`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. 9,189,787 to Koh et al.
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2021-00980
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-19 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,787
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW ........................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 3 
`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 ............................ 6 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 6 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested .............................................................................................. 6 
`VI.  THE ’787 PATENT ......................................................................................... 6 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 6 
`C. 
`’787 Patent’s Prosecution ...................................................................... 6 
`1. 
`The ’218 patent ........................................................................... 7 
`2. 
`The ’855 patent ........................................................................... 7 
`3. 
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/903,420 (the ’787 patent) ......... 8 
`VII.  PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS ARE NEW AND DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC & FINTIV .. 9 
`General Plastic .................................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`Fintiv .................................................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`VIII.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .......................................... 12 
`IX.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`X.  OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 14 
`A.  Dua ...................................................................................................... 14 
`B. 
`GlobalPlatform .................................................................................... 14 
`C. 
`Philips .................................................................................................. 15 
`XI.  DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 17 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`A.  Ground 1: Dua in view of GlobalPlatform and Philips render obvious
`claims 1-19 .......................................................................................... 17 
`1. 
`Scope, Content and Motivation/Rationale for Combining the
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 17 
`2. 
`Challenged Claims .................................................................... 20 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59 
`
`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) .................................... 12
`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) ............................. 16, 17, 18, 22
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`Qualcomm v. Monterey Research
`(IPR2020-01493) .......................................................................................... 10, 11
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al.,
`2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 3
`RFCyber Corp v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`2:20-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 3
`RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`2:20-cv-00335 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 3, 4, 12
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (Oct. 21, 2020) ......................................................... 12
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 13, 14, 15
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ............................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`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) .......................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D).................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 2144.04(V) ................................................................................................. 58
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`CLAIM LISTING
`
`
`[Claim 1-PREAMBLE] A portable device for commerce, the portable device
`
`comprising:
`
`[1a] an emulator loaded in a smart card module for storing security values and
`
`updated transaction logs, and
`
`[1b] an e-purse applet to cause the portable device to function as an electronic
`
`purse (e-purse),
`
`[1c] wherein both of the emulator and e-purse applet are already personalized
`
`via a personalization process built on a first security channel so that the emulator is
`
`set to store a set of keys for subsequent data access authentication and the e-purse
`
`applet is configured to conduct a transaction with a network server over a second
`
`security channel;
`
`[1d] a first interface configured to perform field communication (NFC) with
`
`a reader to perform electronic commerce with the e-purse applet against a fund stored
`
`in the emulator;
`
`[1e] a second interface configured to perform mobile commerce with a
`
`payment server via an application against the fund stored in the emulator; and
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`[1f] a purse manager midlet being executed in the portable device to act as an
`
`agent to facilitate communications between the e-purse applet and a payment server
`
`to conduct transactions therebetween.
`
`Claim 2:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 1, further comprising a security module
`
`configured to install and personalize the e-purse applet via either the first interface
`
`or the second interface, wherein the keys are updated when the personalization
`
`process built on the first security channel completes.
`
`Claim 3:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 1, wherein the e-purse is built on top
`
`of a global platform to be able to access MIFARE data structures with an appropriate
`
`transformed password based on the keys in the emulator, wherein the global platform
`
`is a cross-industry membership organization created to advance standards for smart
`
`card growth.
`
`Claim 4:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 1, wherein the first interface is based
`
`on a RFID interface that allows the portable device to act as a tag to be read off by
`
`the reader connected to a computing device coupled to the Internet.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 5:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 4, wherein a web agent on the
`
`computing device is configured to interact with the RFID reader and the network
`
`server, the agent sends commands or receives responses thereto through the RFID
`
`reader to/from the e-purse applet, and on the other hand, the agent composes network
`
`requests and receives responses thereto from the network server.
