Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 34
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`W-18-CV-00372-ADA
`
`§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
` Plaintiff
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
` Defendant
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Before the Court are the PQbdYUcp S\QY] S_^cdbeSdY_^ RbYUVc6 G\QY^dYVV >Y^dYfpc _‘U^Y^W(
`
`bUc‘_^cYfU( Q^T bU‘\i RbYUVc %=;> E_* 3.( 31( Q^T 33( bUc‘USdYfU\i& Q^T <UVU^TQ^d 9‘‘\Upc
`
`opening, responsive, and reply briefs (ECF No. 71, 74, and 76, respectively). The Court held the
`
`Markman hearing on November 7, 2019. ECF No. 82. During that hearing, the Court informed
`
`the Parties of the constructions it intended to provide for all terms except one. This Order does
`
`not alter any of those constructions.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Fintiv filed this lawsuit on December 21, 2018 alleging that Apple infringed at least claims
`
`11, 18, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125* =;> E_* -* JXU p125 GQdU^d Yc U^dYd\UT mSystem and
`
`Method for Managing Mobile Wallet and its RU\QdUT ;bUTU^dYQ\c*n JXU p-.1 GQdU^d Yc TYbUSdUT
`
`towards the management of virtual cards cd_bUT _^ ]_RY\U TUfYSUc* p-.1 GQdU^d Qd -6.1-26.
`
`JXU p-.1 GQdU^d ‘eb‘_bdc d_ c_\fU several problems that were present in the prior art. First,
`
`the user had limited ability to manage payment applets. Id. at 2:6-8. Second, the user may be
`
`unable to view any account specific information in the secure element or manage payment
`
`1
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 1
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 2 of 34
`
`applications. Id. at 2:26-29. Third, dXU ecUb ]Qi RU mR_]RQbTUTn gYdX Q‘‘\ications that are not
`
`compatible with his/her mobile device. Id. at 2:42-44.
`
`The Y^fU^dY_^ Y^ dXU p-.1 GQdU^d Yc RQcUT _^ a client-server architecture. See, e.g.( p-.1
`
`Patent at Fig. 1. On the server side are, inter alia, the Mobile Wallet Management System
`
`%mMDIn& Q^T dXU JbecdUT IUbfYSU DQ^QWUb %mJIDn&. The former stores and manages mobile
`
`wallet account information. Id. at 3:31-33. The WMS comprises other components, including a
`
`wallet client management component (to store and manage a mobile wallet application), the
`
`widget management component (to store and to manage widgets), a device profile management
`
`component (to store mobile device information), and a rule engine (to filter a widget based on the
`
`mobile device information). Id. at 3:33-39. The TSM QSdc Qc Q^ mY^dUWbQdY_^ ‘_Y^d V_b Q\\ _V dXU
`
`external parties the mobile device may deal with, providing for a seamless and more efficient
`
`_‘UbQdY_^ _V ]_RY\U cUbfYSUc*n Id. at 5:42-46. The WMS may reside within the TSM. Id. at 5:28-
`
`29.
`
`F^ dXU S\YU^d cYTU Yc dXU ecUbpc ]_RY\U TUfYSU* JXU mobile device comprises, inter alia, a
`
`mobile wallet application, over-the-QYb %mFJ9n& ‘b_hi( cUSebU U\U]U^d %mI=n&( S_^dQSd\Ucc SQbT
`
`applet %m;;9n&, and wallet management applet. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 2. The mobile wallet
`
`Q‘‘\YSQdY_^ m]Qi XQfU dXU cQ]U S_]‘_cYdY_^ Qc Q S_^fU^dY_^Q\ gQ\\Ud( gXYSX ]Qi S_^dQY^ payment
`
`SQbTc( ]U]RUb SQbTc( dbQ^c‘_bdQdY_^ SQbTc( Q^T \_iQ\di SQbTc*n Id. at 1:43-46. One of the OTA
`
`proxypc Ve^SdY_^c Yc d_ operate as a transceiver for the mobile device to the server. See, e.g., id. at
`
`6:34-37, 6:63-64, and 8:5-10. The secure element is memory component that securely stores
`
`account specific sensitive information. Id. at 7:38-43. The contactless card applet corresponds to
`
`a conventional card. See id. at 8:60-63. The WMA may store account specific information of the
`
`CCA which may be viewed by the user. Id. at 2:8-10 and 8:66-9:5. JXU MD9 m]Qi Y^S\eTU R_dX
`
`2
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 2
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 3 of 34
`
`a WMA 21 container and one or more WMA 21 applets. WMA 21 container may manage the
`
`Y^V_b]QdY_^ cd_bUT Y^ dXU MD9 .- Q‘‘\Udc*n Id. at 7:8-11.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`The general rule is that claim terms are generally given their plain-and-ordinary meaning.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Azure Networks, LLC v.
