UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FINTIV, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125
`Original Issue Date: September 23, 2014
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE WALLET AND
`ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,843,125
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices ................................................................................................... 4
`Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 4
`Related Matters .............................................................................................. 4
`Counsel, Service, and Fee Information ..................................................... 4
`III. Requirements for IPR............................................................................................... 5
`Grounds for Standing ................................................................................... 5
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested................................... 5
`Institution Should Be Granted ................................................................................ 6
`IV.
`The ’125 Patent ......................................................................................................... 8
`V.
`VI. Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 13
`“Wallet Management Applet (WMA)” ................................................... 13
`“Widget” ....................................................................................................... 16
`“Mobile Wallet Application” .................................................................... 18
`“SE Information” ......................................................................................... 18
`“Mobile Device Information” ................................................................... 19
`“Over-the-Air (OTA) Proxy” and “OTA Proxy” .................................. 20
`“Provision[ing]” .......................................................................................... 20
`VII. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ................................................ 21
`Prior Art Overview ..................................................................................... 21
`1.
`Aiglstorfer ......................................................................................... 21
`2.
`Buhot .................................................................................................. 23
`3. Wang .................................................................................................. 26
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 27
`Ground 1: Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 23-25 Are Obvious
`Over Aiglstorfer, Buhot, and Wang ......................................................... 27
`1.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................ 28
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Claim 13 ............................................................................................ 43
`2.
`Claim 14 ............................................................................................ 44
`3.
`Claim 16 ............................................................................................ 47
`4.
`Claim 17 ............................................................................................ 50
`5.
`Claim 23 ............................................................................................ 50
`6.
`Claim 24 ............................................................................................ 55
`7.
`Claim 25 ............................................................................................ 55
`8.
`Motivation to Combine ................................................................... 56
`9.
`Ground 2: Claims 18 and 20-22 Are Obvious Over Aiglstorfer
`and Wang ...................................................................................................... 62
`1.
`Claim 18 ............................................................................................ 63
`2.
`Claim 20 ............................................................................................ 70
`3.
`Claim 21 ............................................................................................ 71
`4.
`Claim 22 ............................................................................................ 72
`5.
`Motivation to Combine ................................................................... 72
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................... 75
`VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 75
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 to Kwon et al.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 to Kwon et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Clifford Neuman
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0138518 to Aiglstorfer et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0190437 to Buhot
`
`eWallet: Users Guide and Reference: Version 5.0, Ilium Software
`(Nov. 2007) (available at https://web.archive.org/web/
`20071110033509/http:/www.iliumsoft.com/gh/download/
`doc/eWallet.pdf)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,056 to
`Poplett
`
`CN101459902A to Wang et al.
`
`English translation of CN101459902A to Wang et al. and
`associated translator declaration
`
`[Reserved]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,832,373 to O’Neill
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,846
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,851
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,852
`
`Provisional App. No. 61/428,853
`
`Apple’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 71.
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.),
`Dkt. 72.
`
`Apple’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 74.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.),
`Dkt. 75.
`
`Apple’s Reply Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 76.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 77.
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order Subsequent to Case Management
`Conference from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372
`(W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 38.
`
`Swick et al., “The X Toolkit: More Bricks for Building User-
`Interfaces−or−Widgets For Hire,” published in USENIX Winter
`1988.
`
`Excerpt from Underdahl, “iPAQ™ for Dummies®” (2004) and
`associated Library of Congress Certification
`
`Excerpt from Peacock, “Windows® CE, Clear & Simple” (1999)
`and Associated Library of Congress Certification
`
`Excerpt from McPherson, “How to Do Everything with Your
`Pocket PC” (2nd Ed. 2002) and Associated Library of Congress
`Certification
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests IPR of
`
`claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (“the ’125
`
`patent”) which, according to USPTO records, is assigned to Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv”
`
`or “Patent Owner”). There is more than a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.
`
`The ’125 patent relates to a “wallet” application running on a mobile device,
`
`along with a remote server for providing the device with the mobile wallet and
`
`related software. The patent’s mobile wallet application allows a user to view and
`
`use multiple “contactless card applets” stored in a “secure element” on the mobile
`
`device. The “contactless card applets” are essentially electronic versions of a
`
`traditional credit card that allow a user to make a payment by holding the device
`
`near a reader at the point of sale. To facilitate selection of different stored cards,
`
`multiple graphical “widgets” are displayed within the mobile wallet application.