`
`Claim 6:
`
`[6a] The portable device as recited in claim 1, wherein the first security
`
`channel is an initial security channel between the smart card module and a security
`
`authentication module (SAM) external to the smart card module to install and
`
`personalize the e-purse applet, and
`
`[6b] the second security channel is a security channel on top of the initial
`
`security channel to protect subsequent operations of the smart card module with the
`
`SAM, wherein any subsequent operation is conducted over the security channel via
`
`the e-purse applet.
`
`Claim 7:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 6, wherein essential data being
`
`personalized include one or more operation keys, default PINs, administration keys
`
`and passwords.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 8:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 1, wherein the smart card module is
`
`part of the portable device.
`
`Claim 9:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 1, wherein the smart card module is an
`
`external device inserted into the portable device.
`
`Claim 10:
`
`The portable device as recited in claim 1, wherein the purse manager midlet
`
`is configured to access the emulator directly.
`
`Claim 11:
`
`[Claim 11-PREAMBLE] A method for a portable device for commerce, the
`
`method comprising:
`
`[11a] loading a smart card module with an emulator for storing security values
`
`and updated transaction logs, and
`
`[11b] an e-purse applet to cause the portable device to function as an
`
`electronic purse (e-purse);
`
`[11c] personalizing the emulator and the e-purse applet via a personalization
`
`process built on a first security channel so that the emulator is set to store a set of
`
`keys for subsequent data access authentication and the e-purse applet is configured
`
`to conduct a transaction with a network server over a second security channel;
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`[11d] performing near field communication (NFC) via a first interface with a
`
`reader to perform electronic commerce with the e-purse applet against a fund stored
`
`in the emulator; and
`
`[11e] performing mobile commerce via a second interface with a payment
`
`server via an application against the fund stored in the emulator,
`
`[11f] wherein the application is executed in the portable device to act as an
`
`agent to facilitate communications between the e-purse applet and a payment server
`
`to conduct transactions therebetween.
`
`Claim 12:
`
`The method as recited in claim 11, wherein a security module in the portable
`
`device is configured to install and personalize the e-purse applet via either the first
`
`interface or the second interface, wherein the keys are updated when the
`
`personalization process built on the first security channel completes.
`
`Claim 13:
`
`The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the e-purse is built on top of a
`
`global platform to be able to access MIFARE data structures with an appropriate
`
`transformed password based on the keys in the emulator, wherein the global platform
`
`is a cross-industry membership organization created to advance standards for smart
`
`card growth.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 14:
`
`The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the first interface is based on a
`
`RFID interface that allows the portable device to act as a tag to be read off by the
`
`reader connected to a computing device coupled to the Internet.
`
`Claim 15:
`
`The method as recited in claim 14, wherein a web agent on the computing
`
`device is configured to interact with the RFID reader and the network server, the
`
`agent sends commands or receives responses thereto through the RFID reader
`
`to/from the e-purse applet, and on the other hand, the agent composes network
`
`requests and receives responses thereto from the network server.
`
`Claim 16:
`
`[16a] The method as recited in claim 11, wherein said personalizing of the
`
`emulator and the e-purse applet comprises: establishing an initial security channel
`
`between the smart card module and a security authentication module (SAM) external
`
`to the smart card module to install and personalize the e-purse applet in the card
`
`module, and
`
`[16b] creating a security channel on top of the initial security channel to
`
`protect subsequent operations of the smart card module with the SAM, wherein any
`
`subsequent operation is conducted over the security channel via the e-purse applet.
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 17:
`
`The method as recited in claim 16, wherein essential data being personalized
`
`include one or more operation keys, default PINs, administration keys and
`
`passwords.
`
`Claim 18:
`
`The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the smart card module is part of
`
`the portable device.
`
`Claim 19:
`
`The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the smart card module is an
`
`external device inserted into the portable device.