`
`CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds by 135 S. Ct. 1846,
`
`1846 (2015) %mJXUbU Yc Q XUQfi ‘bUce]‘dY_^ dXQd S\QY] dUb]c SQbbi dXUYb QSSecd_]UT ]UQ^Y^W Y^
`
`dXU bU\UfQ^d S_]]e^Ydi Qd dXU bU\UfQ^d dY]U*n&. The plain and ordinary meaning of a term is the
`
`mmeaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time
`
`of the invention.n Philips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`mo9\dX_eWX dXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^ ]Qi QYT dXU S_ebd Y^ Y^dUb‘bUdY^W dXU ]UQ^Y^W _V TYc‘edUT
`
`claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not
`
`WU^UbQ\\i RU bUQT Y^d_ dXU S\QY]c*pn ,KI>NG ,KII@VJO% 1J@’ R’ 0>NNFO ,KNL’, 156 F.3d 1182, 1187
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988)). mOAPd Yc Y]‘b_‘Ub d_ bUQT \Y]YdQtions from a preferred embodiment described in the
`
`specificationleven if it is the only embodimentlinto the claims absent a clear indication in the
`
`intrinsic record that the ‘QdU^dUU Y^dU^TUT dXU S\QY]c d_ RU c_ \Y]YdUT*n Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`9\dX_eWX UhdbY^cYS UfYTU^SU SQ^ Q\c_ RU ecUVe\( Yd Yc mo\Ucc cYW^YVYSQ^d dXQ^ dXU Y^dbY^cYS
`
`bUS_bT Y^ TUdUb]Y^Y^W dXU \UWQ\\i _‘UbQdYfU ]UQ^Y^W _V S\QY] \Q^WeQWU*pn Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Technical dictionaries may be helpful, but they may also provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`not indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Expert testimony also may be
`
`3
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 3
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 4 of 34
`
`helpful( Red Q^ Uh‘Ubdpc S_^S\ec_bi or unsupported assertions as to the meaning of a term are not.
`
`Id.
`
`JXU m_^\i dg_ UhSU‘dY_^c d_ OdXUP WU^UbQ\ be\Un dXQd S\QY] dUb]c QbU S_^cdbeUT QSS_bTY^W
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning are when the patentee (1) acts as his/her own lexicographer or
`
`(2) disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`:EKNJBN R’ 9KJT ,KILQPBN .JPIVP *I’ 33,, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as
`
`his/her _g^ \UhYS_WbQ‘XUb( dXU ‘QdU^dUU ]ecd mS\UQb\i cUd V_bdX Q TUVY^YdY_^ _V dXU TYc‘edUT S\QY]
`
`dUb](n Q^T mS\UQb\i Uh‘bUcc Q^ Y^dU^d d_ TUVY^U dXU dUb]*n Id. To disavow the full scope of a claim
`
`dUb]( dXU ‘QdU^dUUpc cdQdU]U^dc Y^ dXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^ _b ‘b_secution history must represent ma clear
`
`disavowal of claim scope*n
`
`Id. at 1366. 9SS_bTY^W\i( gXU^ mQ^ Q‘‘\YSQ^dpc cdQdU]U^dc QbU
`
`Q]U^QR\U d_ ]e\dY‘\U bUQc_^QR\U Y^dUb‘bUdQdY_^c( dXUi SQ^^_d RU TUU]UT S\UQb Q^T e^]YcdQ[QR\U*n
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, a court presumes that each claim in a patent
`
`has a different scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15. The presumption is rebutted when, for
`
`example, dXU mconstruction of an independent claim leads to a clear conclusion inconsistent with a
`
`dependent claim.n Id. The presumption is also rebutted when there is a mcontrary construction
`
`dictated by the written description or prosecution history*n Seachange 1JPVH., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`
`413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The presumption does not apply if it serves to broaden the
`
`claims beyond their meaning in light of the specification. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`4
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 4
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 5 of 34
`
`III.
`
`Legal Analysis
`
`A.
`
`‘wallet management applet (WMA)a $claims 11 and 23)
`
`6PTYP[bX >WUVUXLK 3UTXYWZJYPUT
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction the plain and
`ordinary meaning is mY^dUWbQdUT Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydi
`that enables management of a wallet related
`Q‘‘\Ud*n
`
`1VVRLbX >WUVUXLK 3UTXYWZJYPUT
`mc_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^ V_b storing duplicate
`account specific information accessible to the
`mobile gQ\\Ud Q‘‘\YSQdY_^n
`
`Fintiv S_^dU^Tc dXQd mgQ\\Ud ]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Udn cX_e\T RUQb Ydc plain-and-ordinary
`
`meaning RUSQecU Q GFIAJ9 mg_e\T XQfU bUQc_^QR\U SUbdQY^di QR_ed dXU ]UQ^Y^W Q^T cS_‘U _V dXU
`
`dUb] Vb_] Ydc S_^dUhd Y^ dXU S\QY]c Q^T c‘USYVYSQdY_^*n =;> E_* 3. Qd 1* >Y^dYf VebdXUb S_^dU^Tc
`
`that the plain-and-ordinary meaning of this tUb] Yc mintegrated functionality that enables
`
`management of a wallet related applet.n Id. at 9. Fintiv contends that this proposed construction
`
`is consistent with the claims and specification, and does not exclude any embodiments. Id.
