‘eYVc’ hYV_ R_
`
`update is required by a particular service provider, each individual application is typically updated
`
`dVaRcReV]j)o Id. at 2:45-0-)
`
`@_ VddV_TV’ eYV q,-0 GReV_e T]RZ^d R eVTY_ZTR] d‘]feZ‘_ e‘ eYVdV
`
`problems through a mobile wallet application and mobile wallet management system to store
`
`contactless cards in a secure element.
`
`Fintiv is asserting claims 11, 14, 16, 18’ R_U -. ‘W eYV q,-0 GReV_e)
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Apple Devices
`
`=Z_eZg RTTfdVd 8aa]V ‘W UZcVTe]j Z_WcZ_XZ_X eYV q,-0 GReV_e eYc‘fXY ;VWV_UR_eqd 8aa]V
`
`MR]]Ve 8aa]ZTReZ‘_ Rd Z^a]V^V_eVU Z_ ;VWV_UR_eqd ZGY‘_V UVgZTVd’ Z_T]fUZ_X’ Re least iPhone 6, 6
`
`Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS, and XS Max, and Apple Watch devices,
`
`including, at least, Series 1, 2, 3, and 4. Fintiv further asserts that Apple has indirectly infringed
`
`and continues to indirectly infringe by contributing to and actively inducing infringement of one
`
`‘c ^‘cV ‘W eYV T]RZ^d ‘W eYV q,-0 GReV_e eYc‘fXY 8aa]V MR]]Ve’ hYZTY’ fa‘_ Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_ R_U SV]ZVW’
`
`is used, implemented, and/or integrated by third-parties, such as users and developers.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Determining the proper meaning of patent claims is a question of law that exclusively
`
`belongs to the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995) (en banc), >CCVA, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). During claim construction, a court first looks at the
`
`words of the claims themselves to define the scope of the patented invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In determining the meaning of the claims,
`
`-2-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 6
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 7 of 25
`
`neYVcV Zd R pYVRgj acVdf^aeZ‘_ Z_ WRg‘c ‘W eYV ‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X ‘W T]RZ^ ]R_XfRXV)qo Watts v. XL
`
`Sys., L.P., No. 1:06-cv-653-LY, 2008 WL 5731945, at *7 (W.D. Tex. July 1, 2008) (quoting
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also Meetrix
`
`IP, LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-1033-LY, 2017 WL 5986191, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1,
`
`2017) (citing 8ELNKBN R& 7LKU )LJMQPBN +KPJVP ’J& 22), 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012))
`
`$nJYV =VUVcR] :ZcTfZe YRd cVRWWZc^VU eYRe R UVaRcefcV Wc‘^ eYV ‘cUZ_Rry and customary meaning is
`
`eYV ViTVaeZ‘_’ _‘e eYV cf]V)o%) FcUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X Zd UVWZ_VU Rd eYV n^VR_Z_X eYRe eVc^ h‘f]U YRgV
`
`e‘ R aVcd‘_ ‘W ‘cUZ_Rcj d\Z]] Z_ eYV Rce Z_ bfVdeZ‘_ Re eYV eZ^V ‘W Z_gV_eZ‘_)o Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1313; see also Pisony v. Commando Construction, Inc., W-17-CV-00055-ADA, 2019 WL 928406,
`
`at &, $M);) JVi) AR_) -.’ -+,4%) nPJQYV aVcd‘_ ‘W ‘cUZ_Rcj d\Z]] Z_ eYV Rce Zd UVV^VU e‘ cVRU eYV
