`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 to Koh et al.
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2021-00979
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-18 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,118,218
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW ........................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and Service
`Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................. 4 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ......................................... 5 
`III. 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D) ....... 5 
`V. 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 5 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 5 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenges Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested .............................................................................................. 6 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’218 PATENT ............................................................ 6 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 6 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6 
`VII.  PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS ARE NEW AND DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC & FINTIV .. 8 
`General Plastic ...................................................................................... 9 
`A. 
`Fintiv .................................................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`VIII.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ................... 11 
`IX.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12 
`X.  OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 12 
`A.  Dua (Ex-1004) ..................................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`GlobalPlatform .................................................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Philips .................................................................................................. 14 
`D.  Davis .................................................................................................... 16 
`XI.  DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 17 
`A.  Ground 1: Dua in view of GlobalPlatform and Philips render obvious
`claims 1-6, 10-14, and 18 .................................................................... 17 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`B. 
`
`Scope, Content and Motivation/Rationale for Combining the
`1. 
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 17 
`2. 
`Challenged Claims .................................................................... 20 
`Ground 2: Dua in view of GlobalPlatform, Philips and Davis render
`obvious claims 7-9 and 15-17. ............................................................ 61 
`1. 
`Scope, Content and Motivation/Rationale for Combining the
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 61 
`2. 
`Challenged Claims .................................................................... 68 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 75 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Agis Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24195 (E.D. Tex. Fed. 9, 2021) .................................... 11
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp.,
`IPR2021-00954 ..................................................................................................... 3
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp.,
`IPR2021-00955 ..................................................................................................... 3
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp.,
`IPR2021-00956 ..................................................................................................... 3
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp.,
`IPR2021-00957 ..................................................................................................... 3
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp.,
`PGR2021-00028 and -00029 ................................................................................ 3
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations,
`LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) ................................... 15, 16, 17
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`Qualcomm v. Monterey Research
`(IPR2020-01493) ............................................................................................ 9, 10
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al.,
`2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 2
`RFCyber Corp v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`2:20-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 2
`RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`2:20-cv-00335 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 3, 4, 10, 11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (Oct. 21, 2020) ......................................................... 11
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 12, 13, 14
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ........................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) .......................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ...................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`Other Authorities
`IPR2021-00978, -00980, -00981 ............................................................................... 4
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`CLAIM LISTING
`
`[Claim 1-Preamble] A method for providing an e-purse, the method
`
`comprising:
`
`[1a] providing a portable device including or communicating with a smart
`
`card pre-loaded with an emulator configured to execute a request from an e-purse
`
`applet and provide a response the e-purse applet is configured to expect,
`
`[1b] the portable device including a memory space loaded with a midlet that
`
`is configured to facilitate communication between the e-purse applet and a
`
`payment server over a wireless network,
`
`[1c] wherein the e-purse applet is downloaded and installed in the smart card
`
`when the smart card is in communication with the payment server,
`
`[1d] the portable device further includes a contactless interface that
`
`facilitates communication between the e-purse applet in the smart card and the
`
`payment server over a wired network;
`
`[1e] personalizing the e-purse applet by reading off data from the smart card
`
`to generate in the smart card one or more operation keys that are subsequently used
`
`to establish a secured channel between the e-purse applet and an e-purse security
`
`authentication module (SAM) external to the smart card,
`
`[1f-1] wherein said personalizing the e-purse applet comprises: establishing
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`an initial security channel between the smart card and the e-purse SAM to install
`
`and personalize the e-purse applet in the smart card, and
`
`[1f-2] creating a security channel on top of the initial security channel to
`
`protect subsequent operations of the smart card with the e-purse SAM,
`
`[1f-3] wherein any subsequent operation of the emulator is conducted over
`
`the security channel via the e-purse applet.
`
`Claim 2:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the operation keys include one or
`
`more of a load key and a purchase key, default personal identification numbers
`
`(PINs), administration keys, and passwords.
`
`Claim 3:
`
`[3a] The method as recited in claim 2, wherein at least some of the
`
`operation keys are used to establish a first secured channel so that various data is
`
`exchanged between the e-purse applet and the payment server, and
`
`[3b] at least another some of the operation keys are used to establish a
`
`second secured channel so that various data is exchanged between the e-purse
`
`applet and the e-purse SAM originally used to issue the e-purse as well as between
`
`the emulator and the existing SAM.
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 2, wherein said personalizing the e-purse
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`applet is done over a wireless network or a wired network.