`
`Apple contends thad mgQ\\Ud ]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Udn does not have a plain-and-ordinary
`
`meaning because it Yc Q mS_Y^UT dUb].n ECF No. 71 at 11. 9‘‘\U VebdXUb S_^dU^Tc UfU^ YV mgQ\\Ud
`
`]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Udn gUbU ^_d Q S_Y^UT dUb]( dXU ;_ebd cX_e\T cdY\\ S_^cdbeU Yd RUSQecU dXU Zebi
`
`cX_e\T ^_d mWeUccn gXQd dXU ]UQ^Y^W _V Q XYWX\i dUSX^YSQ\ dUb] Yc* Id. Apple contends that its
`
`proposed construction mV_\\_gc Vb_] dXU Y^dbY^cYS UfYTU^SU( Y^S\eTY^W ^e]Ub_ec bUVUbU^SUc Q^T
`
`Uh‘\Q^QdY_^c Y^ dXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^*n Id.
`
`i. ‘DHRRLY SHTHNLSLTY HVVRLYa PX H JUPTLK YLWS HTK KULX TUY OH[L H
`plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`JXU VYbcd aeUcdY_^ RUV_bU dXU ;_ebd Yc gXUdXUb mgQ\\Ud ]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Udn Yc Q S_Y^UT dUb]*
`
`Apple contends that it is a coined term whereas Fintiv does not appear to argue otherwise. ECF
`
`E_* 3- Qd --* :USQecU dXUbU Yc ^_ UfYTU^SU dXQd mgQ\\Ud ]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Udn gQc Q gU\\-known
`
`dUb] Qd dXU dY]U _V dXU p-.1 GQdU^dpc VY\Y^W, the Court agrees with Apple that this is a coined term.
`
`5
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 5
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 6 of 34
`
`The next question is whether a coined term can have a plain-and-ordinary meaning. Apple
`
`cites two Federal Circuit caseslIridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)lfor the
`
`proposition that coi^UT dUb]c T_ ^_d XQfU Q^ m_bTY^Qbi Q^T Secd_]Qbi ]UQ^Y^W.n ECF No. 71 at
`
`13. By contrast, Fintiv argues that coined terms may not require construction. ECF No. 75 at 10.
`
`9c Q WU^UbQ\ ]QddUb( dXU ;_ebd QWbUUc gYdX >Y^dYf* D_bU c‘USYVYSQ\\i( gXU^ mdXU Somponents of
`
`the term have well-bUS_W^YjUT ]UQ^Y^Wc(n Q GFIAJ9 S_e\T mY^VUb dXU ]UQ^Y^W _V dXU U^dYbU
`
`‘XbQcU*n Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`But that general principle requires that the Court exercise its judgment to determine
`
`gXUdXUb dXU S_]RY^QdY_^ _V dXU S_^cdYdeU^d g_bTc Yc ]UbU\i dXU mce] _V dXU ‘Qbdcn _b gXUdXUb dXQd
`
`combination has a meaning that is something more thanlor significantly different fromlthe
`
`mce] _V dXU ‘Qbdc*n 9^ UhQ]‘\U _V dXU V_b]Ub S_e\T RU mgYTU-R_Ti ‘QccU^WUb ZUd*n 9 GFIAJ9
`
`g_e\T e^TUbcdQ^T dXQd mgYTU-R_Tin Yc Y^ S_^dbQcd d_ Q m^Qbb_g-R_Tin QYb‘\Q^U( e.g., two aisles in
`
`a wide-body airplane versus one aisle in a narrow-body airplane. A POSITA would also
`
`understand thQd Q m‘QccU^WUbn QYb‘\Q^U g_e\T RU ‘bUccebYjUT Q^T XQfU cUQdc V_b dXU ‘QccU^WUbc( Y^
`
`contrast to a cargo airplane which may provide neither. A POSITA would finally understand that
`
`mZUdn bUVUbc d_ dXU di‘U _V U^WY^U dXQd ‘b_fYTUs thrust. By contrast, an example of the latter is mYSU
`
`SbUQ]*n See ECF No. 74 at 23. Even though a POSITA knows gXQd mYSUn Q^T mSbUQ]n are, the
`
`POSITA ]Qi ^_d Y^VUb dXQd mYSU SbUQ]n Yc cYW^YVYSQ^d\i TYVVUbU^d dXQd dXU S_]RY^QdY_^ _V YSU Q^T
`
`cream.
`
`To determine whether the term is ]_bU Q[Y^ d_ mgYTU-R_Ti ‘QccU^WUb ZUdn _b mYSU SbUQ],n
`
`a court should turn to the specification as it Yc mdXU cY^W\U RUcd WeYTU d_ dXU ]UQ^Y^W _V Q TYc‘edUT
`
`dUb]*n Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315; see also Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed.
