`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`———————
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`———————
`
`IPR2021-00955
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S AUTHORIZED REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`Petitioner submits this reply in response to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (“POPR”) (Paper 6). Due to developments after the Petition was filed,
`
`the Fintiv factors now more strongly favor institution. Petitioner’s new Sotera-type
`
`stipulation eliminates all overlap between this IPR and the district court
`
`proceeding, and the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement confirms that the
`
`district court and parties will have invested very little in the pertinent invalidity
`
`issues at the time of institution.
`
`I. There is No Overlap Between This IPR and the District Court
`Proceeding (Factor 4)
`
` To avoid any overlap between this IPR and the parallel district court
`
`proceeding, Petitioner stipulates that, if this IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in
`
`the district court litigation (RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al., No. 2:20-cv-
`
`00274) the specific grounds asserted in the IPR petition, or any other ground that
`
`was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., any ground that
`
`could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patents or
`
`printed publications). See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019,
`
`Paper 12 at 18-19 (Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential) (“Sotera”). For these grounds,
`
`Petitioner defers to the Board’s recognized technical “expertise.” See Belden Inc. v.
`
`Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, there will be no
`
`overlap between this IPR and the district court proceeding, which “weighs strongly
`
`in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Sotera at 19.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`The Board regularly finds that Sotera-type stipulations overcome earlier trial
`
`dates, including trial dates even earlier than the one scheduled in this case. See,
`
`e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLC, IPR2020-01183, Paper 17 at
`
`43, 38 (Feb. 10, 2021) (instituting when district court trial was scheduled 10
`
`months before final written decision, and petitioner made Sotera-type stipulation);
`
`Cosentino S.A.U. v. Cambria Co., LLC, IPR2021-00216, Paper 11 at 8-17 (May
`
`18, 2021) (instituting when district court trial was scheduled 7 months before final
`
`written decision). Thus, Fintiv factor 4 strongly favors institution.1
`
`II. There is Minimal Investment in the Validity Issues in the District Court
`Proceeding (Factor 3)
`
`Patent Owner identifies many litigation-related activities, including
`
`Markman briefing, as evidence of significant investment in the parallel proceeding.
`
`POPR, 21-22. Sand Revolution II emphasized, however, that the focus of this
`
`factor is not the total amount invested by the court and parties, but rather the
`
`amount invested “in the merits of the invalidity positions.” Sand Revolution II,
`
`LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s arguments regarding overlap ring hollow. In co-pending
`
`PGR2021-00028 and -00029, Patent Owner similarly argued for discretionary
`
`denial alleging overlap, but upon institution of those PGRs, ceased asserting the
`
`challenged patent in the district court.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`at 10 (June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand”). Here, as in Sand, “much of the
`
`district court’s investment relates to ancillary matters untethered to the validity
`
`issue itself.” Id.
`
`For example, although Markman briefing and the Markman hearing will
`
`likely take place before institution, this activity is ancillary to the invalidity issues
`
`raised in the Petition. Petitioner construes only a single term in the Petition
`
`(“emulator”), and that term is agreed upon by the parties in the Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement. Petition, 16-17; GOOG-1034, 2. Patent Owner does not
`
`construe any terms in the POPR. See generally POPR. Accordingly, even if the
`
`district court issues a Markman order prior to institution, that order will not reflect
`
`any investment in the merits of the invalidity issues here. Under similar
`
`circumstances, the Board consistently finds that Factor 3 favors institution. See,
`
`e.g., Huawei Tech. Co., Ltd., v. WSOU Invs., LLC, IPR2021-00229, Paper 10 at 12-
`
`13 (Jul. 1, 2021) (finding factor 3 favoring institution and noting that “while a
`
`Markman hearing has occurred, much of the invested effort is unconnected to the
`
`patentability challenges”); Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00381, Paper 15, at
`
`16-17 (Jul. 2, 2021) (finding “little evidence of risk that we will duplicate work
`
`performed in the District Court Lawsuit” when “there is no indication as to how
`
`[the Markman] order might impact questions of patentability”). Moreover, as in
`
`Sand, “much work remains in the district court case as it relates to invalidity,”
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`including completing expert discovery and filing dispositive motions on validity
`
`issues. Ex. 2001, 3; Sand at 10-11.
