Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 1 of 27
`
`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)mE D8ECBAE<H8 6?4<@ 6BAEFDG6F<BA 5D<89
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 1
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 2
`A.
`Claims are Presumed to Carry Their Plain and Ordinary Meaning ....................... 2
`B.
`@_ :]RZ^ :‘_decfTeZ‘_’ R CRjaVcd‘_sd GVcdaVTeZgV IY‘f]U Not be
`Substituted for the Perspective of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............... 3
`Claims Need Not Be Expressly Construed ............................................................ 4
`C.
`THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ................................................................................... 5
`A.
`phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q $:]RZ^d ,, R_U -.% .................................... 5
`1.
`8aa]Vsd :‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd @^ac‘aVc R_U Should be Rejected ....................... 6
`2.
`Apple Cites to No Evidence of Claim Scope Disclaimer .......................... 7
`a.
`
`JYV s,-0 GReV_e IaVTZWZTReZ‘_ ;‘Vd _‘e Ifaa‘ce 8aa]Vsd
`Narrowing of Claim Scope ............................................................ 8
`
`b.
`
`IV.
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 2
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`8aa]Vsd DZdTYRcRTeVcZkReZ‘_ ‘W :RdV CRh ;‘Vd E‘e
`Overcome its Obligation to Prove Claim Scope Disclaimer ......... 9
`=Z_eZgsd Gc‘a‘dR] IY‘f]U SV 8U‘aeVU ...................................................... 10
`3.
`phZUXVeq $T]RZ^d ,,’ ,3’ R_U -.% ......................................................................... 11
`1.
`8aa]Vsd :‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd @^ac‘aVc R_U IY‘f]U SV HV[VTeVU ..................... 11
`2.
`=Z_eZgsd Gc‘a‘dR] IY‘f]U SV 8U‘aeVU ...................................................... 13
`p^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_q $R]] RddVceVU T]RZ^d% ................................................ 13
`1.
`8aa]Vsd :‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd @^ac‘aVc R_U Should be Rejected ..................... 14
`2.
`=Z_eZgsd Gc‘a‘dR] IY‘f]U SV 8U‘aeVU ...................................................... 15
`pI< Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_q $:]RZ^d ,/ R_U -.% .................................................................. 16
`p^‘SZ]V UVgZTV Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_q $:]aims 14, 18, and 23) ......................................... 16
`1.
`8aa]Vsd :‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd @^ac‘aVc R_U IY‘f]U SV HV[VTeVU ..................... 16
`2.
`=Z_eZgsd Gc‘a‘dR] IY‘f]U SV 8U‘aeVU ...................................................... 17
`p‘gVc-the-RZc $FJ8% ac‘ijq $:]RZ^ -.% R_U pFJ8 ac‘ijq $T]RZ^ ,1% ............... 18
`1.
`8aa]Vsd :‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd Improper and Should be Rejected ..................... 18
`2.
`=Z_eZgsd Gc‘a‘dR] IY‘f]U SV 8U‘aeVU ...................................................... 19
`pac‘gZdZ‘_OZ_XPq $:]RZ^d ,, R_U -.% ................................................................... 21
`G.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 21
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................2, 9
`
`-KEMN=L ,JLK( P( 1INUG 9L=@A ,JHUI,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................2
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................7, 14, 17, 18
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................9
`
`Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Fascinations Toys & Gifts, Inc.,
`No. A-07-CA-990-SS, 2009 WL 1270394 (W.D. Tex. April 2, 2009) .....................................5
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................7, 12
`
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`No.6:18-cv-308-ADA, D.I. 90 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019) ..........................................................4
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................................3
`
`Pisony v. Commando Constr., Inc.,
`No. W-17-CV-00055-ADA, 2019 WL 928406 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2019) ..........................4, 5
`
`Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol. Corp.,
`374 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................3
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`229 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................7, 12
`
`9DJLIAL P( 8JIS ,JHKONAL -INHUN +H( 22,,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................7, 12
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 3
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 4 of 27
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..........................................................................................16, 21
`
`<AMNALI :IEJI ,J( P( 3JIASCL=H 1INUG& 1I?(,
`No. A-07-CA-372-SS, 2008 WL 5731946 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2008) ......................................5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`HR_U‘^ ?‘fdV MVSdeVcsd ;ZTeZ‘_Rcj /eY <UZeZ‘_...........................................................................6
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 4
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 5 of 27
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc. $pFintivq% submits this Responsive Claim Construction Brief in
`
`dfaa‘ce ‘W =Z_eZgsd ac‘a‘dVU T]RZ^ T‘_decfTeZ‘_ ‘W eYV eVc^d R_U aYcRdVd ZUV_eZWZVU W‘c T‘_decfTeZ‘_
`
`from tYV T]RZ^d ‘W K)I) GReV_e E‘) 3’3/.’,-0 $peYV s,-0 GReV_eq ‘c pGReV_e-in-IfZeq% R_U Z_
`
`cVda‘_dV e‘ ;VWV_UR_e 8aa]V @_T)sd $p8aa]Vq% FaV_Z_X :]RZ^ :‘_decfTeZ‘_ 9cZVW)
`
`;VdaZeV 8aa]Vsd ]V_XeYj RcXf^V_ed’ eYV s,-0 GReV_esd T]RZ^d RcV T]VRc’ f_R^SZXf‘fd’ R_U
`
`can be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Apple seeks to rewrite the claims
`
`without showing that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer or disclaimed claim scope.