`
`claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but
`
`Z_ eYV T‘_eVie ‘W eYV V_eZcV aReV_e’ Z_T]fUZ_X eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_)o Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`Among the hierarchy of evidentiary sources relied upon for claim interpretation, the
`
`daVTZWZTReZ‘_ Zd eYV ndZ_X]V SVde XfZUVo e‘ eYV ^VR_Z_X ‘W R UZdafeVU eVc^ ‘eYVc eYR_ T]RZ^d
`
`themselves and is usually dispositive of the analysis. Id) Re ,.,0) n8]eY‘fXh the specification may
`
`aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and
`
`ViR^a]Vd RaaVRcZ_X Z_ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ hZ]] _‘e XV_VcR]]j SV cVRU Z_e‘ eYV T]RZ^d)o Comark
`
`)LJJ@VKO$ /K@& R& .>NNFO )LNM&, 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted). The
`
`WZ]V YZde‘cj Zd R]d‘ cV]VgR_e6 Y‘hVgVc’ nZe ‘WeV_ ]RT\d eYV T]RcZej ‘W eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ R_U eYfd Zd ]Vdd
`
`fdVWf] W‘c T]RZ^ T‘_decfTeZ‘_ afca‘dVd)o Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`n@_ ^‘de dZefReZ‘_d’ R_ R_R]jdZd ‘W eYV Z_ecZ_dZT VgZUV_TV R]‘_V hZ]] cVd‘]gV R_j R^SZXfZej
`
`Z_ R UZdafeVU T]RZ^ eVc^ PR_UQ Ze Zd Z^ac‘aVc e‘ cV]j ‘_ ViecZ_dZT VgZUV_TV)o Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ExtrinsiT VgZUV_TV Zd n]Vdd dZX_ZWZTR_e
`
`-3-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 7
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 8 of 25
`
`eYR_ eYV Z_ecZ_dZT cVT‘cU Z_ UVeVc^Z_Z_X eYV p]VXR]]j ‘aVcReZgV ^VR_Z_X ‘W T]RZ^ ]R_XfRXV’qo
`
`Phillips’ /,0 =).U Re ,.,2’ R_U nPYQVRgj cV]ZR_TV ‘_ eYV UZTeZ‘_Rcj UZg‘cTVU Wc‘^ eYV Z_ecZ_dZT
`
`evidence risks transforming the meaning of the claim term to the artisan into the meaning of the
`
`eVc^ Z_ eYV RSdecRTe’ ‘fe ‘W Zed aRceZTf]Rc T‘_eVie’ hYZTY Zd eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_)o Id. at 1321. Further,
`
`ViecZ_dZT VgZUV_TV n^Rj _‘e SV pfdVU e‘ T‘_ecRUZTe T]RZ^ ^VR_Z_X eYRe Zd f_R^SZXf‘fd Z_ light of
`
`eYV Z_ecZ_dZT VgZUV_TV)qo ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., 700 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`:‘fced ^fde _‘e ncVRU ]Z^ZeReZ‘_d Wc‘^ R acVWVccVU V^S‘UZ^V_e UVdTcZSVU Z_ eYV
`
`specificationmeven if it is the only embodimentminto the claims absent a clear indication in the
`
`Z_ecZ_dZT cVT‘cU eYRe eYV aReV_eVV Z_eV_UVU eYV T]RZ^d e‘ SV d‘ ]Z^ZeVU)o GE Lighting Sols., LLC v.
`
`AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Meetrix IP, 2017 WL 5986191, at *9
`
`(citing Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nZe Zd
`
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specificationmeven if
`
`it is the only embodimentminto the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`patentee intendeU eYV T]RZ^d e‘ SV d‘ ]Z^ZeVU)o% 8_U’ hYV_ ^f]eZa]V V^S‘UZ^V_ed RcV eRfXYe’ R
`
`T‘_decfTeZ‘_ eYRe nViT]fUVd PR UZdT]‘dVUQ V^S‘UZ^V_e Zd cRcV]j’ ZW VgVc’ T‘ccVTe)o SynQor, Inc. v.