`
`The ’125 patent’s mobile wallet also includes a separate “wallet management
`
`applet” (or “WMA”) in its secure element. This WMA includes a copy of
`
`contactless card information, such as account number and expiration date, for
`
`display to the user. All of these wallet components can be provided to the device
`
`from the remote server.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`As of the ’125 patent’s filing date, electronic wallet applications for mobile
`
`devices were well known and routinely used in the art. So were remote servers for
`
`managing the provision of these applications to devices. The claims of the ’125
`
`patent amount to nothing more than obvious combinations of the features of these
`
`known wallets and associated servers.
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0138518 (“Aiglstorfer,” Ex. 1004) discloses the vast
`
`majority of the ’125 patent’s claim limitations. Aiglstorfer teaches a system for
`
`providing a mobile wallet application (which it refers to as a “first moblet”) to a
`
`mobile device. Just like the wallet of the ’125 patent, Aiglstorfer’s mobile wallet
`
`application allows a user to select and use different contactless banking cards
`
`stored in the device’s secure element. To allow for this selection, Aiglstorfer’s
`
`wallet includes separate graphical user interface (“GUI”) widgets (which it refers
`
`to as “second” and “third” “moblets”) associated with each banking card. All of
`
`these wallet components are transmitted to Aiglstorfer’s mobile device from a
`
`remote server.
`
`Although Aiglstorfer does not expressly mention that its secure element
`
`includes a WMA for storing a copy of contactless card information, this too was
`
`known in the art and would have been an obvious addition to Aiglstorfer. For
`
`instance, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0190437 (“Buhot,” Ex. 1005), like Aiglstorfer,
`
`discloses a mobile wallet application on a mobile device that uses widgets to
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`display and allow for the selection and use of multiple securely stored contactless
`
`banking cards. Buhot also explains that prior art electronic wallets were
`
`problematic because they did not provide easy means for users to access and view
`
`information relating to multiple cards. To address this, Buhot includes a separate
`
`“database element 316” in its secure element which contains card “summaries” that
`
`can be relayed to the wallet user. These summaries include information such as the
`
`card account number.
`
`Finally, remote servers for providing the mobile wallet application and
`
`related software to a mobile device were also well known and would have been
`
`obvious to incorporate into Aiglstorfer. Both Aiglstorfer and Buhot themselves
`
`disclose generic remote systems and Trusted Service Managers (or “TSMs”) for
`
`storing and managing wallet applications and contactless cards. Another reference,
`
`CN101459902A (“Wang,” Ex. 1009), provides additional details regarding the
`
`features of such a remote server. Wang teaches that a single TSM can integrate the
`
`features and functionality of various servers. This single TSM can store and
`
`manage device and user information and the software components needed to
`
`administer a variety of mobile wallet applications. Further, it can engage in the
`
`testing and filtering of applications using the mobile device and user information
`
`before those applications are provided to a device.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`In sum, the prior art teaches a feature rich mobile wallet application and
`
`supporting server system indistinguishable from that of the ’125 patent.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner Apple Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters
`Fintiv is asserting the ’125 patent against Apple in Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 6:18-cv-00372, filed in the Western District of Texas on December 21,
`
`2018.
`
`Counsel, Service, and Fee Information
`Petitioner designates the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Travis Jensen
`Registration No. 60,087
`(tjensen@orrick.com)
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`K. Patrick Herman
`Registration No. 75,018
`(pherman@orrick.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`T: 650-614-7400; F: 650-614-7401
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`T: 212-506-5000; F: 212-506-5151
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail at the following addresses:
`
`T61PTABDocket@orrick.com, P52PTABDocket@orrick.com, and Apple-
`
`Fintiv_OHS@orrick.com. Petitioner’s Power of Attorney is attached.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`The USPTO is authorized to charge the filing fee and any other fees incurred
`
`by Petitioner to the deposit account of Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP: 15-
`
`0665.
`
`III. Requirements for IPR
`Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’125 patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-25. This petition
`
`discusses claim construction, explains why the claims are unpatentable, provides
`
`details regarding where the various claim limitations are found in the prior art, and
`
`is supported by the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Clifford Neuman (Ex. 1003,
`
`“Neuman”), a leading expert in mobile applications and e-commerce systems.