`
`Accordingly, no special construction need to be given to these terms, and they should be afforded
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`In its Opening Brief (D.I. 71), Apple asks the Court to ignore the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the disputed claim terms and limit those terms based on selective portions of the
`
`intrinsic record. Apple does this in a transparent attempt to manufacture a non-infringement
`
`argument rather than to clarify ambiguous claim terms as intended by Markman. The Court should
`
`not re-hcZeV eYV T]RZ^d e‘ RUgR_TV 8aa]Vsd _‘_-infringement arguments.
`
`8aa]V R]d‘ Z^ac‘aVc]j Rd\d eYV :‘fce e‘ dfSdeZefeV R ]RjaVcd‘_sd aVcdaVTeZgV W‘c eYRe ‘W R
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to construe the claims in contravention of well-established
`
`Federal Circuit law. The constructions Apple proposes, however, would not assist the jury, and
`
`would result in jury confusion.
`
`=‘c eYVdV cVRd‘_d R_U Rd dVe W‘ceY ^‘cV Wf]]j SV]‘h’ eYZd :‘fce dY‘f]U cV[VTe 8aa]Vsd
`
`proposed constructions and adopt those of Fintiv.
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 5
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 6 of 27
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Fintiv provided the general principles of claim construction in its Opening Brief. 8aa]Vsd
`
`brief misapplies the law to reach claim construction proposals that are fundamentally flawed.
`
`Fintiv addresses a few of 8aa]Vsd misstatements below.
`
`A.
`
`Claims are Presumed to Carry Their Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`Other than in very limited and specific circumstances, all terms in the claims should be
`
`construed to cover their plain and ordinary meaning. To prevail in limiting a term beyond its plain
`
`and ordinary ^VR_Z_X’ R aRcej p^fde VdeRS]ZdY eYV Z_gV_e‘cd rUV^‘_decReVOUP R_ Z_eV_e e‘ UVgZReV
`
`from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification
`
`expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal ‘W T]RZ^ dT‘aV)qs
`
`Epistar Corp. v. IINUG Trade CJHUI, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009), (citing Teleflex, Inc. v.
`
`Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 229 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Cadence Pharm. Inc. v.
`
`Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Indeed, a party seeking a limiting
`
`T‘_decfTeZ‘_ p^fde R]d‘ ‘gVcT‘^V R YVRgj acVdf^aeZ‘_ eYRe T]RZ^ eVc^d TRccj eYVZc Wf]] ‘cUZ_Rcj
`
`R_U Tfde‘^Rcj ^VR_Z_X’ f_]Vdd Ze TR_ dY‘h eYV aReV_eVV ViacVdd]j cV]Z_bfZdYVU T]RZ^ dT‘aV)q
`
`Epistar Corp., 566 F.3d at 1335, citing 5HAC= -ICUC P( 7=SNAF ,JLK(, 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003).
`
`As discussed in =Z_eZgsd FaV_Z_X 9cZVW, and further below, for each claim term where
`
`Apple proposes a construction to limit a claim term to something less than its full ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, Apple YRd WRZ]VU e‘ ^VVe Zed SfcUV_ R_U ‘gVcT‘^V eYV pYVRgj acVdf^aeZ‘_q
`
`Z_ WRg‘c ‘W eYV eVc^sd pWf]] ‘cUZ_Rcj R_U Tfde‘^Rcj ^VR_Z_X)q Epistar Corp., 556 F.3d at 1335.
`
`-2-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 6
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 7 of 27
`
`B.