`
`6
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 6
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 7 of 34
`
`Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips( 0-1 >*/T Qd -/-1& %mATY_ci^SbQdYS \Q^WeQWU( XYWX\i dUSX^YSQ\ dUb]c( _b
`
`dUb]c S_Y^UT Ri dXU Y^fU^d_b QbU RUcd e^TUbcd__T Ri bUVUbU^SU d_ dXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^*n&* The Court
`
`has analyzed all recitations of mWMAn in the specification and provides the most relevant and
`
`informative passages below:
`
`™
`
`™ 9RcdbQSd6 mretrieving a widget and a wallet management applet (WMA) corresponding
`to the contactless card appletn
`7:4-86 mMDI --, bUaeests TSM system 120 to provision a corresponding wallet
`management applet (WMA) 21 with the following information via OTA proxy: [Card
`Production Life Cycle] or [Card Serial Number], [Card Image Number], Mobile ID
`Q^T MD9 ‘Ubc_^Q\YjQdY_^ TQdQ*n
`7:8---6 mA^ an example, WMA 21 may include both a WMA 21 container and one or
`more WMA21 applets. WMA 21 container may manage the information stored in the
`WMA 21 applets.n
`7:16-.,6 mJXU MD9 .- S_^dQY^Ub Yc Q c_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^ dXQd ]Qi bUcYTU gYdXY^ dXU
`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.n
`7:38-0/6 mJ_ ‘b_fYTU dXU ecUb _V dXU ]_RY\U TUfYSU gYdX dXU QSS_e^d c‘USYVYS
`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.n
`8:66-56.6 mJhe corresponding WMA 21 applet, which may include account specific
`information of the contactless card apple (e.g. credit card number, expiration date,
`security code, PIN. etc.), may be provisioned into the SE.n
`9:61-226 mMD9 .- S_^dQY^Ub ]Qi( however, limit amount of change requests to the
`WMA 21 applet as they contain account specific information. For example, the
`number of times expiration date may be changed with a reference time period may be
`limited, or changes to the credit card numbers may be prohibited.n
`Based on the component words, a POSITA might infer that a mgQ\\Ud ]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Udn
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`is man applet that manages an electronic wallet.n But the above passages recite that the WMA may
`
`S_]‘bYcU R_dX Q S_^dQY^Ub %gXYSX Yc Q c_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^& Q^T _^U _b ]_bU Q‘‘\Udc* p-.1 GQdU^d
`
`at 7:8-11, 7:16-20* A^ _dXUb g_bTc( dXU MD9 Yc ^_d _^\i Q^ mQ‘‘\Udn Qc Q GFIAJ9 g_e\T Y^VUb
`
`from its component words, but it comprises both a software application and an applet.
`
`Accordingly, based on that fact alone, MD9 Q‘‘UQbc d_ RU ]_bU Q[Y^ d_ mYSU SbUQ]n dXQ^ mgYTU-
`
`7
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 7
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 8 of 34
`
`R_Ti ‘QccU^WUb ZUd*n As such, the Court does not find that WMA has a plain-and-ordinary
`
`meaning, and will turn to >Y^dYfpc Q^T 9‘‘\Upc bUc‘USdYfU S_^cdbections.
`
`ii. 1THR^XPX UM 6PTYP[bX VWUVUXLK alternate construction
`
`>Y^dYfpc alternate proposed construction suffers from at least two infirmities. First, it
`
`bU‘\QSUc mQ‘‘\Udn gYdX mY^dUWbQdUT Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydi*n 9‘‘\Ud Yc Q gU\\-understood computer science
`
`term that refers to a small software program that may run inside of a larger program, e.g., an
`
`internet browser. Applet, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002). By contrast, mintegrated
`
`functionalityn T_Uc ^_d Y^TYSQdU X_g dXU Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydi ]ecd Y]‘\U]U^dUT, let alone that it must be
`
`implemented in software. As such, >Y^dYfpc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ allows for the WMA to be
`
`implemented by hardware, software, or a combination thereof, which is significantly broader than
`
`limiting its implementation to software. There is no support in the specification for such a broad
`
`TUVY^YdY_^ V_b mQ‘‘\Udn ^_b TYT dXU ‘QdU^dUU QSd Qc XYc+XUb _g^ \UhYS_WbQ‘XUb d_ bUTUVY^U mQ‘‘\Udn
`
`in any way. Phillips, 315 >*/T Qd -/-1 %mClaims must always be read in light of the specification*n&
`
`(quoting See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 300 (CCPA 1982)); Thorner, 669 F.3d at 136. And even
`
`YV Q GFIAJ9 e^TUbcd__T dXQd mY^dUWbQdUT Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydin bUaeYbUc Q c_VdgQbU Y]‘\U]U^dQdYon, a
`
`GFIAJ9 g_e\T ^_d ^USUccQbY\i e^TUbcdQ^T dXQd mY^dUWbQdUT Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydin S_e\T RU c_VdgQbU dXQd
`
`may run inside a larger program.