`
`Claim 5:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 4, wherein, when said personalizing the e-
`
`purse applet is done over a wireless network, the midlet in the portable device is
`
`configured to facilitate communications between the e-purse and the payment
`
`server.
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 5, wherein both of the e-purse applet and the
`
`emulator are personalized as a result of said personalizing the e-purse applet.
`
`Claim 7:
`
`[7a] The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: initiating a
`
`request from the e-purse after valid personal identification numbers are entered and
`
`accepted on the portable device;
`
`[7b] sending a request by the midlet to the e-purse applet that is configured
`
`to compose a response to be sent to the midlet;
`
`[7c] transporting the response to the payment server that is configured to
`
`verify that the response is from an authenticated e-purse, wherein the payment
`
`server further communicates with a financial institution to authorize a transaction
`
`therewith; and
`
`[7d] sending a server response from the payment server to the midlet that is
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`configured to process the server response before releasing the server response to
`
`the e-purse applet.
`
`Claim 8:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 7, wherein messages exchanged between the
`
`midlet and the payment server are in a type of commands encapsulated in network
`
`messages.
`
`Claim 9:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 8, wherein the commands are applicable for
`
`APDU which stands for Application Protocol Data Unit.
`
`Claim 10:
`
`
`
`The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the e-purse is funded through a
`
`financial institution that maintains an account for a user being associated with the
`
`portable device, and the e-purse supports transactions in either e-commerce or m-
`
`commerce.
`
`Claim 11:
`
`[Claim 11-Preamble] A system for providing an e-purse, the system
`
`comprising:
`
`[11a] a portable device including or communicating with a smart card pre-
`
`loaded with an emulator configured to execute a request from and provide a
`
`response an e-purse applet is configured to expect,
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`[11b] the portable device including a memory space loaded with a midlet
`
`that is configured to facilitate wireless communication between the e-purse applet
`
`in the smart card and a payment server over a wireless network,
`
`[11c] the portable device further including a contactless interface that
`
`facilitates communication between the e-purse applet in the smart card and the
`
`payment server over a wired network,
`
`[11d] wherein the e-purse applet is downloaded from the payment server
`
`when the smart card is in communication with the payment server, and
`
`[11e] operations of personalizing the e-purse applet comprises: establishing
`
`an initial security channel between the smart card and the e-purse security
`
`authentication module (SAM) to install and personalize the e-purse applet in the
`
`smart card, and
`
`[11f-1] creating a security channel on top of the initial security channel to
`
`protect subsequent operations of the smart card with the e-purse SAM,
`
`[11f-2] wherein any subsequent operation of the emulator is conducted over
`
`the security channel via the e-purse applet;
`
`[11g] the payment server associated with an issuer authorizing the e-purse
`
`applet; and
`
`[11h] the e-purse SAM configured to enable the e-purse applet, wherein an
`
`SAM is behind the payment server and in communication with the e-purse applet
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`when the e-purse applet is caused to communicate with the payment server via the
`
`midlet.
`
`Claim 12:
`
`
`
`The system as recited in claim 11, wherein both of the e-purse applet and
`
`emulator are personalized by reading off data from the smart card, the data is then
`
`used to generate operation keys for the e-purse applet.
`
`Claim 13:
`
`
`
`The system as recited in claim 12, wherein the operation keys include one or
`
`more of a load key and a purchase key, default personal identification numbers
`
`(PINs), administration keys, and passwords.
`
`Claim 14:
`
`[14a] The system as recited in claim 13, wherein at least some of the
`
`operation keys are used to establish a first secured channel so that various data is
`
`exchanged between the e-purse applet and the payment server, and
`
`[14b] at least another some of the operation keys are used to establish a
`
`second secured channel so that various data is exchanged between the e-purse
`
`applet and an existing security authentication module (SAM) originally used to
`
`issue the e-purse as well as between the emulator and the existing SAM.
`
`Claim 15:
`
`[15a] The system as recited in claim 11, wherein, when the portable device
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`is used to have a transaction, there are operations of: initiating a request from the e-
`
`purse after valid personal identification numbers are entered and accepted on the
`
`portable device;
`
`[15b] sending a request by the midlet to the e-purse applet that is configured
`
`to compose a response to be sent to the midlet;
`
`[15c] transporting the response to the payment server that is configured to
`
`verify that the response is from an authenticated e-purse, wherein the payment
`
`server further communicates with a financial institution to authorize a transaction
`
`therewith; and
`
`[15d] sending a server response from the payment server to the midlet that is
`
`configured to process the server response before releasing the server response to
`
`the e-purse applet.