`
`<\ 6ZOW[ 6]\ab‘cQbW]\’ O ?Og^S‘a]\ma CS‘a^SQbWdS Should Not be Substituted
`for the Perspective of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Apple generally cites to Phillips in its Legal Standard section but fails to cite to a key
`
`finding from that decision:
`
`We have frequently stated that the words of a clRZ^ pRcV XV_VcR]]j XZgV_ eYVZc
`‘cUZ_Rcj R_U Tfde‘^Rcj ^VR_Z_X)q We have made clear, moreover, that the
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
`i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (emphasis added,
`
`citations omitted). The Federal Circuit in Phillips further found that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art pZd UVV^VU e‘ cVRU eYV T]RZ^ eVc^ _‘e ‘_]j Z_ eYV T‘_eVie ‘W eYV aRceZTf]Rc T]RZ^ Z_ hYZTY
`
`the disputed term appears, but in thV T‘_eVie ‘W eYV V_eZcV aReV_e’ Z_T]fUZ_X eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_)q
`
`Phillips, 415 3d at 1313. Claim interpretation begins with an inquiry into how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art understands the words that the inventor has chosen to describe the invention. Id.
`
`This inquiry necessarily requires the Court to review the same resources as would that person of
`
`ordinary skill n the specification and the prosecution history. Id.
`
`Instead of relying on these claim construction principle from Phillips, Apple insists on
`
`hVZXYZ_X eYV [fcjsd aVcdaVTeZgV hZeY respect to the claim terms over that of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. 9fe R ]RjaVcd‘_sd UVWZ_ZeZ‘_ ‘W R eVc^ should not be substituted for the meaning of
`
`the term as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol. Corp.,
`
`374 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) $p:]RZ^ eVc^d ^fde SV T‘_decfVU Rd eYVj
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains. What
`
`the claZ^ eVc^d h‘f]U ^VR_ e‘ ]Rj^V_ Zd ZccV]VgR_e)q% $TZeReZ‘_ ‘^ZeeVU%.
`
`EVgVceYV]Vdd’ VgV_ ZW ac‘gZUZ_X R ]RjaVcd‘_sd UVWZ_ZeZ‘_ hRd 8aa]Vsd X‘R]’ Zed ac‘a‘dVU
`
`T‘_decfTeZ‘_d h‘f]U SV Z_dfWWZTZV_e Rd eYVj fdV RUUZeZ‘_R] peVTY_ZTR]q h‘cUd e‘ improperly inject
`
`-3-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 7
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 8 of 27
`
`ambiguity and limitations from the specifications into the claims (e.g.’ T‘_decfZ_X phR]]Ve
`
`^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veq Rd psoftware application for storing duplicate account specific information
`
`accessible to the mobile wallet application’q p^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve Raa]ZTReZ‘_q Rd pmobile wallet
`
`software application capable of being independently downloaded and installed’q phZUXVeq Rd puser
`
`interface software application’q R_U p‘gVc-the-RZc $FJ8% ac‘ijq Rd pmobile device software
`
`application for communication between a secure element and a server over a mobile networkq%)
`
`=fceYVc’ eYV fdV ‘W eYV dR^V h‘cUd eYRe R]]VXVU]j cVbfZcV T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ ]Z\V p^‘SZ]V hR]]Ve
`
`d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_q R_U pdVTfcV V]V^V_e’q Z_ Zed ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ f_UVc^Z_Vd 8aa]Vsd
`
`argument that its consecfTeZ‘_d RcV W‘c eYV [fcj) HReYVc’ 8aa]Vsd Z_T]fdZ‘_ ‘W eYVdV eVc^d Z_ Zed
`
`T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd ac‘‘W eYRe p_‘_V ‘W eYVdV eVc^d RcV UZWWZTf]e eVTY_ZTR] eVc^d W‘c hYZTY R T‘_decfTeZ‘_
`
`h‘f]U YV]a eYV [fcj f_UVcdeR_U eYV ^VR_Z_X ‘W eYV eVc^)q MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`
`No.6:18-cv-308-ADA, D.I. 90 at 6 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019) (citation omitted). Thus, Apple is
`
`ReeV^aeZ_X e‘ UZdXfZdV Zed pT‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd W‘c eYV [fcjq RcXf^V_e Z_e‘ R T]RZ^ dT‘aV _Rcc‘hZ_X
`
`non-infringement argument, which should be rejected by the Court.
`
`C.
