Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,600,046 and 11,018,724
`
`Oral Argument, October 24, 2023
`
`Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.;
`Case Nos. 2022-01239, 2022-01256
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 1
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,600,046 and 11,018,724
`
`Oral Argument, October 24, 2023
`
`Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.;
`Case Nos. 2022-01239, 2022-01256
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR 2022-01239 (’046 Patent) Grounds
`(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 12-14
`(cid:1) Laracey (Ex. 1004) in view of Jogu (Ex. 1005)
`
`(cid:1) Ground 2: Claim 17
`(cid:1) Laracey in view of Jogu and Tang (Ex. 1006)
`
`(cid:1) Ground 3: Claim 18
`(cid:1) Laracey in view of Jogu and Dorsey (Ex. 1007)
`
`Petition, 8 (identifying proposed grounds).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-2
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 2
`
`
`
`Primary Combination
`(cid:1) Laracey:
`(cid:1) Token from POS to mobile device
`(cid:1) Displaying invoice to user
`(cid:1) Allowing user to add tip and choose
`account for transaction
`(cid:1) Generating payment request and
`sending to payment gateway
`(cid:1) Jogu:
`(cid:1) Balance check on device
`(cid:1) Display denial if funds insufficient
`(cid:1) Payment request if funds sufficient
`(cid:1) Reduce local balance upon successful
`transaction
`
`Petition, 14-47.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-3
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 3
`
`
`
`Laracey – Static vs. Dynamic Tokens
`(cid:1) Static checkout token
`
`EX1004, [0036].
`
`Petition, 14-47; Reply, 4-10; EX1003, ¶¶80-81, 92; EX1028, ¶¶4-8.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-4
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 4
`
`
`
`Laracey – Static vs. Dynamic Tokens
`(cid:1) Dynamic checkout token
`
`EX1004, [0038], [0054]; Petition, 14-47; Reply, 4-10; EX1003, ¶¶80-81, 92; EX1028, ¶¶4-8.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-5
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 5
`
`
`
`Laracey + Jogu – Based on Dynamic Tokens
`(cid:1) Petition focuses on dynamic tokens
`(cid:1) Per Laracey’s express teachings, assumes no mobile<->TMS
`communications re transaction until payment request.
`
`Petition, 36-37.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-6
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 6
`
`
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`’046 Patent Remaining Disputes
`Laracey teaches software that stores electronic value
`1.
`2. The proposed combination maintains an e-purse on the
`mobile device
`PO’s shifting sands approach to “maintaining” must be
`rejected
`The Sur-Reply implicitly abandons argument that Laracey’s mobile
`device deletes account data after transaction
`2. New Sur-Reply theory demands mobile device store non-stale
`account balance to satisfy “maintaining” limitation
`Proposed Combination stores non-stale data, satisfying
`either theory advanced by PO
`3. A POSITA would have combined Laracey and Jogu
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-7
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 7
`
`
`
`PO Seeks to Improperly Limit Petitioner’s Reliance on
`Laracey’s E-Purse Software
`
`POR, 14.
`
`Sur-Reply, 1.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-8
`
`POR, 14.
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 8
`
`
`
`Petitioner Emphasized the Portion of Laracey’s
`Software Responsible for Storing Electronic Value
`
`Petition, 29.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-9
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 9
`
`
`
`There is no Legitimate Dispute:
`1) Laracey’s Transactions Are Conducted Via Software, and
`2) The Stored Value Account is Software that Stores Electronic Value
`
`(cid:1) PO’s expert agrees that Laracey’s transactions are conducted via software:
`(cid:1) Q. Do you agree that Laracey's mobile device executes software to perform
`its transaction functionality that we've been discussing today?
`(cid:1) A.Yes, it does.
`
`EX1029, 60:20-24.
`
`(cid:1) Petitioner’s expert explained that the “Stored Value Account” is the portion
`of software that stores value:
`
`EX1003, ¶100.
`Petitioner’s DX-10
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 10
`
`
`
`PO’s Shifting Sands Approach to “Maintain”
`The POR
`(cid:1) Maintain = Store
`(cid:1) PO argues that Laracey’s device doesn’t store account info
`between transactions, so it doesn’t “maintain” that data
`
`POR, 15-16.