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references: (1) Aiglstorfer (Ex. 1004), (2)
`
`Buhot (Ex. 1005), and (3) Wang (Exs. 1008, 1009). Since Wang published in
`
`Chinese, a certified translation and associated translator’s declaration accompanies
`
`this petition as Ex. 1009. All citations to Wang refer to this translation.
`
`The application underlying the ’125 patent was filed December 2, 2011.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Cover.) The ’125 patent incorporates by reference four provisional
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`applications1 filed on December 30, 2010 and claims priority to the same date.
`
`(Id., 1:8-20.)
`
`Petitioner challenges the claims on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 23-25 are obvious over the
`
`combination of Aiglstorfer, Buhot, and Wang;
`
`Ground 2: Claims 18 and 20-22 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Aiglstorfer and Wang.
`
`IV.
`
`Institution Should Be Granted
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits
`
`and all other requirements for IPR have been met. The Board should institute IPR.
`
`Mindful of the Board’s resources, Petitioner has filed only the present
`
`petition, has asserted only one ground per challenged claim (for a total of two
`
`grounds), and is only challenging claims asserted in the district court litigation.
`
`Two of Petitioner’s references were never considered during prosecution and the
`
`third appeared only in an IDS, but was not the basis for a rejection. (Ex. 1002,
`
`’125 Patent File History.) Thus, neither of the grounds presented here was
`
`considered by the Examiner. Indeed, prosecution of the ’125 patent consisted of a
`
`1 The four provisionals applications are Nos. 61/428,846 (“’846”); 61/428,851
`
`(“’851”); 61/428,852 (“’852”); and 61/428,853 (“’853”). (See Exs. 1012-1015.)
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`single Office Action based on one reference (not asserted here) whose status as
`
`prior art was contested. (Id.)
`
`While there is a parallel district court proceeding involving the ’125 patent,
`
`no preliminary injunction motion has been filed, the district court has not been
`
`presented with or invested any time in the analysis of prior art invalidity issues,
`
`and no trial date has been set. (Ex. 1022, Case 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Scheduling Order.) Apple also timely filed its petition within the statutorily
`
`prescribed 1-year window. Declining to institute IPR here in view of the co-
`
`pending district court litigation would essentially render nugatory the 1-year filing
`
`period of § 315(b). Notably, § 315(b) originally contained only a 6-month filing
`
`window which was amended to 1-year prior to passage of the America Invents Act
`
`to “afford defendants a reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the
`
`patent claims that are relevant to the litigation” before having to file an IPR
`
`petition. 157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`
`Moreover, making the status of the district court litigation a threshold
`
`consideration before institution also ignores the common scenario, contemplated
`
`by Congress, of obtaining a district court stay based on institution. Cf. 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Chuck Schumer); H. Rep.
`
`No. 112-98, Part I, at 48 (2011). For these reasons, and those explained below, the
`
`instant petition should be instituted.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`V.
`
`The ’125 Patent
`The ’125 patent relates to mobile devices that make so-called “contactless”
`
`card payments. (Ex. 1001, ’125 patent, 1:48-62.) The patent discusses both a
`
`“mobile wallet application” located on a mobile device, and a remotely located
`
`“wallet management system.” (Id., Abstract.)
`
`The patent begins by conceding that mobile wallet applications for
`
`“contactless” payments with mobile devices were known before the alleged
`
`December 30, 2010 priority date. (Id., 1:48-62.) Further, to allow for such
`
`“contactless” payments, it was known that “user financial credentials, such as
`
`credit card numbers, may be provisioned onto mobile devices equipped with [a]
`
`Near Field Communication chipset (NFC enabled).” (Id.) It was also known that
`
`different “contactless payment applet[s]” associated with credit card accounts and
`
`different financial institutions could be “stored in the mobile device.” (Id., 2:1-6.)
`
`And, an application running on the mobile device provided the user with a “way to
`
`select a contactless payment applet…for payment at corresponding point-of-sale
`
`(POS) [terminal].” (Id.)