`
`Claims Need Not Be Expressly Construed
`
`Apple would have the Court believe that no word, no matter how clearoe.g., information,
`
`application, and appletocan possibly be understood without an express construction. However,
`
`not every allegedly disputed claim term actually requires construction by the Court, despite a
`
`aRcejsd cVbfVde W‘c T‘_decfTeZ‘_) Rather, the Federal Circuit has explained that claim construction
`
`pZd R ^ReeVc ‘W cVd‘]feZ‘_ ‘W UZdafeVU ^VR_Z_Xd R_U eVTY_ZTR] dT‘aV)))) _‘e R_ ‘S]ZXRe‘cj ViVcTZdV
`
`Z_ cVUf_UR_Tj’q hYVcV VRTY h‘cU Z_ eYV T]RZ^ Zd cVa]RTVU Sj R_‘eYVc) NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Western District of Texas cases following this settled
`
`principle are legion. See, e.g., Pisony v. Commando Constr., Inc., No. W-17-CV-00055-ADA,
`
`-4-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 8
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 9 of 27
`
`2019 WL 928406, at *5-6 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2019) (declining to the construe p^Rde Z_T]fUVd R
`
`hydraulic cylinder drivable to telescope to various lengthsq because nothing about the term was
`
`confusing and the defendants failed to dispute claim scope); Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Fascinations
`
`Toys & Gifts, Inc., No. A-07-CA-990-SS, 2009 WL 1270394, at *9 (W.D. Tex. April 2, 2009)
`
`$UVT]Z_Z_X e‘ ZddfV T‘_decfTeZ‘_ ‘W eYV eVc^d p]VgZeReVU V]V^V_e’q pdeRS]V a‘dZeZ‘_’q R_U p^RX_VeZT
`
`potential e_VcXjq SVTRfdV p;VWV_UR_eds ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_d RUU _‘eYZ_X e‘ eYV ‘cUZ_Rcj
`
`^VR_Z_X ‘W eYV T]RZ^ eVc^dq%6 <AMNALI :IEJI ,J( P( 3JIASCL=H 1INUG& 1I?(, No. A-07-CA-372-
`
`SS, 2008 WL 5731946, at *6-*8 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2008) (declining to issue construction for
`
`eVc^d Z_T]fUZ_X pdV_U ecR_dRTeZ‘_’q pcVTVZgV ecR_dRTeZ‘_’q pecR_dRTeZ‘_ UVeRZ]d’q pUReR SRdV’q
`
`pUVdZcVU R^‘f_e ‘W ^‘_Vj’q pR T‘UVq’ R_U pgR]ZUReV’q R^‘_X ‘eYVcd’ SVTRfdV eYV ac‘a‘dVU
`
`constructions added nothing to the ordinary meanings).
`
`Here, despieV 8aa]Vsd RddVceZ‘_ eYRe Ze Zd ‘WWVcZ_X T‘_decfTeZ‘_d e‘ RZU eYV [fcj’ 8aa]Vsd
`
`proposed constructions fail to provide such aid as they simply rearrange the language of the claims
`
`(e.g.’ T‘_decfZ_X pI< Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_q Rd pinformation relating to the secure element’q p^‘SZ]V UVgZTV
`
`Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_q Rd phardware or software properties relating to the mobile device’q p‘gVc-the-air
`
`$FJ8% ac‘ijq Rd mobile device software application for communication between a secure element
`
`and a server over a mobile network). Accordingly, the Court should not be swayed to provide an
`
`express definition for every term.
`
`III.
`
`THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`keOZZSb [O\OUS[S\b O^^ZSb %I@4&l %6ZOW[a ++ O\R ,-&
`
`Fintivma 6]\ab‘cQbW]\
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction the plain and
`‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X Zd pintegrated functionality
`that enables management of a wallet related
`applet.q
`
`Applema 6]\ab‘cQbW]\
`pd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ W‘c de‘cZ_X Ufa]ZTReV
`account specific information accessible to the
`mobile wallet applicReZ‘_q
`
`-5-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 9
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 10 of 27
`
`1.
`
`4^^ZSma 6]\ab‘cQbW]\ Wa <[^‘]^S‘ O\R EV]cZR PS DSXSQbSR
`
`8d Via]RZ_VU Z_ =Z_eZgsd FaV_Z_X 9cZVW’ 8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ W‘c phR]]Ve
`
`^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q Zd Rd R_ ReeV^ae e‘ cVUVWZ_V eYV dT‘aV ‘W eYV T]RZ^d) $;)@) 2- Re 0-
`
`10.) First, the claims are clear on their face. For example, claim 11 recites, Z_ aRce’ pR wallet
`
`management applet (WMA) corresponding to the contactless card applet’q T]RZ^ -. cVTZeVd’ Z_ aRce’
`
`pa wallet management applet (WMA) corresponding to the contactless card applet, wherein the
`
`WMA is stored in the SEq R_U T]RZ^ -/ cVTZeVd’ Z_ aRce’ pwherein WMA is configured to store
`
`account information associated with the contactless card applet)q JYVdV T]RZ^ ]Z^ZeReZ‘_d dZ^a]j
`
`relate to integrated functionality that enables management of a wallet related applet.