`Petitioner’s DX-11
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 11
`
`
`
`PO’s Shifting Sands Approach to “Maintain”
`The POR (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) PO Expert: Account data deleted when transaction ends
`
`(cid:1) Q. So it's your opinion that account information in the form of a
`proxy is received by the mobile device at the start of a transaction
`and is retained by the device only for the duration of the transaction?
`(cid:1) A. It is -- well, the proxy or representation of the payment account is
`received by the mobile device either as a part of the authentication
`process or at the beginning of the transaction processing.
`(cid:1) Q. And what happens to that information when a transaction
`concludes?
`(cid:1) A. Well, when the -- that information would be purged by the mobile
`device because at the end of the transaction the data becomes stale
`and is no longer reliable.
`
`EX1029, 41:10-42:1.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-12
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 12
`
`
`
`PO’s Shifting Sands Approach to “Maintain”
`The Sur-Reply
`(cid:1) Maintain ≠ Store
`
`(cid:1) The POR did not advance such a theory
`
`Sur-Reply, 5.
`
`POR, 24-25; EX2001, ¶71 (alleging Laracey “only stor[es] proxy information for
`the duration of a transaction”)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-13
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 13
`
`
`
`PO’s Shifting Sands Approach to “Maintain”
`The Sur-Reply (cont.)
`(cid:1) Sur-Reply abandons argument that account data is deleted
`or purged at the conclusion of a transaction.
`
`(cid:1) PO’s entire remaining case turns on whether Laracey’s
`mobile device stores a “non-stale” account balance:
`
`Sur-Reply, 4.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-14
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 14
`
`
`
`PO’s Shifting Sands Approach to “Maintain”
`The Sur-Reply (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO repeatedly and consistently ties its “stale data” theory
`to its multiple device theory.
`
`EX2001, ¶84.
`
`EX2001, ¶65.
`
`Sur-Reply, 10.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-15
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 15
`
`
`
`Combination “Maintains” Account Balance
`Even Under PO’s New “Stale Data” Theory
`
`(cid:1) PO admits that stale data is not an issue if the account is
`accessed by only one device.
`
`Sur-Reply, 5.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-16
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 16
`
`
`
`The Proposed Combination relies on a single user and
`single device, avoiding any stale data issues
`
`EX1028, ¶12.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-17
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 17
`
`
`
`Consistent with the Proposed Combination, Laracey’s Only
`Specific Example Illustrates Users Registering a Single Device
`
`EX1004, Fig. 9.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-18
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 18
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have combined Laracey and Jogu
`
`POR, 14.
`
`Petition, 40-41.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-19
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 19
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have combined Laracey and Jogu (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO’s criticisms turn on its view that the proposed
`combination would suffer from stale data. See Sur-Reply,
`10-13.
`
`(cid:1) As PO admits in its Sur-Reply at 5, when “there is only one
`device using the payment account, the data cannot be stale[.]”
`
`(cid:1) The proposed combination allows only one device to use each
`payment account, avoiding stale data.
`
`(cid:1) The proposed combination synchronizes balances between
`server and mobile device after transaction, ensuring no stale
`data.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-20
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR 2022-01256 (’724 Patent) Grounds
`(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 1-11
`(cid:1) Buhot (Ex. 1004) in view of GPC (Ex. 1005) and Zhu (Ex. 1006)
`
`Petition, 7 (identifying proposed grounds)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-21
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 21
`
`
`
`’724 Patent, Claim 1
`
`EX1001, Claim 1
`
`Petitioner’s DX-22
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 22
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Combination
`(cid:1) Buhot
`(cid:1) Wireless communication device
`(cid:1) Emulates payment cards using NFC technology
`(cid:1) Secure element
`(cid:1) Stores multiple applications selectable by a user
`(cid:1) GPC
`(cid:1) Key-based secure communications
`(cid:1) Lock and unlock payment applications
`(cid:1) Counter that increments when an app replaces another
`(cid:1) Zhu
`(cid:1) Smart card manager that controls loading and unloading apps
`between various memories
`
`Petition, 10-16
`
`Petitioner’s DX-23
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 23
`
`
`
`Preliminary Points
`(cid:1) PO abandoned arguments from POPR:
`(cid:1) Device does not confirm an application is unlocked and activated before
`loading into emulator
`(cid:1) Zhu fails to teach “no data associated with a removed application is
`retained on the smart card”
`(cid:1) Buhot teaches away from Zhu’s smart card manager
`
`(cid:1) PO does not challenge modifying Buhot pursuant to GPC.