`
`Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`There are 7 disputed terms. Apple proposes several unwieldy constructions in an apparent,
`
`but misplaced, attempt to aid the jury) 9fe nPTQ]RZ^ T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd R ^ReeVc ‘W cVd‘]feZ‘_ ‘W
`
`disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee
`
`T‘gVcVU Sj eYV T]RZ^d’ W‘c fdV Z_ eYV UVeVc^Z_ReZ‘_ ‘W Z_WcZ_XV^V_e)o U.S. Surgical Corp. v.
`
`Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Pisony, 2019 WL 928406, at *5
`
`$cV[VTeZ_X ;VWV_UR_edq T‘_decfTeZ‘_ hYVcV RU‘aeZ_X eYV T‘_decfTeZ‘_ h‘f]U _‘e cVd‘]gV R_j UZdafeV
`
`-4-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 8
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 9 of 25
`
`over claim scope). This U‘Vd _‘e cVbfZcV neYRe eYV ecZR] [fUXV ^fde cVaVRe ‘c cVdeReV VgVcj T]RZ^
`
`term in order to comply with the ruling that claim c‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd W‘c eYV T‘fce)o U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp. at 1567-68 (holding, inter alia, district court properly refused to adopt claim construction
`
`eYRe R^‘f_eVU e‘ R_ nf_UZdafeVU cVdeReV^V_e ‘W hYRe eYVdV h‘cUd ^VR_o%6 see also Pisony, 2019
`
`WL 928406, at *5. It is therefore appropriate for the Court to construe claim terms according to
`
`their plain meaning when it has resolved any actual disputes raised by the parties. See Finjan, Inc.
`
`v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that district court did
`
`not err in construing claim phrase according to its plain meaning because the court resolved the
`
`aRceZVdq UZdafeV%)
`
`A.
`
`idOYYSa ZO[OUSZS[a O]]YSa %I@4&j %6YOWZ‘ ++ O[R ,-&
`
`9W[aWck‘ 6\[‘a_bQaW\[
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction, the plain and
`‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X Zd nZ_eVXcReVU Wf_TeZ‘_R]Zej
`that enables management of a wallet related
`Raa]Ve)o
`
`4]]YSk‘ 6\[‘a_bQaW\[
`nd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ W‘c de‘cZ_X Ufa]ZTReV
`account specific information accessible to the
`^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o
`
`JYV eVc^ nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o U‘Vd _‘e cVbfZcV T‘_decfTeZ‘_ SVTRfdV ‘_V
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable certainty about the meaning and scope of the
`
`term from its context in the claims and specification. Pisony, 2019 WL 928406, at &, $n[T]he
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a
`
`aVcd‘_ ‘W ‘cUZ_Rcj d\Z]] Z_ eYV Rce Z_ bfVdeZ‘_ Re eYV eZ^V ‘W eYV Z_gV_eZ‘_ ))))o) (citation omitted).
`
`JYV eVc^’ W‘c ViR^a]V’ RaaVRcd Z_ T]RZ^d ,, R_U -. Rd W‘]]‘hd5 nR hR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve
`
`$MD8% T‘ccVda‘_UZ_X e‘ eYV T‘_eRTe]Vdd TRcU Raa]Ve)o =fceYVc’ eYV eVc^ Zd fdVU eYc‘fXY‘fe eYV
`
`specification. For example, Figure 2 is an exemplary embodiment of the invention that illustrates
`
`nR djdeV^ R_U ^VeY‘U W‘c Z_deR]]Z_X R ^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_ ‘_ eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTV R_U
`
`-5-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 9
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 10 of 25
`
`T‘ccV]ReZ_X hR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve Z_ eYV I< ‘W eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTVo5
`
`$q,-0 GReV_e Re 05/2-54, Fig. 2.) The daVTZWZTReZ‘_ WfceYVc UVdTcZSVd eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve
`
`$MD8%o Rd follows:
`
`Further, if a request to provision the selected contactless card applet 23 is made,
`dfTY Rd R nL@I8lo T‘_eRTe]Vdd TRcU Raa]Ve’ R T‘ccVda‘_UZ_X hZUXVe R_U MD8 -,
`applet may be programmed to be provisioned automatically. The corresponding
`widget may reside in the mobile wallet application 24, at the application level, to
`provide an interface to the user. The corresponding WMA 21 applet, which may
`include account specific information of the contactless card apple[t] (e.g. credit
`card number, expiration date, security code, PIN, etc.), may be provisioned
`into the SE. By installing both the WMA 21 applet and the widget, the user may
`view and manage the information stored in the WMA 21 applet through the
`corresponding widget.