`
`:‘_ecRcj e‘ 8aa]Vsd RddVceZ‘_d’ phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veq is a commonly understood
`
`term by one of ordinary skill in the art and needs no special construction by the Court. For
`
`ViR^a]V’ pRaa]Veq Zd R eVc^ eYRe YRd R_ ‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X eYRe Zd hZUV]j f_UVcde‘‘U) See, e.g.,
`
`ExhibZe ,’ HR_U‘^ ?‘fdV MVSdeVcsd ;ZTeZ‘_Rcj /eY <UZeZ‘_’ $UVWZ_Z_X pRaa]Veq Rd pR d^R]]
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_ ac‘XcR^ eYRe TR_ SV TR]]VU fa W‘c fdV hYZ]V h‘c\Z_X Z_ R_‘eYVc Raa]ZTReZ‘_q%) 8_U eYV
`
`daVTZWZTReZ‘_ fdV ‘W phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veq Zd T‘_dZdeV_e hZeY eYV UZctionary definition:
`
`In an example, WMA 21 may include both a WMA 21 container and one or
`more WMA applets. WMA 21 container may manage the information stored
`in the WMA 21 applets. WMA 21 container may be installed in the mobile device
`100 when WMA 21 applets is requested to be installed, or when the mobile wallet
`application is installed, or separately without regard to either the WMA 21 applet
`or the mobile wallet application. The WMA 21 container is a software application
`that may reside within the SE of the mobile device 100 to manage account
`information related to the contactless card applet 23 (i.e. WMA 21 applet) that
`may be typically inaccessible by the user.
`
`$s,-0 GReV_e Re 252--+ $V^aYRdZd RUUVU%)% 8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ hYZTY cVa]RTVd pRaa]Veq
`
`hZeY pd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_’q Z^ac‘aVc]j _Rcc‘hd eYV dT‘aV ‘W phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q
`
`as it would exclude small programs that are designed to run within another program. Rather, the
`
`s,-0 GReV_e T‘_eV^a]ReVd eYRe eYV phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q ^Rj Z_T]fUV d‘WehRcV
`
`-6-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 10
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 11 of 27
`
`applications and small programs that are designed to run within another program. Id.
`
`=fceYVc^‘cV’ 8aa]Vsd ReeV^ae e‘ T‘_decfV eYV eVc^ e‘ Z_T]fUV pd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_q R_U
`
`pde‘cZ_X Ufa]ZTReV RTT‘f_e daVTZWZT Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_q gZ‘]ReVd the doctrine of claim differentiation
`
`which forbids limitations contained in a narrower claim from being read into a broader claim. See
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. :Zc) -++/% $pOMPYVcV eYV ]Z^ZeReZ‘_
`
`that id d‘fXYe e‘ SV rcVRU Z_e‘s R_ Z_UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^ R]cVRUj RaaVRcd Z_ R UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^’ eYV
`
`U‘TecZ_V ‘W T]RZ^ UZWWVcV_eZReZ‘_ Zd Re Zed dec‘_XVdeq)% For example, claim 16, which depends on
`
`T]RZ^ ,,’ cVTZeVd’ Z_ aRce’ pwherein the WMA is a software application configured to store account
`
`specific information)q $<^aYRdZd RUUVU)% @_UVVU’ 8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ h‘f]U cV_UVc
`
`the narrower dependent claim superfluous, an outcome the claim differentiation doctrine prohibits.
`
`@_ WRTe’ 8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd VgV_ _Rcc‘hVc eYR_ UVaV_UV_e T]RZ^ ,1 Z_ eYRe eYV phR]]Ve
`
`^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q Zd ]Z^ZeVU e‘ R pd‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_ de‘cZ_X duplicate account
`
`specific information accessible to the mobile wallet application)q $<^aYRdZd RUUVU)% 8d dfTY’
`
`8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ dY‘f]U SV cV[VTeVU)
`
`2.
`
`Apple Cites to No Evidence of Claim Scope Disclaimer
`
`8d =Z_eZg UZdTfddVU Z_ Zed FaV_Z_X 9cZVW’ 8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ R]d‘ ReeV^aed e‘
`
`read limitations from the specification into the claims. Such a construction is impermissible unless
`
`there is unmistakable evidence that the patentee disclaimed claim scope through clear disavowal
`
`or by acting as its own lexicographer. See, e.g., Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325; Thorner v. Sony
`
`Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit has made
`
`Ze T]VRc eYRe phV YRgV rViacVdd]j cV[VTeVU eYV T‘_eV_eZ‘_ eYRe ZW R aReV_e UVdTcZSVd ‘_]j R dZ_X]V
`
`V^S‘UZ^V_e’ eYV T]RZ^d ‘W eYV aReV_e ^fde SV T‘_decfVU Rd SVZ_X ]Z^ZeVU e‘ eYRe V^S‘UZ^V_e)qs
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015), quoting
`
`LiebelTFlarsheim Co., 358 F.3d at 906.