`
`According to the ’125 patent, there were problems with these existing
`
`applications. For instance, due to the many different types of mobile devices
`
`available in the market, users would “often be bombarded with various [mobile
`
`wallet] applications that may be inapplicable to the user.” (Id., 2:42-44.) Further,
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`existing mobile wallets purportedly provided users with little or no ability to view
`
`underlying “contactless payment applet[]” account details, such as “account
`
`number, expiration date, security code, balance and the like.” (Id., 2:13-15; see
`
`also id., 2:27-28.) Instead, only “a limited generic description” of each stored
`
`contactless card was available. (Id., 2:23-26.)
`
`The mobile wallet and system of the ’125 patent purports to address these
`
`alleged shortcomings.
`
`The Mobile Device Side. Annotated Fig. 2 (below) of the ’125 patent
`
`illustrates the mobile device components recited in asserted independent claims 11
`
`and 23. This includes a mobile wallet application 24 (orange), an OTA proxy
`
`(green), and secure element (purple). Contactless card applets 23 (blue) and a
`
`wallet management applet 21 (yellow) are stored in the secure element.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`(Id., Fig. 2 (annotated).)
`
`The mobile wallet application is an overarching piece of software that
`
`provides a device with functionality similar to “a conventional wallet.” (Id., ’125
`
`patent, 1:43-46.) To allow a user to select, view, and use each of the contactless
`
`credit cards on the device, the mobile wallet application displays multiple GUI
`
`“widgets.” (Id., 5:4-9; 9:2-5.) There is a separate widget for each stored card.
`
`(Id.)
`
`The secure element (or “SE”) is a component (e.g., a chip) within the device
`
`which stores information that is “not…easily accessed by external parties.” (Id.,
`
`1:40-43.) The ’125 patent’s secure element stores both contactless card applets (or
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`“CCAs”) and a separate wallet management applet (or “WMA”). (Id., Fig. 2.)
`
`Each CCA corresponds to a conventional card like a credit card. (Id., 8:61-62.) A
`
`CCA is “contactless” because it uses near field communication (NFC) protocol to
`
`“make payments…without physical[] contact[].” (Id., 1:55-62.) Each CCA
`
`includes all the necessary account information needed to effectuate payment at a
`
`point of sale. (Id., 7:20-31.) As account information is “typically inaccessible by
`
`the user” (id.), the ’125 patent provides that a separate “wallet management applet”
`
`(or WMA) is also stored in the secure element. (Id., Fig. 2.) The WMA stores a
`
`duplicate copy of the “account specific” information located in the CCAs. (Id.,
`
`8:66-9:5; see also id., 7:38-47.) This allows for display of that account
`
`information to the mobile wallet application user. (Id.)
`
`At a high level, the OTA (“over-the-air”) proxy is software that allows for
`
`wireless transmission of information to and from the mobile device. (Id., 3:1-11,
`
`6:34-41; Fig. 2.)
`
`The Server Side. Annotated Fig. 1 (below) from the ’125 patent illustrates
`
`the server-side components of the “wallet management system” (“WMS”) recited
`
`in asserted independent claim 18: a wallet client management component 111
`
`(orange), device profile management component 113 (green), rule engine 116
`
`(yellow), widget management component 112 (blue), and TSM (purple):
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`(Id., Fig. 1 (annotated).)
`
`The wallet client management component manages “the [mobile] wallet
`
`application itself.” (Id., 4:57-5:3.)
`
`The device profile management component “store[s] device specific
`
`information, such as information related to the mobile device itself including type
`
`of mobile device, supporting operating system (OS), mobile service provider, and
`
`other relevant information.” (Id., 5:9-16.)
`
`The rule engine performs filtering “based on information related to the
`
`mobile device.” (Id., 5:22-24.) Thus, when the user contacts the remote server
`
`with their mobile device to download an application, the server limits the “mobile
`
`widget applications that are available for installation based upon corresponding
`
`mobile device attributes.” (Id., 10:9-13, 10:24-34.)
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`The widget management component “is responsible for the individual
`
`widgets.” (Id., 5:4-9.)
`
`Finally, the TSM acts as “an integration point for all of the external parties
`
`the mobile device may deal with, providing for a seamless and more efficient
`
`operation of mobile services.” (Id., 5:39-46.) Thus, rather than separately
`
`interacting with network providers, financial institutions, and handset
`
`manufacturers, the mobile device is able to “interact with the TSM system
`
`individually.” (Id., 5:41-42; 10:25-34.) While Figure 1 depicts the TSM as
`
`separate from the WMS, the “WMS 110 may reside within TSM system 120.”