`(cid:1) Key-based security, life cycles, and counter are not disputed
`(cid:1) Reply, 3-4; Petition, 16-26
`
`POPR, 10-27; POR, 12-24; Sur-Reply, 1-20; Reply, 1-4
`
`Petitioner’s DX-24
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 24
`
`
`
`’724 Patent Remaining Disputes
`(cid:1) Two arguments against the motivation to combine Buhot/GPC
`and Zhu each directed to unclaimed implementation details
`(cid:1) Security when storing apps outside the secure element
`(cid:1) Compatibility of Zhu’s smart card manager with a Buhot-GPC device
`
`(cid:1) Two arguments regarding the claimed “emulator device”
`(cid:1) Petitioner did map a hardware-based emulator
`(cid:1) Both the ’724 Patent and the Proposed Combination load payment
`applications to an emulator device to emulate a payment card
`
`POR, 12-24; Sur-Reply, 1-20
`
`Petitioner’s DX-25
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 25
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Buhot, GPC, and
`Zhu
`(cid:1) Buhot teaches a wireless communication device for emulating
`payment cards and supports multiple payment apps from which
`a user may chose for a given transaction
`(cid:1) Petition,10-12; Ex. 1007, ¶¶58-60, 87
`
`(cid:1) Undisputed that smart card memories were limited
`(cid:1) Petition, 32-36
`
`(cid:1) A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Zhu’s
`smart card manager in a Buhot-GPC device to expand the
`number of smartcard apps supported by moving apps between
`smart card memory and other device memory
`(cid:1) Petition, 14-16, 32-36; Ex. 1007, ¶¶65-67, 87-92; Reply, 3-20
`
`Petitioner’s DX-26
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 26
`
`
`
`Zhu – Loading and Unloading Apps
`
`Zhu, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007, ¶66
`
`Petitioner’s DX-27
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 27
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`(cid:1) Benefits of combination:
`
`Reply, 9, Ex. 1007, ¶¶88-91
`
`Petitioner’s DX-28
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 28
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO advances two arguments, alleging a POSITA would not have been
`motivated to combine Buhot-GPC and Zhu
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Zhu lacks adequate security for applications stored off the smart card
`(cid:1) POR, 12-16; Sur-Reply, 1, 6-9
`
`Alleged incompatibility due to memory management issues that would
`need to be addressed when implementing Zhu’s card manager in Buhot-GPC
`(cid:1) POR, 16-20; Sur-Reply, 9-12
`
`(cid:1) Both arguments target unclaimed implementation details
`(cid:1) Petitioner was not required to foresee all arguments PO may advance re
`unclaimed implementation details
`(cid:1) The Reply properly establishes that neither criticism has merit
`
`Reply, 3-20
`
`Petitioner’s DX-29
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 29
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Securing
`Applications
`(cid:1) The claims do not require (1) storing applications in any
`particular location or (2) securing applications if stored off the
`secure element
`(cid:1) Reply, 3-5
`
`(cid:1) PO demands high security for stored payment applications, but
`provides no guidance for how this would be assessed
`(cid:1) Critically, Zhu teaches securing payment applications on general
`memory using the same approach as the ’724 Patent
`(cid:1) Reply, 7-8
`
`Reply, 4-10
`
`Petitioner’s DX-30
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 30
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Securing Applications
`Zhu’s security mirrors that in the ’724 Patent
`
`(cid:1) Zhu encrypts payment applications in generic memory:
`
`
`
`(cid:1) This mirrors the ’724 Patent’s security:h ’724 P ’ y
`
`
`
`
`
`…
`
`Reply, 7; ’724 Patent, 7:55-60, 10:1-6
`
`Petitioner’s DX-31
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 31
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Securing Applications
`Zhu’s security mirrors that in the ’724 Patent (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) PO’s expert admits encryption is sufficient:
`
`(cid:1) Q. In your opinion, is that encryption scheme contemplated by
`the ’724 patent sufficient to secure payment applications when
`they are stored on general baseband memory?