`
`Claim 16:
`
`
`
`The system as recited in claim 15, wherein messages exchanged between the
`
`midlet and the payment server are in a type of commands encapsulated in network
`
`messages.
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`The system as recited in claim 16, wherein the commands are applicable for
`
`APDU which stands for Application Protocol Data Unit.
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 18:
`
`
`
`The system as recited in claim 11, wherein the e-purse is funded through a
`
`financial institution that maintains an account for a user being associated with the
`
`portable device.
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 (“’218 patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 (“’218 FH”)
`
`Declaration of Gerald Smith Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,118,218
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0165060 (“Dua”)
`
`Defendants’ Contingent Election Regarding Invalidity Defenses,
`RFCyber Corp v. Google LLC et al., Case Nos. 2:20-cv-00274-
`JRG and 2:20-cv-00335-JRG, DKT. 60, dated June 8, 2021
`
`GlobalPlatform Card Specification Version 2.1.1 (March 2003)
`(“GlobalPlatform” or “GP”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 (“’855 FH”)
`
`Smart Card Handbook Third Edition, by Wolfgang Rankl and
`Wolfgang Effing (2003)
`
`Common Electronic Purse Specifications, Technical
`Specification Version 2.3 (March 2001)
`
`SmartMX, P5CD009 Secure Dual Interface PKI Smart Card
`Controller, Short Form Specification (Rev. 1.0 – 2004 March 26)
`
`SmartMX, P5CD036 Secure Dual Interface PKI Smart Card
`Controller, Short Form Specification (Rev. 1.0 – 2004 March 26)
`
`SmartMX, P5CT072 Secure Dual Interface PKI Smart Card
`Controller, Short Form Specification (Rev. 1.3 – 4 October
`2004)
`
`Mifare proX, P8RF6016 Secure Dual Interface Smart Card IC,
`Short Form Specification (Revision 1.0 – November 2003)
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`ETSI TS 102 226 V6.12.0 (2005-09), “Smart cards; Remote
`APDU structure for UICC based applications (Release 6)”
`
`Wenninger et al., “The Electronic Purse,” in Current Issues in
`Economics and Finance, Volume 1, Number 1, Federal Reserve
`Bank of New York (April 1995).
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/782,948
`
`Excerpt from Cambridge Business English Dictionary
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,983,882
`
`RFID Handbook – Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals
`and Applications, Klaus Finkenzeller, John Wiley & Son, Ltd.
`(1999)
`
`Mifare Standard Card IC MF1 IC S50 Functional Specification;
`Product Specification Revision 5.0, Philips Semiconductors
`(November 1999)
`
`ISO/IEC 7816-4:1995 Interindustry commands for interchange
`(May 1995)
`
`U.S. Government General Services Administration (GSA) Smart
`Card Handbook (FEB 2004)
`
`“Here Comes The Wallet Phone,” IEEE Spectrum, November
`2005
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 (“’787 FH”)
`
`PCT Application Publication No. WO 98/49658 A1 to Visa
`International Service Association (“Davis”)
`
`RFC 3261, SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, The Internet Society
`(June 2002).
`
`Hargrave’s Communications Dictionary, IEEE Press, p. 24
`(defining “applet”) (excerpted)
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0177045
`
`European Patent No. 1,369,842
`
`PCT Publication No. WO02/241236
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,792,536
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0005050
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,748,636
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,636
`
`NXP Semiconductors 2006 Annual Report
`
`SEC Report: Amendment No 1 to Form F-1 Registration
`Statement, filed by NXP Semiconductors, March 22, 2011
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0208066
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,498,898 to Kogen et al. (“Kogen”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0196931
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`
`
`
`xv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. hereby
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`seek inter partes review of Claims 1-18 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,118,218.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The ’218 patent claims the use of an “electronic purse” or “e-purse” in
`
`electronic commerce and mobile commerce. Ex-1001, 1:8-11, 8:35-10:63. The e-
`
`purse allows a user to conduct transactions over a wireless network or through a
`
`radio frequency identification (“RFID”) reader using the stored value in the smart
`
`card of the user’s mobile phone. Ex-1001, 1:7-19, 3:54-55, 3:63-66, 4:62-64; Ex-
`
`1002, p.131 (“an e-purse in the instant application describes about [sic] electronic
`
`money in a local portable device”).1 But e-purses a.k.a “stored value cards” were
`
`well-known. Ex-1008, pp.685-6862; Ex-1003, ¶¶83-87. Even in 1995 e-purses were
`
`used with “vending machines, phones, trains, buses, and parking meters.” Ex-1015,
`
`pp.1-2.