`
`(Id., 5:28-31.)
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`The meanings of certain ’125 patent claim terms, under the Phillips claim
`
`construction standard, are discussed below. In the co-pending district court
`
`litigation, Patent Owner has taken the position that none of the ’125 patent’s terms
`
`require construction, but nevertheless proposed “alternative” constructions. (See
`
`Exs. 1017 and 1019, Fintiv’s Markman briefs.) The prior art discussed herein
`
`invalidates the challenged claims under either party’s constructions.
`
`“Wallet Management Applet (WMA)”
`Independent claims 11 and 23 require a “wallet management applet
`
`(WMA).” This is a coined term that had no plain and ordinary meaning to a
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`POSITA outside the context of the ’125 patent. (Neuman, ¶80.) Such
`
`“[i]diosyncratic language” is “best understood by reference to the specification.”
`
`Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Here, “wallet management applet (WMA)” is a “software application for
`
`storing duplicate account specific information accessible to the mobile wallet
`
`application.” (Neuman, ¶¶78-90.) The specification2 states:
`
`The WMA 21 is a software application to reside within the within the
`[sic] secure element of the mobile device which stores account
`specific information such as a credit card number. WMA 21 is unique
`in that, its primary purpose is to cause contactless card applet 23
`account information to be stored within the mobile device's SE
`separate from the contactless card applets 23.
`
`(Ex. 1012, ’846 application [0042].) Similar disclosures concerning the WMA are
`
`consistently repeated throughout the specification, including in all four provisional
`
`2 Provisional applications incorporated by reference are effectively part of the
`
`specification as if “explicitly contained therein.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As such, provisional
`
`applications are as relevant to the claim construction analysis as the face of the
`
`specification itself. See, e.g., Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v.
`
`Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing id.).
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`applications incorporated by reference. (Ex. 1001, ’125 patent, 7:16-19
`
`(explaining that a “WMA” is “a software application that may reside within the SE
`
`of the mobile device 100….”); id., 7:43-47 (a “WMA…may be provided by
`
`duplicating the account information associated with the contactless card.”); id.,
`
`9:45-48; Ex. 1013, ’851 application, [0089]-[0090]; Ex. 1014, ’852 application,
`
`[0076]-[0077]; Ex. 1015, ’853 application, [0078].)
`
`The specification explains why this duplicate account information is stored
`
`in the WMA. In the past, according to the ’125 patent, users were “unable to
`
`effectively manage or keep track of various contactless payment applets stored in
`
`their respective mobile devices” because they could not “view the details” of those
`
`cards. (Id., 2:8-18.) Thus, the ’125 patent provisions the WMA with “duplicate
`
`account information” to provide this functionality. (Id., 7:43-47; see also Ex.
`
`1012, ’846 application, [0042] (“As the issuers of contactless card applets 23 do
`
`not allow direct access into the applets themselves, duplicate account information
`
`may be stored separately within the WMA 21 in order for the mobile wallet
`
`application to view account specific information (e.g. credit card number, security
`
`code, PIN, expiration date, and etc.).”) The construction of the term “wallet
`
`management applet (WMA)” should reflect this articulated purpose. See, e.g., In
`
`re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (construing
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`term in accordance with “the primary purpose of the invention”). (Neuman, ¶¶85-
`
`89.)
`
`Patent Owner proposed a broader construction of WMA in district court
`
`(“integrated functionality that enables management of a wallet related applet”) and
`
`Petitioner’s invalidity arguments apply a fortiori under Patent Owner’s
`
`construction. (Ex. 1017, Fintiv’s Opening Markman Brief, pg. 5.)
`
`“Widget”
`Claims 11, 18 and 23 all reference a “widget.” The term “widget”—in the
`
`context of the patent—refers to a “user interface software application.” (Neuman,
`
`¶¶91-102.) This is how the term is used in the claims and specification. For
`
`instance, claim 11 explains that a mobile device “retriev[es] a widget …
`
`corresponding to the [CCA]” and “provision[s] the selected [CCA and] the
`
`widget.” (Ex. 1001, ’125 patent, claim 11.) The specification compels the same
`
`conclusion that a widget is a software application. For example, the ’851
`
`application repeatedly refers to the widget as a “widget binary file.” (Ex.