`
`-7-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 11
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 12 of 27
`
`Apple cites to no clear disavowal or lexicography in the intrinsic record to justify
`
`_Rcc‘hZ_X T]RZ^ dT‘aV eYRe UVaRced Wc‘^ eYV eVc^sd a]RZ_ R_U ‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X) Rather, Apple
`
`improperly attempts to circumvent this evidence of clear disclaimer rule by: (1) using specific
`
`descriptions of embodiments of the invention as though they must be added to the claims and (2)
`
`mischaracterizing Federal Circuit case regarding pT‘Z_VU eVc^d)q
`
`a.
`
`FVS m+,/ CObS\b E^SQWTWQObW]\ 7]Sa \]b Ec^^]‘b 4^^ZSma
`Narrowing of Claim Scope
`
`8d W‘c 8aa]Vsd TZeReZ‘_ e‘ daVTZWZT V^S‘UZ^V_ed e‘ [fdeZWj Zed _Rcc‘hZ_X T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ 8aa]V
`
`fails to provide the Court with full citations to the specificati‘_ ‘W eYV s,-0 GReV_e) @_deVRU’ 8aa]V
`
`cites extensively to the provisional applications. (D.I. 71 at 11-14.) For instance, as Fintiv
`
`UVdTcZSVU Z_ Zed FaV_Z_X 9cZVW’ eYV s,-0 GReV_e daVTZWZTReZ‘_ explicitly provides that the invention
`
`is not limited to the described embodiments) JYV s,-0 GReV_e ViacVdd]j deReVd eYRe other variations
`
`or modifications may occur to those with skill in the art:
`
`While the described process illustrates a 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 modification to the account specific information as dictated by business
`needs.
`
`$s,-0 GReV_e Re ,+5.-8 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, by the explicit terms of the s,-0 GReV_e
`
`specification, the claims are not in any way limited by the description of the preferred embodiment
`
`or any other aspect of the specification UVdTcZSVU Z_ eYV s,-0 GReV_e ‘c Z_ eYV cV]ReVU ac‘gZdZ‘_R]
`
`applications. Nevertheless, Apple ignores this and argues otherwise.
`
`JYV s,-0 GReV_e daVTZWZTReZ‘_ R]d‘ eVRTYVd T]VRc]j eYRe eYV phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veq ^Rj
`
`include either applets or software applications. For instance, the specification describes an
`
`exama]V hYVcV eYV pWMA 21 may include both a WMA 21 container and one or more WMA 21
`
`applets)q $s,-0 GReV_e Re 253-9 (emphasis added).) But again Apple ignores this and argues
`
`-8-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 12
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 13 of 27
`
`otherwise.
`
`Apple identifies various exemplary descriptions of phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q
`
`V^S‘UZ^V_ed Wc‘^ eYV s,-0 GReV_e daVTZWZTReZ‘_ R_U ac‘gZdZ‘_R] Raa]ZTReZ‘_d, but none amount to
`
`clear disavowal of claim scope. (D.I. 71 at 11-12.) Rather, the various descriptions cited by Apple
`
`recite permissive language such as p^Rj)q $Id) Re ,-% $TZeZ_X s3/1’ l04 $pmeYV cVdaVTeZgV ^‘SZ]V
`
`device may RTTVdd eYV Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_ aVcZ‘UZTR]]jq%6 $s,-0 GReV_e Re 25/.-/2% $pm MD8 -, Raa]Ve
`
`may be provided by duplicating the accof_e Z_W‘c^ReZ‘_ hZeY eYV T‘_eRTe]Vdd TRcUq%% $V^aYRdZd
`
`added). As a matter of law, these statements are insufficient to establish a disclaimer. Apple does
`
`not allege that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer. Thus, absent a disavowal of the full
`
`scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution, the Court should apply
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%)q Cadence Pharm. Inc.,
`
`780 F.3d at 1369.
`
`b.