`
`Accordingly, a lack of investment in invalidity, combined with Petitioner’s
`
`promptness in filing only one week after being served infringement contentions
`
`“weigh[s] against” denial. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2019-00019, Paper 11 at
`
`11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential); see also Dell Technologies Inc. v. WSOU Invs.,
`
`LLC, IPR2021-00272, Paper 13 at 11 (Jul. 1, 2021).
`
`III. Petitioner’s Pending Transfer Motion in the District Court Proceeding
`May Impact the Scheduled Trial Date (Factor 2)
`
` On August 27, 2021, Petitioner filed a renewed motion to stay the district
`
`court proceeding to permit the district court to resolve Petitioner’s pending motion
`
`to dismiss or transfer the case. GOOG-1035, 1-2; GOOG-1036 (“transfer
`
`motion”). Petitioner’s transfer motion was filed on December 7, 2020, and the
`
`district court held a hearing on the venue motion on June 29, 2021. Given the
`
`nine-month pendency of the transfer motion, it is likely that the district court will
`
`soon decide both the transfer motion and the renewed stay motion. If the district
`
`court grants the transfer motion or stays the district court proceeding, the scheduled
`
`trial date would be replaced with a new trial date (if transferred2) or delayed (if
`
`
`2 Petitioner will seek authorization for further briefing if, prior to institution, the
`
`motion is granted or Petitioner is granted relief in its N.D. Cal. APA action.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`stayed). Thus, the scheduled trial date is uncertain.
`
`IV. The Interests of Efficiency, Fairness, and Patent Quality Favor
`Institution (Factor 6)
`
`RFCyber cannot reasonably contend that denial of institution would create
`
`“system efficiency” and avoid “duplication of efforts” (Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at 5, 6). After asserting the ’787 patent against Google,
`
`RFCyber separately asserted the same patent against three additional defendants
`
`over the course of a year. GOOG-1037, 4; GOOG-1038, 3, GOOG-1039; GOOG-
`
`1040, 3. RFCyber’s staggered litigation strategy highlights the need to promptly
`
`resolve the invalidity questions raised in the petition. Google’s petition is first in
`
`time and thus an appropriate vehicle for the “authoritative testing of patent
`
`validity.” Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313,
`
`344 (1971). Institution in this proceeding would streamline or avoid years of
`
`district court litigation in these subsequent lawsuits. Indeed, the Supreme Court
`
`has long warned of the “economic consequences” of repeated assertions by
`
`“holders of invalid patents.” Id. at 342-43. Therefore, the interests of efficiency,
`
`fairness, and patent quality favor institution, particularly when RFCyber continues
`
`to assert invalid claims against defendants across the mobile payment industry.
`
`Date: September 15, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Andrew S. Ehmke/
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Counsel for Petitioner, Reg. No. 50,271
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`GOOG-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218
`
`GOOG-1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218
`GOOG-1003 Declaration of Stephen Gray under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`GOOG-1004 Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Gray
`
`GOOG-1005 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0222961 by Staib et al. (“Staib”)
`GOOG-1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,628,322 to Holtmanns et al. (“Holtmanns”)
`
`GOOG-1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,481,632 to Wentker et al. (“Wentker”)
`
`GOOG-1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,005,942 to Chan et al. (“Chan”)
`GOOG-1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,699,233 to Pesonen (“Pesonen”)
`
`GOOG-1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,367,011 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
`GOOG-1011 Wolfgang Rankl & Wolfgang Effing, Smart Card Handbook
`(Kenneth Cox trans., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 3d ed. 2002)
`(“Smart Card Handbook”)
`GOOG-1012 Complaint for Patent Infringement, RFCyber Corp. v. Google
`LLC et al., 2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2020)
`GOOG-1013 Affidavits of Service in RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al.,
`2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.)
`GOOG-1014 Sample Docket Control Order
`GOOG-1015 Email from RFCyber’s attorney requesting an extension of the due
`date for infringement contentions
`GOOG-1016 Motion for extension of deadlines filed in the district court case on
`April 27, 2021
`Junko Yoshida, “Chip Makers Still Uncertain of Plunge into
`NFC,” Electronic Engineering Times 6 (Nov. 15, 2004)
`GOOG-1018 Philips Semiconductors, Functional Specification: Standard Card
`IC MF1 IC S70, Revision 3.1 (Oct. 2002) (describing MIFARE
`1K smart card)
`
`GOOG-1017
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`GOOG-1019 Eric Longo & Jeff Stapleton, PKI Note: Smart Cards, PKI Forum
`Newsletter, Apr. 6, 2002
`GOOG-1020 Marijke Sas, “Mifare in Action,” Card Technology Today, Mar.