`
`Second, >Y^dYfpc Q\dUb^QdU ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ Yc e^\Y[U\i d_ RU XU\‘Ve\ d_ Q Zebi* Kroy
`
`IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-800-WCB, 2014 WL 3735222, at *2 (E.D. Tex.,
`
`Be\i .4( .,-0&* 9 Zebi ]Qi VY^T dXU g_bT mY^dUWbQdUTn d_ RU S_^VecY^W Qc Yd may be unclear from
`
`the specification what the WMA needs to be integrated with, or if it needs only to be integrated
`
`with the mobile device* 9 Zebi ]Qi VY^T dXU g_bT mVe^SdY_^Q\Ydin d_ RU fQWeU, and difficult to
`
`determine if the accused technology meets that particular aspect of the claim limitation. More
`
`WU^UbQ\\i( >Y^dYfpc Q\dUb^QdU ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ rewrites the claim language without specifically
`8
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 8
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 9 of 34
`
`describing the functionality embodied by the WMA. It is difficult to see how that alternate
`
`construction is more helpful to a jury than the original claim term.
`
`>_b Qd
`
`\UQcd
`
`dXUcU bUQc_^c(
`
`dXU ;_ebd bUZUSdc QT_‘dY^W >Y^dYfpc Q\dUb^QdU ‘b_‘_cUT
`
`construction.
`
`iii. Analysis of ApplebX VWUVUXLK JUTXYWZJYPUT
`
`On the other hand, 9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^lmsoftware application for storing
`
`duplicate account specific information accessible to the mobile wallet applicationnlalso suffers
`
`from a few infirmities. First, Q\dX_eWX dXU ‘XbQcU mc_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^n Q‘‘UQbc Y^ dXU
`
`specification (see, e.g.( p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 36-2&( mc_VdgQbUn Yc bUTe^TQ^d gYdX mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^,n1 which
`
`may confuse the jury. Kroy, 2014 WL 3735222, at *2. Second, 9‘‘\Upc ecU _V mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^n ]Qi
`
`be narrower than the full scope of a WMA. In particular, the specification recites that dXU mMD9
`
`include both Q MD9 S_^dQY^Ub Q^T _^U _b ]_bU Q‘‘\Udc*n p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 364-9. The specification
`
`VebdXUb TUcSbYRUc dXU mMD9 S_^dQY^Ubn Qc Q mc_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^*n Id. at 7:16-20. Therefore,
`
`because it may comprise one or more applets, a WMA may be broader than a software application.
`
`9c ceSX( 9‘‘\Upc ecU _V mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^n Y^ Ydc S_^cdbeSdY_^ _V MD9 \Y]Ydc dXU cS_‘U _V MD9* JXYbT(
`
`9‘‘\Upc ecU _V mTe‘\YSQdUn ]Qi RU e^^USUccQbi Q^T ‘_dU^dYQ\\i misleading. During the Markman
`
`XUQbY^W( 9‘‘\Upc S_e^cU\ S_^SUTUT dXQd mTe‘\YSQdUn gQc Q\bUQTi Y]‘\YUT Y^ Ydc S_^cdbeSdY_^* @bW*
`
`Tr. at 65:5-8. Furthermore, the use of the word mTe‘\YSQdUn Y^ 9‘‘\Upc S_^cdbeSdY_^ may cause a
`
`jury to think that it means something other than cY]‘\i dXU ecUbpc QSS_e^d Y^V_b]QdY_^ cd_bUT _^
`
`the mobile device.
`
`1 9‘‘\Upc S_e^cU\ QWbUUT dXQd mc_VdgQbUn gQc bUTe^TQ^d gYdX mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^n Q^T dXQd Y^S\eTY^W mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^n Y^ Ydc
`construction was not necessary. Hrg. Tr. at 61:9--1 %mAt the end of the day I donpt think itps critically important to
`have both of those words in the construction. If that was the only thing standing between adopting Appleps
`construction was removal of the word mapplicationn and instead it just said software for storing duplicate account
`information, I donpt think we'd have a significant problem with that*n&*
`9
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 9
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 10 of 34
`
`>_ebdX( 9‘‘\Upc proposed construction violates the doctrine of claim differentiation. More
`
`c‘USYVYSQ\\i( S\QY] -2( gXYSX TU‘U^Tc _^ S\QY] --( bUSYdUc mgXUbUY^ dXU MD9 Ys a software
`
`Q‘‘\YSQdY_^ S_^VYWebUT d_ cd_bU QSS_e^d c‘USYVYS Y^V_b]QdY_^*n p-.1 GQdU^d Qd -/62,-61. Because
`
`9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ \Y]Ydc dXU MD9 d_ mstoring duplicate account specific
`
`information(n then claims 11 and 16 would have the same scope with respect to that term.