`
`The ’218 patent requires the electronic purse be included on a smart card3 for
`
`use in a mobile device. Ex-1001, 8:37-52. But the inventors of the ’218 patent do
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`2 Citations to Ex-1008 are to the actual page numbers of the book.
`
`3 Smart cards, which were introduced at least as of the early 1990s, are plastic cards
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`not purport to have invented the smart card, recognizing that Java-enabled smart
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`cards, like the SmartMX card, were available and that SmartMX already included a
`
`preloaded emulator. Ex-1001, 4:53-56, 4:60-5:2; Ex-1003, ¶¶89-94. Finally, the
`
`’218 claims specify use of the well-known GlobalPlatform system to personalize the
`
`e-purse applet (or an emulator) to provide secure communications over a dedicated
`
`channel. Ex-1001, 5:50-54, 6:23-25, 8:36-67; Ex-1003, ¶¶71-78. As shown below,
`
`the claims of the ’218 patent merely recite familiar elements employed in known
`
`manner to yield predicable results, rendering them obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW
`A. Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`The real parties-in-interest in this petition are Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Petitioners identify the following related matters:
`
` RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al., 2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.) (the
`
`Google case”);
`
` RFCyber Corp v. LG Electronics, Inc., 2:20-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`with an embedded computer chip that can be used for “storing, retrieving, and
`
`manipulating data.” Ex-1015, p.1; Ex-1008, pp.2-4.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
` RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 2:20-cv-00335
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (the “Samsung case”);
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., PGR2021-00028 and -00029
`
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046;
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2021-00954 concerning U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,448,855;
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2021-00955 concerning U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,189,787;
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2021-00956 concerning U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,240,009; and
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2021-00957 concerning the ’218
`
`patent.
`
`Petitioners are aware that certain patent applications claiming the benefit of
`
`one or more patents related to the challenged patent remain pending before the Office
`
`including at least the following applications: 13/782,948, 16/234,587, and
`
`17,316,688.
`
`Petitioners are a party to the Samsung case, which is in its earliest stages: a
`
`scheduling conference occurred on May 12 and RFCyber’s Infringement
`
`Contentions were served that day. Discovery has just begun. Petitioners are not a
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`party to any of the other proceedings identified above; however, the Samsung case
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`has been consolidated with the Google case for pretrial purposes.
`
`Petitioners will file IPR Petitions against related family members to the ’218
`
`patent, including against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,448,855 (“the ’855 patent”), 9,189,787
`
`(“the ’787 patent”), and 9,240,009 (“the ’009 patent”), all of which are asserted in
`
`the Samsung case. See IPR2021-00978, -00980, -00981.
`
`The undersigned is unaware of any other any other judicial or administrative
`
`matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and Service
`Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`Petitioners designate the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-7418
`Facsimile: 720-904-6118
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`Backup Counsel
`Allan A. Kassenoff (pro hac vice
`forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 801-9200
`Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
`KassenoffA@gtlaw.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 703-749-1370
`Facsimile: 703-749-1301
`SommerA@gtlaw.com
`Backup Counsel
`Jeffrey R. Colin
`forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 801-9200
`Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
`ColinJ@gtlaw.com
`
`(pro hac vice
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`Service on Petitioners may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg Traurig,
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`LLP, 1144 15th St., Suite 3300, Denver, CO 80202. Petitioners also consent to and
`
`prefers electronic service by emailing Samsung-RFCyber-iprs@gtlaw.com and
`
`counsel of record (shown above).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`Petitioners authorize the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2638 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D)
`Petitioners certify that the word count in this Petition is 13,734 words, as
`
`counted by the word-processing program Microsoft Word for Office 365 used to
`
`generate this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table
`
`of authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and
`
`this certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word
`
`limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’218 patent is available for inter partes review, and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR on the Grounds
`
`identified in the Petition.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`B. Identification of Challenges Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`The Challenged Claims should be cancelled based on the following Grounds:
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Ground
`
`’218 Patent Claim(s)
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-6, 10-14, and 18
`
`7-9 and 15-17
`
`Rendered obvious by Dua (Ex-
`1004) in view of GlobalPlatform
`(Ex-1006) and Philips (Ex-1012)
`
`by Dua,
`obvious
`Rendered
`GlobalPlatform, Philips and Davis
`(Ex-1025)
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’218 PATENT
`A. Overview
`An overview of the ’218 patent is given in Section I.