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 (“’787 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)
`
`xii
`
`

`

`
`
`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)
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`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
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. hereby
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`seek inter partes review of Claims 1-19 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,189,787. Ex-1001 (the “’787 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The ’787 patent relates to portable devices using an “electronic purse” or “e-
`
`purse.” Ex-1001, 1:17-21, 8:49-10:56. 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, 1:17-29, 3:64-65, 4:6-9, 5:6-8; 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., 486-488, 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 ’787 patent claims an emulator loaded in a smart card module.3 Ex-1001,
`
`8:51. But the inventors of the ’787 patent do not purport to have invented the smart
`
`
`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
`
`with an embedded computer chip that can be used for “storing, retrieving, and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`card, recognizing that Java-enabled smart cards, like the SmartMX card, were
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`available and that SmartMX already included a preloaded emulator. Ex-1001, 4:58-
`
`67, 5:4-8; Ex-1003, ¶¶89-94. The ’787 patent claims personalizing of the smart card
`
`emulator and “e-purse applets” with keys to provide for secure communications. Id.,
`
`8:49-11:56. The claimed personalization process is lifted from GlobalPlatform. Id.,
`
`5:61-6:3. GlobalPlatform was widely used prior to the ’787 patent, Ex-1008, p.290-
`
`293, and smart card personalization was industry standard to ensure cryptographic
`
`communications occurred between the card and off-card entities. Id., pp.18-21
`
`(overview of smart cards and personalization), 598, 638-647 (Phase 3 of smart card
`
`life cycle includes personalization); 177-181 (explaining basic smart card cryptology
`
`that is “firmly established”); 202-203 (DES or triple DES keys are “usually” used
`
`for smart card cryptographs); Ex-1006, pp.203, 219 (DES/3DES keys shall be used
`
`with GlobalPlatform for all Secure Channel communications). GlobalPlatform also
`
`commonly managed “applets.” Ex-1008, p.474. In sum, the claims of the ’787
`
`patent merely recite familiar elements employed in known manner to yield
`
`predicable results, rendering them obvious.
`
`
`manipulating data.” Ex-1015, p.1; Ex-1008, pp.2-4.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`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 identifies 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.);
`
` RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 2:20-cv-00335
`
`(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 the ’787
`
`patent;
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2021-00956 concerning U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,240,009; and
`
` Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2021-00957 concerning U.S. Patent
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`No. 8,118,218.
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`party to any of the other proceedings identified above; however, the Samsung case
`
`has been consolidated with the Google case for pretrial purposes.
`
`Petitioners will file IPR Petitions against related family members to the ’787
`
`patent, including against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,118,218 (“the ’218 patent”), 8,448,855
`
`(“the ’855 patent”), and 9,240,009 (“the ’009 patent”), all of which are asserted in
`
`the Samsung case. See IPR2021-00978, -00979, -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
`
`Backup Counsel
`Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`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
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`Service on Petitioners may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg Traurig,
`
`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 11,168 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`this certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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 ’787 patent is available for inter partes review, and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR on the Ground
`
`identified herein.
`
`B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`The Challenged Claims should be cancelled based on the following Ground:
`
`Ground
`
`’787 Patent Claim(s)
`
`Identification for Challenge
`
`1
`
`1-19
`
`Rendered obvious by Dua (Ex-
`1004) in view of GlobalPlatform
`(Ex-1006) and Philips (Ex-1012)
`
`VI. THE ’787 PATENT
`A. Overview
`An overview of the ’787 patent is given in Section I.
`
`B. Effective Filing Date
`To resolve Petitioners’ challenge the Board may presume that the effective
`
`filing date of the ’787 patent is September 24, 2006.
`
`C. ’787 Patent’s Prosecution
`The ’787 patent is a continuation of the ’855 patent, which is a continuation
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`of the ’218 patent. The references cited by the examiner during prosecution of the
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’218, ’855 and ’787 patents are not used herein.