`
`4^^ZSma @WaQVO‘OQbS‘WhObW]\ ]T 6OaS ?Oe 7]Sa A]b Bvercome
`its Obligation to Prove Claim Scope Disclaimer
`
`8aa]V ^ZdTYRcRTeVcZkVd eYV TRdVd Ze TZeVd e‘ dfaa‘ce eYV R]]VXReZ‘_ eYRe phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e
`
`Raa]Veq Zd R pT‘Z_VU eVc^q eYRe pYRd _‘ ‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_Xq R_U cVbfZcVd eYV :‘fce e‘ pefc_ e‘ eYV
`
`intrinsic evZUV_TV W‘c XfZUR_TV hZeY‘fe YRgZ_X e‘ WZcde WZ_U R T]VRc R_U f_^ZdeR\RS]V UZdRg‘hR])q
`
`(D.I. 71 at 11, 13). In particular, Apple takes out of context citations from Iridescent Networks,
`
`Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). A full reading of that case reveals
`
`the court held that eYV eVc^ pYZXY bfR]Zej ‘W dVcgZTV T‘__VTeZ‘_q hRd R peVc^ of degreeq dZ_TV eYV
`
`pT]RZ^d ViacVdd]j cVbfZcVOUP eYV T‘__VTeZ‘_ e‘ ac‘gZUV high quality ‘W dVcgZTVq R_U peYVcV OhRdP
`
`no clear ordinary and customary ^VR_Z_X ‘W R T‘Z_VU eVc^ ‘W UVXcVV)q Id. at 1350-53 (emphasis
`
`added). Because of uncertainty as to the boundaries of the term of degreeopYZXY bfR]Zejqothe
`
`Federal Circuit first looked at the claims for guidance and then turned to the intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`-9-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 13
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 14 of 27
`
`Apple also cites to Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) for a
`
`similar position and again mischaracterizes the holding in that case. A full reading of this decision
`
`reveals that the court determined the term punobtrusive ^R__Vcq hRd R pafcV]j dfS[VTeZgV T]RZ^
`
`aYcRdVq eYRe cVbfZcVU R cVgZew of the intrinsic evidence in order to ascertain the boundaries of the
`
`claim. Id. at 1371. (Emphasis added.)
`
`?VcV’ dZ_TV eYV eVc^ phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veq U‘Vd _‘e T‘_eRZ_ R eVc^ ‘W UVXcVV $e.g.,
`
`high or low) or a purely subjective phrase (e.g.’ ViaV_dZgV ‘c VWWZTZV_e%’ 8aa]Vsd cV]ZR_TV ‘_ eYVdV
`
`TRdVd e‘ dfaa‘ce Zed pT‘Z_VU eVc^q RcXf^V_e Zd ^Zda]RTVU) IaVTZWZTR]]j’ eYV :‘fce dY‘f]U cV[VTe
`
`8aa]Vsd ReeV^ae e‘ ^ZdTYRcRTeVcZkV eYV Y‘]UZ_Xd ‘W eYVdV TRdVd Z_ ‘cUVc e‘ dfSdeZefeV W‘c eYV WRTe
`
`that it has failed to provide evidence of disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the patentee.
`
`3.
`
`9W\bWdma C‘]^]aOZ EV]cZR PS 4R]^bSR
`
`=Z_eZgsd a‘dZeZ‘_ Zd eYRe _‘ T]RZ^ T‘_decfTeZ‘_ Zd _VTVddRcj) @W eYV :ourt finds that the claim
`
`term should be construed, FintZgsd proposed constructionopintegrated functionality that enables
`
`^R_RXV^V_e ‘W R hR]]Ve cV]ReVU Raa]Veqoaffords the claim term its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`JYV Z_ecZ_dZT VgZUV_TV T‘_WZc^d eYRe eYV eVc^ phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q dY‘f]U
`
`alternativV]j SV T‘_decfVU Rd pZ_eVXcReVU Wf_TeZ‘_R]Zej eYRe V_RS]Vd ^R_RXV^V_e ‘W R hR]]Ve cV]ReVU
`
`Raa]Ve)q =‘c Z_deR_TV’ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ ac‘gZUVd R daVTZWZT’ _‘_-]Z^ZeZ_X ViR^a]V ‘W phR]]Ve
`
`^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Ve $MD8%q5
`
`In an example, WMA 21 may include both a WMA 21 container and one or
`more WMA applets. WMA 21 container may manage the information stored in
`the WMA 21 applets. WMA 21 container may be installed in the mobile device
`100 when WMA 21 applets is requested to be installed, or when the mobile wallet
`application is installed, or separately without regard to either the WMA 21 applet
`or the mobile wallet application.
`
`$s,-0 GReV_e Re 252-,0 $V^aYRdZd RUUVU%)% JYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ WfceYVc ac‘gZUVd eYRe pOSPj installing
`
`both the WMA 21 applet and the widget, the user may view and manage the information stored in
`
`-10-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 14
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 15 of 27
`
`the WMA 21 applet eYc‘fXY eYV T‘ccVda‘_UZ_X hZUXVe)q Id. at 9:2-5.
`
`The specification further provides examples of wallet related applets (e.g., account specific
`
`information) that can be managed:
`
`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 in the SE as WMA 21 applets.