`(cid:1) A. The triple data encryption standard is breakable with
`sufficient computer power and time.
`(cid:1) Q. But is it sufficient, does it provide a sufficient level of security
`to store -- allow storing payment applications on general
`baseband memory?
`(cid:1) A. Yes. It provides high security, but it is not perfectly secure.
`
`Reply, 8-9
`
`Petitioner’s DX-32
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 32
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Memory
`Management
`
`(cid:1) PO argues there is a “technological incompatibility”
`
`POR, 20
`(cid:1) PO’s argument is again based on an unclaimed implementation
`detail—it turns on the false assumption that a POSITA would
`not properly account for memory management details
`(cid:1) Reply, 11-12
`
`Petitioner’s DX-33
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 33
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Memory
`Management (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) Updating memory pointers was a commonplace
`implementation detail
`(cid:1) Reply, 11-20; Ex. 1007, ¶¶65, 87-91; Ex. 1033, ¶¶16-28
`
`(cid:1) Supported by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Smith—the only expert
`with direct GPC experience
`(cid:1) Reply, 2-4, 12; Ex. 1007, ¶¶15, 63-64
`
`(cid:1) Petitioner provided evidence in the art detailing exactly
`how to update memory points using understood
`techniques
`(cid:1) Reply, 12-18, EX1033, ¶¶17-28
`
`Petitioner’s DX-34
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 34
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Memory
`Management (cont.)
`
`EX1033, ¶ 21
`
`Petitioner’s DX-35
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 35
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Memory
`Management (cont.)
`
`EX1033, ¶¶ 24, 25
`
`Petitioner’s DX-36
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 36
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Memory
`Management (cont.)
`
`EX1033, ¶ 25
`
`Petitioner’s DX-37
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 37
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Memory
`Management (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) PO’s critiques rely on an expert with no GPC experience:
`
`(cid:1) Q. Have you ever taught the global platform standard . . . ?
`(cid:1) A. I have referenced it at a high level.
`(cid:1) Q. What time frame would you have referenced the global
`platform standard at a high level?
`(cid:1) A. It would have been after 2012.
`(cid:1) Q. Have you ever personally worked with the global
`platform standard in any context?
`(cid:1) A. No, not me personally.
`
`Ex. 1027, 14:23-17:16; Reply, 12
`
`Petitioner’s DX-38
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 38
`
`
`
`Hardware-based “Emulator Device”
`
`Agreed construction:
`
`Petition, 8
`
`Petitioner’s DX-39
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 39
`
`
`
`Hardware-based “Emulator Device”
`Petitioner mapped software running on hardware
`
`Petition, 31
`
`Petitioner’s DX-40
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 40
`
`
`
`Emulator Device: Petition Included Extensive Discussion
`of Hardware on Which Operating System 314 Runs
`
`Petition, 29-30
`
`Petitioner’s DX-41
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 41
`
`
`
`Emulator Device: Petition Included Extensive Discussion
`of Hardware on Which Operating System 314 Runs (cont.)
`
`Petition, 30
`
`Petitioner’s DX-42
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 42
`
`
`
`Emulator Device: Petition Included Extensive Discussion
`of Hardware on Which Operating System 314 Runs (cont.)
`
`Petition, 30-31
`
`Petitioner’s DX-43
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 43
`
`
`
`PO’s New Argument re “Emulator Device”
`
`Sur-Reply, 17-18
`
`Petitioner’s DX-44
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 44
`
`
`
`In Both the ’724 Patent and the Proposed Combination,
`Applications are Loaded to an Emulator Device
`
`EX1001, Abstract
`
`EX1001, Claim 3
`
`Petitioner’s DX-45
`
`EX1001, Claim 1
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 45
`
`
`
`In Both the ’724 Patent and the Proposed Combination,
`Applications are Loaded to an Emulator Device (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) Proposed Combination loads applications into and out of emulator.
`
`Petition, 32
`
`Petition, 33
`
`Petitioner’s DX-46
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 46
`
`
`
`In Both the ’724 Patent and the Proposed Combination,
`Applications are Loaded to an Emulator Device (cont.)
`
`Petition, 43-44
`
`Petitioner’s DX-47
`
`IPR2022-01239
`Apple EX1031 Page 47
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