`2003, p. 10
`GOOG-1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,350,717 to Conner et al. (“Conner”)
`GOOG-1022 Philips Semiconductor, SmartMX: P5CD036: Secure Dual
`Interface PKI Smart Card Controller Revision 1.1, Aug. 27, 2004
`GOOG-1023 Press Release, GlobalPlatform Leads the Way to Cross-Industry
`Standardization with Open Platform Version 2.1 (May 16, 2001),
`at https://globalplatform.org/latest-news/globalplatform-leads-the-
`way-to-cross-industry-standardization-with-open-platform-
`version-2-1/ (last visited Mar. 24, 2021) (“Press Release,
`GlobalPlatform”)
`GOOG-1024 GlobalPlatform, Card Specification Version 2.1.1 (Mar. 2003)
`GOOG-1025 GlobalPlatform, Guide to Common Personalization Version 1.0
`(Mar. 2003)
`GOOG-1026 Smart Card Alliance, Near Field Communication (NFC) and
`Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation
`Considerations (Feb. 2012) (“Smart Card Alliance”)
`GOOG-1027 GlobalPlatform, Concise Guide to Worldwide Implementations of
`GlobalPlatform Technology (Feb. 4, 2006) (“GlobalPlatform
`Implementation Overview”)
`GOOG-1028 Yukari Iwatani Kane, “DoCoMo Launches Phones that Could
`Replace Wallets,” Reuters (June 16, 2004)
`GOOG-1029 Yukari Iwatani Kane, “DoCoMo Mobile Phones to Double as
`Train Pass,” Reuters (Feb. 22, 2005)
`GOOG-1030 “JR East to Expand Functions of Mobile Suica Service,” Japan
`Econ. Newswire Plus (Sept. 5, 2006)
`GOOG-1031 Press Release, PR Newswire Europe, Nokia Ventures
`Organization, Nokia Announces the World's First NFC Enabled
`Mobile Product for Contactless Payment and Ticketing (Feb. 9,
`2005)
`GOOG-1032 Ummear Ahmad Khan, Contactless Payment with Near Field
`Communication: An Empirical Study in Ubiquitous Computing
`
`7
`
`
`
`GOOG-1034
`(NEW)
`
`GOOG-1035
`(NEW)
`
`GOOG-1036
`(NEW)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`Context (May 2, 2006) (Master thesis, University of OSLO, Dept.
`of Informatics)
`GOOG-1033 Press Release, Business Wire, Royal Philips Electronics,
`Technology Simplifies Travel for Consumers (Apr. 19, 2006)
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, RFCyber
`Corp. v. Google LLC et al., 2:20-cv-00274, ECF No. 101 (E.D.
`Tex.) (Aug. 19, 2021)
`Google LLC’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of
`Motion to Transfer or Dismiss, RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et
`al., 2:20-cv-00274, ECF No. 103 (E.D. Tex.) (Aug. 27, 2021)
`Defendants’ Motion to Transfer or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss
`for Improper Venue, RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al., 2:20-
`cv-00274, ECF No. 24 (redacted public version) (E.D. Tex.) (Dec.
`9, 2020) (original sealed version filed Dec. 7, 2020 (ECF No. 20))
`Complaint, RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al.,
`2:20-cv-00335, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2020)
`Complaint, RFCyber Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2:20-cv-00336,
`ECF No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2020)
`Docket Sheet, RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al., 2:20-cv-
`00274 (E.D. Tex.) (RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et
`al., 2:20-cv-00335 consolidated with RFCyber Corp. v. Google
`LLC et al., 2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.))
`Complaint, RFCyber Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00916, ECF
`No. 1 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2021)
`
`GOOG-1037
`(NEW)
`GOOG-1038
`(NEW)
`GOOG-1039
`(NEW)
`
`GOOG-1040
`(NEW)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787)
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that service was made on
`the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`Date of service September 15, 2021
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com;
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com;
`ffabricant@fabricantllp.com; eiturralde@fabricantllp.com;
`rcowell@fabricantllp.com; ptab@fabricantllp.com
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response; and Exhibits GOOG-1034 to GOOG-1040
`
`Persons served Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Alfred R. Fabricant (subject to motion to appear pro hac vice)
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`Richard Cowell
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Andrew S. Ehmke/
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 50,271
`
`
`9
`
`