`
`Id. at 8:60-9:5 (emphasis added). Moreover, the specification explains that the account specific
`
`Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_ ^Rj SV de‘cVU Z_ eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o R_U RTTVddVU Sj eYV ^‘SZ]V
`
`device to check the expiration date of the contactless card applet 23 and request update when the
`
`card applet expires. Id. at 9:45-1+) JYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ WfceYVc Via]RZ_d eYRe eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e
`
`-6-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 10
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 11 of 25
`
`Raa]Ve $MD8%o ^Rj ]Z^Ze eYV R^‘f_e ‘W TYR_XVd R fdVc TR_ ^R\V’ dfTY Rd ]Z^ZeZ_X eYV _f^SVc ‘W
`
`times expiration dates or credit card numbers can be changed. Id. at 9:61-10:8. Accordingly, the
`
`term nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o is not ambiguous and would be readily comprehensible
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of the claims and specification. Pisony,
`
`2019 WL 928406, at *1. Appleqd ac‘a‘dR] eYRe eYV eVc^ nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o SV
`
`T‘_decfVU e‘ ^VR_ nd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ W‘c de‘cZ_X Ufa]ZTReV RTT‘f_e daVTZWZT Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_
`
`RTTVddZS]V e‘ eYV ^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o Z^ac‘aVc]j _Rcc‘hd eYV T]RZ^ e‘ R daVTZWZT
`
`embodiment and improperly attempts to read specific examples into the claim language. Yet, in
`
`eYV RSdV_TV ‘W ]ViZT‘XcRaYj ‘c UZdT]RZ^Vc’ 8aa]Vqd ReeV^ae e‘ ]Z^Ze eYV T]RZ^d e‘ R_ V^S‘UZ^V_e
`
`in the specification should be rejected and the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`=Zcde’
`
`eYV cVTZeReZ‘_ eYRe
`
`eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o SV R nd‘WehRcV
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_o Z^ac‘aVc]j ReeV^aed e‘ cVRU daVTZWZT ViR^a]Vd Z_e‘ eYV T]RZ^ ]R_XfRXV) SunRace
`
`Roots Enter. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also IntVl Biomedical, Ltd.
`
`v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 1-14-CV-397-LY, 2015 WL 7431408, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2015)
`
`$nJYV h‘cU p^Rjq indicates that the patentee did not intend to limit the disclosed class of structures
`
`to only [one embodiment]. The patentee must demonstrate an intention to limit claim scope, and
`
`particular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim
`
`la_XfRXV eYRe YRd Sc‘RUVc VWWVTe)o% $Z_eVc_R] bf‘eReZ‘_d ‘^ZeeVU%) On the contrary, the specification
`
`eVRTYVd eYRe eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veo Zd Z_eVXcReVU d‘WehRcV Wf_TeZ‘_R]Zej eYRe ^Rj SV
`
`implemented in a variety of ways, including at least applets or software applications. For instance,
`
`the specification describes an example where thV nMD8 -, may include both a WMA 21
`
`container and one or more WMA 21 applets)o $q,-0 GReV_e Re 253-9 (emphasis added).) The
`
`daVTZWZTReZ‘_ WfceYVc Via]RZ_d eYRe eYV nMD8 -, T‘_eRZ_Vc ^Rj ^R_RXV eYV Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_ de‘cVU Z_
`
`-7-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 11