`
`1. The ’218 patent
`The originally-filed claims were rejected as anticipated by Shmueli
`
`(US2002/0145632). Ex-1002, pp.60-64. In response, Applicants amended the
`
`claims to add features including steps of “establishing an initial security channel”
`
`and “creating the security channel on top of the initial security channel to protect
`
`subsequent operations of the smart card with the e-purse SAM,” and argued Shmueli
`
`did not disclose these features. Id., pp.75-81
`
`Over the course of several actions, the examiner rejected the claims over
`
`combinations of Shmueli in view of Atsmon (US6,607,136) and Shmueli in view of
`
`Nystrom (US2009/0313689). Id., pp.107, 136-146. Applicants contended that none
`
`of Shmueli, Atsmon, or Nystrom disclosed the claimed two-level security channel
`
`scheme. Id., pp.124, 129-131. After an interview, Applicants argued that the prior
`
`art failed to disclose personalization of the e-purse applet “using (two-level) security
`
`means.” Id., pp.220-222, 230. The claims were then allowed and the reasons for
`
`allowance quoted the independent claims. Id., pp.239-241.
`
`2. The ’855 patent
`The ’855 patent’s originally-filed claims were directed to a technique for
`
`funding an e-purse. Ex-1007, p.37. They were rejected over combinations involving
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`Staib
`(US2005/0222961), Davydov
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`(US2006/0171383),
`
`and
`
`Sarcanin
`
`(US2003/0145205). Id., pp.66-73, 101-109.
`
`The examiner also rejected the claims for indefiniteness because they recited
`
`the tradename SMARTMX. Id., p.66. Applicants refused to remove the tradename
`
`and admitted that SmartMX had been so “widely used in the industry through the
`
`years,” a POSITA would have been confused about “what the inherent technology
`
`is being meant [sic].” Id., p.89.
`
`After a first rejection based on Staib and Davydov (id., pp.63-75), Applicants
`
`amended the independent claims to require various limitations that did not result in
`
`allowance of the patent. Id., pp.82-93. However, the second rejection (id., pp.99-
`
`113) indicated that dependent claims 9 and 19—which recited the same two-level
`
`security claimed in the ’218 patent—were allowable; Applicants incorporated those
`
`limitations into the independent claims. Id., pp.118-125. The two-channel security
`
`requirements of original claims 9 and 19 provided the reasons for allowance. Id.,
`
`p.110.
`
`3. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/903,420 (the ’787 patent)
`The ’787 patent’s originally-filed claims were directed to portable devices
`
`having an e-purse applet to provide e-purse functionality. Ex-1024, p.1. They were
`
`rejected over combinations
`
`involving Staib
`
`(US2005/0222961), Moulart
`
`(US6,031,912) and Sarcanin (US2003/0145205). Ex-1024, pp. 50-60. In response,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`Applicants extensively amended the claims and argued that the prior art was
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`distinguished due to the emulator and two-level security of the claims. Id., pp.65-
`
`75. Applicants argued:
`
` “[T]he [claimed] emulator … emulates a data structure for storing
`
`security values and updated transaction logs. Therefore, it has to be
`
`personalized together with the e-purse applet via a personalization
`
`process.”
`
` The prior art did not teach/suggest “personalization of the emulator and
`
`the e-purse via ‘a personalization process built on a first security
`
`channel so that the emulator is set to store a set of keys for subsequent
`
`data access authentication and the e-purse applet is configured to
`
`conduct a transaction with a network server over a second security
`
`channel.’”
`
`Id., p.74. The application was subsequently allowed. Id., pp.81-90.
`
`VII. PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS ARE NEW AND DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC &
`FINTIV
`As noted above, Applicants’ prosecution arguments focused on Staib and
`
`Moulart allegedly failing to disclose two-level security and personalization of an e-
`
`purse applet and emulator that emulates a data structure for storing security values
`
`and updated transaction logs. Supra §VI.C.3. These features—as well as the other
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,189,787
`IPR2021-00980
`features of the Challenged Claims—are obvious over Dua, GlobalPlatform, and
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Philips.4 None of these references were cited during prosecution of the ’787, ’218
`
`or ’855 patents.
`
`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,