`
`Relatedly, 9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ would also improperly read a limitation from a
`
`dependent claim into the broader independent claim, thus narrowing the scope of the independent
`
`claim. ECF No. 75 at 7 (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d at 910 %m[W]here
`
`dXU \Y]YdQdY_^ dXQd Yc c_eWXd d_ RU obUQT Y^d_p Q^ Y^TU‘U^TU^d S\QY] Q\bUQTi Q‘‘UQbc Y^ Q TU‘U^TU^d
`
`claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest.n&). JXU ecU _V dXU g_bT mgXUbUY^n
`
`in a dependent claim indicates the patentee intended for the dependent claim to have a narrower
`
`scope for that aspect of the independent claim. Chien-Lu Lin v. Twins Enter., Inc., No. CV 01k
`
`07390 MMM (JWJx), 2002 WL 34455510( Qd ’., %;*<* ;Q\* E_f* -.( .,,.& %m?enerally, when a
`
`limitation in a dependent claim is intended to narrow a step set forth in the independent claim, the
`
`g_bT mgXUbUY^n Yc ecUT*n&* As such, the patentee intended that claim 16 should have a narrower
`
`scope with respect to the functionality of the WMA than does the scope of claim 11. But because
`
`9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ dbQS[c dXU \Q^WeQWU Vb_] TU‘U^TU^d S\QY] -2( QT_‘dY^W 9‘‘\Upc
`
`proposed construction for WMA, which appears in both claims 11 and 16, would incorrectly read
`
`in a limitation from dependent claim 16 into independent claim 11, and concomitantly incorrectly
`
`limit the scope of claim 11.
`
`Apple contends that the mpresumption [that claim differentiation applies] is overcome in
`
`situation like this one, where the intrinsic evidence consistently describes the claim term in a way
`
`dXQd Yc ^USUccQbi d_ oQSXYUfU Q^ _RZUSd _V dXU Y^fU^dY_^*p The mWMA . . . is necessary to achieve
`
`10
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 10
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 11 of 34
`
`the object of the invention: allowing users to view and access account specific information.n =;>
`
`No. 76 at 9-10. JXU ;_ebd TYcQWbUUc gYdX 9‘‘\Upc contention that the doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation does not apply because applying claim differentiation to claim 16 would not prevent
`
`either claim 11 or claim 16 from achieving what Apple argues is the object of the invention. More
`
`specifically, claim 16 recites one particular functionality of the WMA, namely, that it is
`
`mS_^VYWebUT d_ cd_bU QSS_e^d c‘USYVYS Y^V_b]QdY_n,n which Apple contends is the object of the
`
`invention. Because claim 16 is a subset of claim 11 and because claim 16 purportedly recites the
`
`object of the invention, both claims 11 and 16 can achieve the purported object of the invention.
`
`JXU ;_ebdpc S_nclusion is consistent with Federal Circuit case law that found claim
`
`differentiation inapplicable because none of those circumstances are present here. For example,
`
`dXUbU Yc ^_ mcontrary construction dictated by the written description or prosecution historyn dXQd
`
`would lead the Court to conclude that claim differentiation does not apply in this case. Seachange,
`
`413 F.3d at 1369. Nor does claim differentiation result in claim 16 being broader in scope than
`
`claim 11. Intellectual Ventures, 870 F.3d at 1326.
`
`Finally( 9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ Y^S_bbUSd\i UhS\eTUc Q ‘bUVUbbUT U]R_TY]U^d*
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (excluding a preferred
`
`U]R_TY]U^d Yc mbQbU\i( YV UfUb( S_bbUSd and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support*n&*
`
`Although tXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^ ce‘‘_bdc 9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ dXQd dXU MD9 cd_bUc QSS_e^dc
`
`specific information (p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 7:38-43 8:66-9:2), the specification also describes that the
`
`WMA implements some security features, namely, that the WMA container may limit change
`
`requests to the WMA applet, e.g., the number of times the expiration date may change during a
`
`period of time and/or changes to the credit card number may be prohibited. Id. at 9:61-66. Because
`
`11
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 11
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 12 of 34
`
`9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ UhS\eTUc dXQd MD9pc cUSebYdi Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydi( Yd Y^S_bbUSd\i UhS\eTUc
`
`a preferred embodiment.
`
`>_b Qd \UQcd dXUcU bUQc_^c( dXU ;_ebd bUZUSdc QT_‘dY^W 9‘‘\Upc ‘boposed construction.