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 12 of 25
`
`eYV MD8 -, Raa]Vedo R_U eYRe eYV nMMA 21 container may be installed in the mobile device 100
`
`when WMA 21 applet is requested to be installed, or when the mobile wallet application is
`
`installed, or separately without regard to either the WMA 21 applet or the mobile wallet
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_)o Id. at 7:9-,0) 8]d‘’ nPeQYV MD8 -, T‘_eRZ_Vc Zd R d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ eYRe ^Rj
`
`reside within the SE of the mobile device 100 to manage account information related to the
`
`contactless card applet 23 (i.e. WMA 21 applet) that may be typically inaccessible by thV fdVc)o
`
`Id. at 7:16-20. The specification further eVRTYVd eYRe eYV nMD8 -, Raa]Ve’ PQ ^Rj Z_T]fUV RTT‘f_e
`
`specific information of the contactless card apple[t] (e.g. credit card number, expiration date,
`
`dVTfcZej T‘UV’ G@E’ VeT)%)o Id. at 8:66-9:2. In addition, nPhQYZ]V eYV UVdTcZSVU ac‘TVdd Z]]fdecReVd R
`
`preferred embodiment of the present invention, the amount of modification allowed by the WMA
`
`21 container is not limited to what has been described. In some instances, WMA 21 container may
`
`allow direct ^‘UZWZTReZ‘_ e‘ eYV RTT‘f_e daVTZWZT Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_ Rd UZTeReVU Sj SfdZ_Vdd _VVUd)o Id.
`
`at 10:3-8. The specification provides exemplary implementations of the WMA that may include
`
`R nd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_’o Sfe Rd dY‘h_ acVgZ‘fd]j’ eYV MD8 Zd _‘e ]Z^ZeVU Z_ Z^a]V^V_eReZ‘_
`
`d‘]V]j e‘ R nd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_)o 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dR] e‘ ]Z^Ze nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o
`
`e‘ ‘_]j R nd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_o Zd T‘_ecRcj e‘ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_)
`
`Second, Apple also improperly asks this Court to read limitations into the claim by
`
`cVbfZcZ_X eYRe
`
`eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve
`
`$MD8%o de‘cV Ufa]ZTReV RTT‘f_e daVTZWZT
`
`Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_) F_ eYV T‘_ecRcj’ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ eVRTYVd eYRe eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veo may
`
`store duplicate account specific information:
`
`To provide the user of the mobile device with the account specific information
`related to contactless card applets, separate account information associated with the
`corresponding contactless card applet 23 (e.g. credit card number, expiration date,
`security code, PIN, etc.) may be provisioned into the SE as WMA 21 applets. The
`respective account information or WMA 21 applet may be provided by
`duplicating the account information associated with the contactless card when
`
`-8-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 12
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 13 of 25
`
`the TSM system receives contactless card applets from SPs to provision into the
`mobile device 100. Alternatively, SP providing the contactless card applet may
`provide the account related information separately to the TSM system for
`provisioning.