`
`Id. at 7:38-/. $V^aYRdZd RUUVU%) 8_U pO‘P_TV account specific information is installed into WMA
`
`21 container as WMA 21 applet, the respective mobile device 100 may access the information
`
`aVcZ‘UZTR]]j W‘c cVbfZcVU faUReVd)q Id. at 9:45-48.
`
`8TT‘cUZ_X]j’ phR]]Ve ^R_RXV^V_e Raa]Veq dY‘f]U SV XZgV_ Zed a]RZ_ R_U ‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X’
`
`‘c R]eVc_ReZgV]j SV T‘_decfVU e‘ ^VR_ pintegrated functionality that enables management of a wallet
`
`relateU Raa]Ve)q
`
`B.
`
`keWRUSbl %QZOW[a ++’ +2’ O\R ,-&
`
`Fintivma 6]\ab‘cQbW]\
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction the plain and
`‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X Zd pintegrated functionality
`that relates to applications related to a
`financial institution, transportation account,
`and the like.q
`
`Applema 6]\ab‘cQbW]\
`pfdVc Z_eVcWRTV d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_q
`
`1.
`
`4^^ZSma 6]\ab‘cQbW]\ Wa <[^‘]^S‘ O\R EV]cZR PS DSXSQbSR
`
`8d Via]RZ_VU Z_ =Z_eZgsd FaV_Z_X 9cZVW’ 8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_ W‘c phZUXVeq
`
`Z^a‘ced eYV ]Z^ZeReZ‘_ pfdVc Z_eVcWRTV d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_q R_U dY‘f]U SV cV[VTeVU Rd Ze gZ‘]ReVd
`
`some of the basic tenets of claim construction. (D.I. 72 at 10-11). Apple does not argue that the
`
`patentee acted as his own lexicographer or disclaimed claim scope. (D.I. 71 at 16-19). Rather,
`
`8aa]V RcXfVd eYRe SRdVU ‘_ R WVh ^ZdTYRcRTeVcZkVU a‘ceZ‘_d ‘W eYV s,-0 GReV_e daVTZWZTReZ‘_’ eYV
`
`eVc^ phZUXVeq dY‘f]U SV ]Z^ZeVU e‘ pfdVc Z_eVcWRTV d‘WehRcV Raa]ZTReZ‘_)q Id. For instance, Apple
`
`-11-
`
`Apple Ex. 1019, p. 15
` Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 75 Filed 10/03/19 Page 16 of 27
`
`asserts eYRe pORP hZUXVe is rR_ Raa]ZTReZ‘_ T‘_WZXfcVU e‘ Z_eVcWRTV hZeY R fdVc ‘W eYV ^‘SZ]V UVgZTV)sq
`
`(Id) Re ,2 $TZeZ_X s,-0 GReV_e Re 05/-9) (emphasis added). Instead, the specification teaches that
`
`pOhPidgets may be an application configured to interface with a user of the mobile deviceq R_U
`
`WfceYVc ZUV_eZWZVd pindividual payment applications, transportation applications, and other related
`
`applicationsq Rd ViR^a]V ‘W hZUXVed)
`
`Id. at 5:6-4 $V^aYRdZd RUUVU%)
`
`@_ ‘eYVc h‘cUd’ eYV s,-0
`
`Patent does not require tYRe eYV phZUXVeq SV R pfdVc Z_eVcWRTVq Rd RddVceVU Sj 8aa]V) @_ WRTe’ eYV
`
`Z_ecZ_dZT VgZUV_TV TZeVU Sj 8aa]V SV]ZVd Zed a‘dZeZ‘_ eYRe eYV phZUXVeq Zd cVbfZcVU e‘ SV R fdVc
`
`interface software application.
`
`8aa]Vsd ac‘a‘dVU T‘_decfTeZ‘_’ _VgVceYV]Vdd’ ReeV^aed e‘ cVRU eYV pfdVc Z_eVcWRTV d‘WehRcV
`
`Raa]ZTReZ‘_q V^S‘UZ^V_e Wc‘^ eYV daVTZWZTReZ‘_ Z_e‘ eYV T]RZ^d)
`
`Such a construction is
`
`impermissible unless there is unmistakable evidence that the patentee disclaimed claim scope. See,
`
`e.g., Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325; Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Apple, however, cites to no clear
`
`disavowal or lexicography in the intrinsic record to justify such a departure from the plain and
`
`‘cUZ_Rcj ^VR_Z_X ‘W eYV eVc^ phZUXVeq Rd f_UVcde‘‘U Sj R aVcd‘_ ‘W ‘cUZ_Rcj d\Z]] Z_ eYV Rce)
`
`8d Via]RZ_VU Z_ =Z_e