`
`B. Effective Filing Date
`September 24, 2006 is the earliest effective filing date of the ’218 patent.
`
`C. Prosecution History
`The ’218 patent matured from application no. 11/534,653 application, whose
`
`claims were rejected multiple times over the prior art, which included Shmueli
`
`(US2002/0145632), Atsmon (US6607136), and Nystrom (US2009/0313689). Ex-
`
`1002, pp.57-66, 102-114, and 134-150. After the original claims were rejected as
`
`anticipated by Shmueli, Applicants substantially amended the independent claims,
`
`requiring an e-purse applet (as opposed to just an e-purse), and two security
`
`channels: an initial security channel and another security channel created “on top of”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`the initial security channel. Id., pp.75-77, 81. Applicants argued the Shmueli did
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`not disclose a two-level security channel scheme and clarified the initial and
`
`subsequent security channels and the emulator. Id., 81.
`
`Nonetheless, the Examiner finally rejected the claims based on the
`
`combination of Shmueli and Atsmon. Id., pp.102-114. In response, Applicants
`
`made minor claim amendments and repeated its arguments that the prior art did not
`
`disclose the claimed two-level security channel scheme or emulator. Id., pp.123-
`
`132.
`
`The Examiner next rejected the claims over Shmueli in view of Nystrom. Id.,
`
`pp.132-150. The Examiner continued to argue that Shmueli described two-level
`
`security and hardware/software meeting the definition of “emulator,” per the ’218
`
`patent. Id., pp.147-148. A telephonic interview was conducted (id., pp.229-231),
`
`after which Applicants filed the response that resulted in allowance.4 Id., pp.212-
`
`223, 232-242. The independent claims were amended to require:
`
` the emulator be “configured to execute a request from an e-purse applet
`
`and provide a response the e-purse applet is configured to expect,”
`
` the e-purse applet is “downloaded and installed in the smart card when
`
`
`4 The Examiner’s reasons for allowance merely quoted the entirety of the claim
`
`language. Id., pp.239-241.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`the smart card is in communication with the payment server.”
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Id., pp.213, 215. Independent claim 1 further required the generation of the
`
`“operation keys” “in the smart card.” Id., p.213. Applicants clarified the emulator
`
`may be a MIFARE® emulator, the smart card includes the emulator, the smart card
`
`is a computing device, and the e-purse applet is dynamically installed and
`
`personalized, i.e., it “is NOT pre-installed.” Id., pp.219-220.
`
`The prior art cited herein discloses the limitations Applicants contended were
`
`missing from the prior art as well as all other limitations of the claims. Accordingly,
`
`the Grounds presented in this IPR are new.
`
`VII. PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS ARE NEW AND DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC &
`FINTIV
`During prosecution of the ’218 patent, Patentee argued that the prior art failed
`
`to disclose two-level security, downloading and installing an e-purse applet,
`
`personalizing the e-purse applet, and an emulator configured to execute a request
`
`from an e-purse applet and provide a response the e-purse applet is configured to
`
`expect. Supra §VI.C. These features—as well as the other features of the
`
`Challenged Claims—are obvious over references that were not of record during
`
`prosecution of the ’218 patent: Dua, GlobalPlatform, Philips, and Davis.5 The prior
`
`
`5 Although GlobalPlatform and MIFARE® emulation are discussed in the ’218
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,118,218
`IPR2021-00979
`art of Petitioners’ Grounds was not cited/considered by the Office.
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`A. General Plastic
`As noted in the Mandatory Notices, Google has filed an IPR against this
`
`patent. Petitioners submit that the General Plastic factors weigh against exercising
`
`discretionary denial. Indeed, the present circumstance is consistent with those in
`
`Qualcomm v. Monterey Research (IPR2020-01493) Paper 11, (Mar. 21, 2021) where
`
`the Board declined to exercise discretionary denial.
`
`Specifically, the present IPR cites different prior art and grounds than the
`
`Google IPR. There is also no significant relationship between the parties. While
`
`Google and Samsung are joint defendants in a corresponding litigation, Samsung
`
`and Google are distinct parties represented by different counsel and simply being
`
`co-defendants challenging the same patent’s claims is insufficient to establish a
`
`significant relationship. Id., p.16. Moreover, Patentee’s infringement contentions
`
`were only served May 12, Google’s IPR was filed May 19, and Petitioners filed this
`
`independent Petition promptly thereafter after evaluating Google’s IPR to ensur