`
`iv. AOL 3UZWYbX JUTXYWZJYPUT MUW ‘\HRRLY SHTHNLSLTY HVVRLYa HTK YOL
`reasoning therefor
`
`For the reasons described below, dXU ;_ebd S_^cdbeUc mwallet management appletn Qc
`
`msoftware that enables management of an electronic wallet including, but not limited to, the
`
`functionality of storing account specific information.n Hrg. Tr. at 82:5-7. First, the specification
`
`consistently TUcSbYRUc dXQd dXU MD9 Yc Q mc_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^*n See, e.g.( p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 36-2*
`
`:ed RUSQecU mc_VdgQbUn ]Qi RU redundant with mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^nland thus potentially confusing to
`
`a juryldXU ;_ebd ecUc mc_VdgQbUn Y^ Ydc S_^cdbeSdY_^*
`
`Second, the specification recites that dXU MD9 S_^dQY^Ub m]Q^QWUc QSS_e^d Y^V_b]QdY_^
`
`related to the contactless card applet 23 (i.e. WMA 21 applet) and that the account information
`
`may include credit card number and expiration date. Id. at 7:16-20, 7:38-42.
`
`Third, the specification describes that the WMA performs at least two functions: it stores
`
`account specific information (id. at 7:38-43, 8:66-9:2) and it implements some security features to
`
`protect that information (id. at 9:61-66). A POSITA would understand that this account
`
`information is stored in a mobile wallet, i.e., an electronic wallet.
`
`Fourth, RUSQecU Q Zebi ]Qi ^_d e^TUbcdQ^T gXQd m]Q^QWU]U^d _V Q^ U\USdb_^YS gQ\\Udn ]Qi
`
`entail and because object of the invention is to store account information within the WMA in order
`
`to make it available to the user (id. at 7:38-0/&( dXU ;_ebdpc S_^cdbeSdY_^ Y^S_b‘_bQdUc dXU V_\\_gY^W
`
`‘XbQcU6 mincluding, but not limited to, the functionality of storing account specific information*n
`
`12
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 12
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 13 of 34
`
`F_b dXU bUQc_^c cdQdUT QR_fU( dXU ;_ebd S_^cdbeUc mwallet management appletn Qc msoftware
`
`that enables management of an electronic wallet including, but not limited to, the functionality of
`
`storing account specific information.n
`
`B.
`
`‘widgeta $claims 11, 18, and 23)
`
`6PTYP[bX >WUVUXLK 3UTXYWZJYPUT
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the
`Court requires construction the plain and
`ordinary meaning is mY^dUWbQdUT Ve^SdY_^Q\Ydi
`that relates to applications related to a financial
`institution, transportation account, and the
`\Y[U*n
`
`1VVRLbX >WUVUXLK 3UTXYWZJYPUT
`
`mecUb Y^dUbVQSU c_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^n
`
`>Y^dYf S_^dU^Tc dXQd mgYTWUdn cX_e\T RUQb Ydc ‘\QY^-and-ordinary meaning because a
`
`GFIAJ9 mg_e\T XQfU bUQc_^QR\U SUbdQY^di QR_ed dXU ]UQ^Y^W Q^T cS_‘U _V dXU dUb] Vb_] Ydc
`
`S_^dUhd Y^ dXU S\QY]c Q^T c‘USYVYSQdY_^*n =;> E_* 3. Qd -,* >Y^dYf VebdXUb S_^dU^Ts that the plain-
`
`and-ordinary meaning of this term is mintegrated functionality that relates to applications related
`
`to a financial institution, transportation account, and the like.n Id. at 11. Fintiv argues that, unlike
`
`9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^( dhat its proposed plain-and-_bTY^Qbi ]UQ^Y^W m^_d ^Qbb_gY^W Q^T
`
`Yc S_^cYcdU^d gYdX dXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^*n Id. at 11.
`
`9‘‘\U S_^dU^Tc dXQd mgYTWUdn requires construction because, to a lay person, a mogYTWUdp
`
`generically refers to an undefined article and is largely synonymous with terms like gadget, gizmo,
`
`Q^T dXY^WQ]QR_R*n =;> E_* 3- Qd -2* Even though claims are construed from the perspective of
`
`a POSITA, and not a lay person, the Court agrees with Apple, at least to the extent that the Court
`
`cannot simply obTUb dXQd mgYTWUdn cX_e\T RUQb Ydc ‘\QY^-and-ordinary meaning without providing
`
`a definition for that plain-and-ordinary meaning. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
`
`F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). More specifically, the issue is that mgYTWUdn XQc R_dX Q ^_^-
`
`technical meaning (e.g.( mWYj]_n& Q^T Q dUSX^YSQ\ _^U* Because the jury may incorrectly apply the
`
`13
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 13
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 14 of 34
`
`non-technical plain-and-ordinary meaning, the Court needs to provide a construction for this term.
`
`6( 4F@NK 1JPVH 3PA’ R’ +BTKJA Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`%mA determination that a claim term oneeds no constructionp or has the oplain and ordinary
`
`meaningp may be inadequate when a term has more than one oordinaryp meaning or when reliance
`
`on a termps oordinaryp meaning does not resolve the partiesp dispute.n&* Therefore, the Court finds
`
`that >Y^dYfpc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ _V m‘\QY^-and-ordinary meaningn Qc cdQ^T-alone construction
`
`does not sufficiently construe the term in order to help a lay jury.