`
`$q,-0 GReV_e Re 25.3-50) (emphasis added). In other words, the specification does not require, as
`
`8aa]Vqd T‘_decfTeZ‘_ ac‘a‘dVd’ eYRe eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veo de‘cV Ufa]ZTReV RTT‘f_e
`
`specific information when providing the user of the mobile device with the account specific
`
`information related to contactless card applets. Instead, the specification offers the ability to store
`
`duplicate account specific information as optional functionality of the WMA applets. As the
`
`specification discloseU ^‘cV eYR_ ‘_V V^S‘UZ^V_e feZ]ZkZ_X eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve’o eYVcV
`
`is no reason to import a limitation from the specification when the claim language is broader. See
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc.’ .03 =).U 32+’ 320 $=VU) :Zc) -++/% $nR particular
`
`embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
`
`]R_XfRXV Zd Sc‘RUVc eYR_ eYV V^S‘UZ^V_e)o%6 see also Pisony, 2019 WL 928406, Re &- $n8lthough
`
`the specification may indicate that a certain embodiment is preferred, a particular embodiment
`
`appearing in the specification will not be read into the claim when the claim language is broader
`
`than eYV V^S‘UZ^V_e)o% $TZeReZ‘_d ‘^ZeeVU%)
`
`=‘c R]] ‘W eYVdV cVRd‘_d’ 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ dY‘f]U SV cV[VTeVU) To the extent
`
`eYRe eYV :‘fce UVeVc^Z_Vd eYRe nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%o cVbfZcVd T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ =Z_eZg
`
`dfS^Zed eYRe
`
`eYV eVc^ dY‘f]U SV T‘_decfVU e‘ ^VR_ nZ_eVXcReVU Wf_TeZ‘_R]Zej eYRe V_RS]Vd
`
`^R_RXV^V_e ‘W R hR]]Ve cV]ReVU Raa]Ve’o hYZTY Zd eYV a]RZn and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`T‘_dZdeV_e hZeY eYV T]RZ^d R_U daVTZWZTReZ‘_) K_]Z\V 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ =Z_eZgqd
`
`proposed construction does not improperly exclude other examples described in the specification
`
`Sj ]Z^ZeZ_X eYV nhR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veo e‘ R d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ R_U cVbfZcZ_X eYV de‘cZ_X ‘W
`
`duplicate account specific information. See, e.g.’ q,-0 GReV_e Re 05/2-54, 7:3-20; 7:38-50; 8:60-
`
`-9-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 13
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 14 of 25
`
`9:5; 9:25-35, and 9:61-10:9.
`
`B.
`
`idWRUSaj %OYY O‘‘S_aSR QYOWZ‘&
`
`9W[aWck‘ 6\[‘a_bQaW\[
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction, the plain and
`‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X Zd nZ_eVXcReVU Wf_TeZ‘_R]Zej
`that relates to applications related to a
`financial institution, transportation account,
`R_U eYV ]Z\V)o
`
`A]]YSk‘ 6\[‘a_bQaW\[
`nfdVc Z_eVcWRTV d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_o
`
`JYV eVc^ nhZUXVeo U‘Vd _‘e cVbfZcV T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Rd R aVcd‘_ ‘W ‘cUZ_Rcj d\Z]] Z_ eYV Rce
`
`would have reasonable certainty about the meaning and scope of the term from its context in the
`
`claims and specification. Pisony, 2019 WL 928406, at *1. The specification provides various
`
`ViR^a]Vd ‘W hYRe TR_ T‘_deZefeV R nhZUXVe)o =‘c Z_deR_TV’ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ eVRTYVd eYRe
`
`nRaa]ZTReZ‘_d de‘cVU Re eYV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ ]VgV] cV]ReVU e‘ R WZ_R_TZR] Z_deZefeZ‘_’ ecR_da‘ceReZ‘_ RTT‘f_e’
`
`R_U eYV ]Z\Vo RcV ViR^a]Vd ‘W hZUXVed eYRe ^Rj SV Y‘fdVU Z_ eYV hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_) $q,-0 GReV_e
`
`at 4:57-1,)% JYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ R]d‘ ac‘gZUVd R_ ViR^a]V W‘c hYZTY eYV nhZUXVeo cVacVdV_ed nR
`
`gZcefR] TRcUo eYRe cVdZUVd nhZeYZ_ eYV cVdaVTeZgV ^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_)o Id. at 5:66-6:4.