`
`1013, ’851 application, Requirements Use Cases, pp. 18-19, 44.) Similarly, the
`
`glossary in the ’853 application describes the widget as a “downloadable sub
`
`module of a wallet client,” and the wallet client in turn is a “downloaded mobile
`
`application.” (Ex. 1015, ’853 application, Business Requirements document, p.
`
`30.)
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`A widget is more than just any software application, it is a “user interface
`
`software application.” The specification explains that a “widget” is “an application
`
`configured to interface with a user of the mobile device” such as “individual
`
`payment applications, transportation applications, and other related applications.”
`
`(’125 patent, 5:4-9.) It resides within a mobile wallet application “to provide an
`
`interface to the user.” (id., 8:63-65.) The patent explains why the widget
`
`application must act as a user interface, and it is fundamental to the stated purpose
`
`of the alleged invention and the purported problem sought to be solved. (See, e.g.,
`
`id., 2:13-29.) As noted above in the WMA discussion, the WMA stores a duplicate
`
`copy of account specific information (e.g. a credit card account number)
`
`corresponding to a CCA. The corresponding widget provides the interface
`
`necessary for a user to access the account specific information stored in the WMA.
`
`(see generally id., 8:60-9:5; Ex. 1012, ’846 application, [0053].)
`
`Patent Owner proposed a broader construction of widget in district court
`
`(“integrated functionality that relates to applications related to a financial
`
`institution, transportation account, and the like”) and Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`argument apply a fortiori under Patent Owner’s construction. (Ex. 1017, Fintiv’s
`
`Opening Markman Brief, pg. 10.)
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`“Mobile Wallet Application”
`Claims 11, 18 and 23 all require a “mobile wallet application.” In view of
`
`the intrinsic record, a “mobile wallet application” is a “mobile wallet software
`
`application capable of being independently downloaded and installed.” (Neuman,
`
`¶¶103-115.)
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1, various “mobile wallet applications” are stored by
`
`a remote “mobile wallet management system.” (See Ex. 1001, ’125 patent, 4:52-
`
`59; Fig. 1.) To be installed on a device, these applications are requested by the
`
`mobile device. (Id., 3:1-7.) Then, a remote system “will confirm” the request and
`
`“transmit[] the requested mobile wallet application 24 to mobile device 100 for
`
`installation.” (Id., 6:15-19, 34-37.)
`
`Patent Owner proposed a broader construction of mobile wallet application
`
`in district court (“application that provides wallet functionality on the mobile
`
`device”) and Petitioner’s invalidity argument apply a fortiori under Patent Owner’s
`
`construction. (Ex. 1017, Fintiv’s Opening Markman Brief, pg. 11.)
`
`“SE Information”
`Claim 23 refers to “SE information.” This is simply “information relating to
`
`the secure element.” (Neuman, ¶¶116-123.) While not defined, the ’125 patent
`
`does provide a non-exhaustive list of examples. (See Ex. 1001, ’125 patent, 6:52-
`
`62.) This includes “Card Production Life Cycle (CPLC), Card Serial Number
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`(CSN), Card Image Number (CIN), [and] Integrated Circuit Card Identification
`
`(IC-CID)….” (Id.) All of this relates to the secure element itself. (Neuman,
`
`¶119.)
`
`Patent Owner proposed a construction of SE in district court (“information
`
`related to the secure element that may include at least card production life cycle,
`
`card serial number, card image number, and integrated circuit card identification”)
`
`and Petitioner’s invalidity argument apply a fortiori under Patent Owner’s
`
`construction. (Ex. 1017, Fintiv’s Opening Markman Brief, pg. 13.)
`
` “Mobile Device Information”
`Independent claims 18 and 23 both refer to “mobile device information.”
`
`According to the specification, mobile device information includes the “type of
`
`mobile device, supporting operating system (OS), mobile service provider, and
`
`other relevant information.” (Ex. 1001, ’125 patent, 5:9-16; see also claim 20.)
`
`Thus, “mobile device information” is “hardware or software properties relating to
`
`the mobile device.” (Neuman, ¶¶124-128.)
`
`Patent Owner proposed a construction of mobile device information in
`
`district court (“mobile device rela