`
`i. 1THR^XPX UM 6PTYP[bX VWUVUXLK alternate construction
`
`>Y^dYfpc Q\dUb^QdU ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ ceVVUbc Vb_m a few infirmities. First, several words
`
`within the construction are vague, confusing, or unclear, which ultimately is not helpful for a jury.
`
`Kroy, 2014 WL 3735222, at *2. For example, Q Zebi ]Qi VY^T dXU g_bT mY^dUWbQdUTn d_ RU
`
`confusing as it may be unclear from the specification what the widget needs to be integrated with,
`
`or if it needs only to be integrated with the mobile device. As a second example, a jury may also
`
`find that mVe^SdY_^Q\Ydin and mQ^T dXU \Y[Un to be vague, and difficult to determine if the accused
`
`technology meets either term. As a third example, a jury will probably find that the phrase mthat
`
`relates to applications related to a financial institution, transportation account . . . n is difficult to
`
`understand.
`
`IUS_^T( >Y^dYfpc S_^cdbeSdY_^ could potentially incorrectly limit the construction of
`
`mgYTWUdn d_ Q ‘bUVUbbUT U]R_TY]U^d* Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. .,,5& %mJXU ‘QdU^dUU Yc U^dYd\UT d_ dXU Ve\\ cS_‘U _V XYc S\QY]c( Q^T gU gY\\ ^_d \Y]Yd XY]
`
`d_ XYc ‘bUVUbbUT U]R_TY]U^d _b Y]‘_bd Q \Y]YdQdY_^ Vb_] dXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^ Y^d_ dXU S\QY]c*n&. In
`
`particular, the specificQdY_^ bUSYdUc dXQd mOgPYTWUdc ]Qi RU Q^ Q‘‘\YSQdY_^ S_^VYWebUT d_ Y^dUbVQSU
`
`with a user of the mobile device. In an example, widgets may refer to individual payment
`
`Q‘‘\YSQdY_^c( dbQ^c‘_bdQdY_^ Q‘‘\YSQdY_^c( Q^T _dXUb bU\QdUT Q‘‘\YSQdY_^c*n p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 5:6-9. The
`14
`
`Apple Ex. 1027, p. 14
` Apple v. Fintiv
` IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 86 Filed 11/27/19 Page 15 of 34
`
`first sentence in this passage describes that widgets may be applications with a user interface. The
`
`cUS_^T cU^dU^SU cdQbdc gYdX mOYP^ Q^ UhQ]‘\U(n gXYSX dXU^ Y^TYSQdUc dXQd dXU c‘USYVYS gYTWUdc \YcdUT(
`
`i.e., mY^TYfYTeQ\ ‘Qi]U^d applications, transportation applications, and other related applicationc(n
`
`are merely examples of widgets that are applications with a user interface. Given that these
`
`‘QbdYSe\Qb Q‘‘\YSQdY_^c QbU ]UbU\i UhQ]‘\Uc( dXU ‘b_‘Ub S_^cdbeSdY_^ _V mgYTWUdn Yc Rboader than
`
`these examples. :USQecU >Y^dYfpc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ _^\i bUSYdUc dXUcU UhQ]‘\Uc (and
`
`ceRcdYdedUc m_dXUb bU\QdUT Q‘‘\YSQdY_^cn gYdX mQ^T dXU \Y[Un), it incorrectly limits the construction
`
`_V mgYTWUdn d_ dXYc ‘bUVUbbUT U]R_TY]U^d*
`
`For at least dXUcU bUQc_^c( dXU ;_ebd bUZUSdc >Y^dYfpc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^*
`
`ii. Analysis of 1VVRLbX proposed construction
`
`9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ \Y[UgYcU ceVVUbc Vb_] Qd \UQcd dg_ Y^VYb]YdYUc* First, as was
`
`dXU SQcU V_b mgQ\\Ud ]Q^QWU]U^d Q‘‘\Ud(n Q\dX_eWX dXU ‘XbQcU mc_VdgQbU Q‘‘\YSQdY_^n Q‘‘UQbc Y^
`
`the specification (see, e.g.( p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 36-2&( mc_VdgQbUn Yc bUTe^TQ^d gYdX mQ‘‘\YSQdY_^(n2 which
`
`may confuse the jury. Kroy, 2014 WL 3735222, at *2.
`
`IUS_^T( 9‘‘\Upc ‘b_‘_cUT S_^cdbeSdY_^ Y^S_bbUSd\i excludes some preferred embodiments.
`
`Vitronics( 5, >*/T Qd -14/ %UhS\eTY^W Q ‘bUVUbbUT U]R_TY]U^d Yc mbQbU\i( YV UfUb( S_bbUSd and would
`
`require highly persuasive evidentiary support*n&* JXU c‘USYVYSQdY_^ bUSYdUc dXQd mOgPYTWUdc may be
`
`an application configured to Y^dUbVQSU gYdX Q ecUb _V dXU ]_RY\U TUfYSU**n p-.1 GQdU^d Qd 162-7
`
`(emphasis added). This passage explicitly recites that wi