`
`Apa]Vqd ac‘a‘dR] eYRe eYV eVc^ nhZUXVeo SV T‘_decfVU e‘ ^VR_ nfdVc Z_eVcWRTV d‘WehRcV
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_o Zd R_‘eYVc ReeV^ae Sj 8aa]V e‘ Z^ac‘aVc]j _Rcc‘h eYV T]RZ^ e‘ R daVTZWZT V^S‘UZ^V_e
`
`and improperly attempts to read specific examples into the claim language. For instance, the
`
`daVTZWZTReZ‘_ eVRTYVd eYRe nPhQZUXVed may be an application configured to interface with a user of
`
`eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTVo R_U WfceYVc ZUV_eZWZVd nZ_UZgZUfR] aRj^V_e Raa]ZTReZ‘_d’
`
`ecR_da‘ceReZ‘_
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_d’ R_U ‘eYVc cV]ReVU Raa]ZTReZ‘_do Rs example of widgets. Id. at 5:6-9 (emphasis added).
`
`@_ ‘eYVc h‘cUd’ eYV q,-0 GReV_e U‘Vd _‘e cVbfZcV eYRe eYV nhZUXVeo SV R nfdVc Z_eVcWRTVo Rd ac‘a‘dVU
`
`by Apple.
`
`8UUZeZ‘_R]]j’ 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dR] h‘f]U gZ‘]ReV eYV U‘TecZ_V ‘W T]RZ^ UZWWVcV_eZReZ‘_) =or
`
`-10-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 14
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 15 of 25
`
`ViR^a]V’ UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^ -/’ hYZTY UVaV_Ud ‘_ Z_UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^ -.’ cVbfZcVd eYRe neYV hZUXVe
`
`is configured to include a user interfaceo R_U UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^ ,1’ hYZTY UVaV_Ud ‘_ Z_UVaV_UV_e
`
`T]RZ^ ,,’ cVbfVded eYRe neYV hZUXVe Zd R_ Raa]ZTReZ‘_ T‘_WZXfcVd to interface with a user of the
`
`^‘SZ]V UVgZTV)o $<^aYRdZd RUUVU)% See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910
`
`$=VU) :Zc) -++/% $nPMQYVcV eYV ]Z^ZeReZ‘_ eYRe Zd d‘fXYe e‘ SV pcVRU Z_e‘q R_ Z_UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^
`
`already appears in a dependent T]RZ^’ eYV U‘TecZ_V ‘W T]RZ^ UZWWVcV_eZReZ‘_ Zd Re Zed dec‘_XVdeo%6 see
`
`also Pisony, 2019 WL 928406, at *3 $nJYV :‘fce f_UVcdeR_Ud eYRe Ze Zd hV]] VdeRS]ZdYVU eYRe eYV
`
`presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the
`
`limitation in question is not prVdV_e Z_ eYV Z_UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^)o% (citations and quotations omitted).
`
`Claim differentiation requires that claims 16 and 24 be narrower in scope than the claims for which
`
`eYVj UVaV_U) 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTtion would violate this requirement and, as a consequence,
`
`render claims such as claims 16 and 24 superfluous.
`
`J‘ eYV VieV_e eYV :‘fce UVeVc^Z_Vd eYV eVc^ nhZUXVeo cVbfZcVd T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ =Z_eZg dfS^Zed
`
`Z_ eYV R]eVc_ReZgV eYRe eYV T‘_decfTeZ‘_ nZ_eVXcReVU functionality that relates to applications related
`
`e‘ R WZ_R_TZR] Z_deZefeZ‘_’ ecR_da‘ceReZ‘_ RTT‘f_e’ R_U eYV ]Z\Vo Zd Raac‘acZReV) 8]eY‘fXY =Z_eZg
`
`^RZ_eRZ_d eYRe _‘ T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd _VTVddRcj’ f_]Z\V 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ =Z_eZgqd
`
`proposed construction is not narrowing and is consistent with the specification. See, e.g.’ q,-0
`
`Patent at 4:57-61, 5:6-9, 5:66-6:4, 8:23-28, 8:60-9:5, and 10:9-14.
`
`C.
`
`iZ\PWYS dOYYSa O]]YWQOaW\[j %OYY O‘‘S_aSR QYOWZ‘&
`
`9W[aWck‘ 6\[‘a_bQaW\[
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction the plain and
`‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X Zd nRaa]ZTReZ‘_ eYRe ac‘gZUVd
`hR]]Ve Wf_TeZ‘_R]Zej ‘_ eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTV)o
`
`4]]YSk‘ 6\[‘a_bQaW\[
`n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ TRaRS]V
`of being independently downloaded and
`Z_deR]]VUo
`
`JYV eVc^ n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o U‘Vd _‘e cVbfZcV T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Rd R aVcd‘_ ‘W ‘cUZ_Rcj
`
`-11-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 15
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 16 of 25
`
`skill in the art would have reasonable certainty about the scope and meaning of the term from its
`
`context in the claims and specification. Pisony, 2019 WL 928406, at &,) 8 a‘ceZ‘_ ‘W 8aa]Vqd
`
`proposed construction supports this position given that it requZcVd R n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve software
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_)o
`
`EVgVceYV]Vdd’ 8aa]V’ Z_ Zed ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ W‘c n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o T‘_eZ_fVd
`
`to improperly narrow the claim to a specific embodiment and improperly attempts to read specific
`
`examples into the c]RZ^ ]R_XfRXV Sj cVbfZcZ_X eYRe
`
`eYV n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o SV
`
`nZ_UVaV_UV_e]j U‘h_]‘RUVU R_U Z_deR]]VU)o F_ eYV T‘_ecRcj’ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ eVRTYVd eYRe5
`
`After a customer account has been created or updated, if it is determined that the
`mobile wallet application 24 is not installed on the mobile device 100, the TSM
`system 120 will confirm the mobile wallet application installation request and
`initiate the wallet application installation process. The installation process may be
`initiated by transmitting a Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) message with an
`embedded Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to the Short Message Service (SMS)
`platform in step 203, which relays the message to the mobile device 100 in step
`204. However, the mobile wallet application 24 may be obtained in various
`other ways as well and is not limited to the WAP message method as described
`above. The mobile wallet application 24 may be downloaded directly to the
`requesting mobile device 100, sent to the user in a physical medium storing the
`application, or by other suitable methods for providing software applications.
`
`$q,-0 GReV_e Re 15,/-.+ $V^aYRdZd RUUVU%)% @_ ‘eYVc h‘cUd’ eYV q,-0 eVRTYVd eYRe eYV ^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve
`
`application may be provided to the mobile device in a variety of methods, including, for example,
`
`being directly downloaded or pre-Z_deR]]VU ‘_ eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTV) D‘cV‘gVc’ 8aa]Vqd ac‘a‘dVU
`
`T‘_decfTeZ‘_ R]d‘ dVV\d e‘ Z_ec‘UfTV R^SZXfZej Sj eYV Z_T]fdZ‘_ ‘W nZ_UVaV_UV_e]jo Z_ Zed ac‘a‘dVU
`
`construction. Such an inclusion does not aid in clarifying the scope of the claims and is likely to
`
`TRfdV f__VTVddRcj T‘_WfdZ‘_ Rd Ze RUUd R^SZXfZej e‘ eYV eVc^ n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_)o
`
`@^afeZ_X nTRaRS]V ‘W SVZ_X Z_UVaV_UV_e]j U‘h_]‘RUVU R_U Z_deR]]VUo e‘ eYV eVc^ n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve
`
`applicatio_o Z^ac‘aVc]j Z^a‘ced R _Rcc‘hZ_X dT‘aV R_U dY‘f]U SV cV[VTeVU Sj eYV :‘fce)
`
`J‘ eYV VieV_e eYV :‘fce UVeVc^Z_Vd eYRe n^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_o cVbfZcVd T‘_decfTeZ‘_’
`
`-12-
`
`Apple Ex. 1017, p. 16
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 17 of 25
`
`=Z_eZg dfS^Zed Z_ eYV