`
`IPR2024-00784
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`——————————
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————————
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00784
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`Filing Date: April 12, 2012
`Issue Date: February 4, 2014
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2024-00784 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Google LLC submits this reply to address Patent Owner Proxense,
`
`LLC’s contention that the term “enabling one or more of an application, a function,
`
`and a service” should be expressly construed to require information be received from
`
`a PDK in exchange for an access key. Paper 8, at 3. But before Proxense filed its
`
`preliminary response, the Board already rejected Proxense’s nearly identical
`
`arguments, found no explicit construction of this term necessary, and instituted
`
`review in Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 (PTAB
`
`July 22, 2024). In that case, Proxense advanced the “same constructions,” Paper 8,
`
`at 3, requesting the term “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a
`
`service” be construed to include an exchange for an access key. Despite invoking a
`
`means-plus-function analysis for the first time, Proxense’s Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response in this case, has not added any compelling new arguments or
`
`evidence. Paper 5, at 2-19. The Board should reject Proxense’s proposed
`
`construction, and institute review.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Enabling Term Is Not Subject to Means-Plus-Function
`Interpretation
`Proxense contends that the “enabling” term “may further be defined by way
`
`of a means-plus-function analysis” because each of the terms “local secured
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`information, wireless communication interface, and enablement signal” performs
`
`IPR2024-00784 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`the function of “enabling” and “are not sufficiently definite structure.” Paper 5, at 8-
`
`9.1 Not once had Proxense, in any of the related district court litigations, argued that
`
`any terms required § 112, ¶ 6 analysis. See, e.g., Exs. 1024-1027. Indeed, they are
`
`not subject to a means-plus-function analysis.
`
`At the outset, none of the claims of the ’960 patent recite the disputed
`
`limitations in “means-plus-function” or “step-plus-function” format. See, e.g., ’960
`
`patent, claims 1-3, 6-8, 10 and 14-16. Nor does Proxense argue that “local secured
`
`information, wireless communication interface, and enablement signal” are nonce
`
`words used as a substitute for “means” or “step.” Because the disputed claim
`
`limitations do not employ “means for” or “step for,” the presumption is that the terms
`
`local secured information, wireless communication interface, and enablement signal
`
`each convey sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, are not subject to § 112,
`
`¶ 6. Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`
`1 The Board already considered and rejected Proxense’s arguments that (1) the
`
`court in Proxense v. Samsung previously construed the term “enabled,” Paper 5, at
`
`4, 8; and (2) the ’960 patent implicitly defines “enabling” through several
`
`examples in the specification, id., at 12-19. IPR2024-00405, Paper 8, at 11-17.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00784 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`The cases Proxense cited—HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, 667 F.3d
`
`
`
`1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and Rain Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 989
`
`F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021)—are all inapposite. In all those cases, the disputed claim
`
`terms are expressly means-plus-function limitations. See, e.g., HTC Corp., 667 F.3d
`
`at 1280 (The parties agreed that the term “arrangement for reactivating” was a
`
`means-plus-function limitation.”); Rain Computing, 989 F.3d at 1006 (finding the
`
`word “module” was a black box recitation of structure “as if the term ‘means’ had
`
`been used”).
`
`In contrast, the terms “local secured information,” “wireless communication
`
`interface,” and “enablement signal” provide sufficiently definite structure or an act,
`
`because they are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or
`
`abstractions.’” Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368 (“Unlike in the mechanical arts, the specific
`
`structure of software code and applications is partly defined by its function.”); see
`
`also Ex. 1009, 3-4. Thus, the recitation of “enabling one or more of an application,
`
`a function, and a service” does not change this. Contrary to Proxense’s argument,
`
`Paper 5, at 17-19, when a “structure-connoting term … is coupled with a description
`
`of the [term’s] operation” § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala
`
`Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368.
`
`Additionally, Proxense’s argument that “enablement signal” is “nothing more than
`
`the signal sent via the wireless communication interface,” Paper 5, at 9, is contrary
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`to the ’960 patent specification but more importantly irrelevant, because claims 14
`
`IPR2024-00784 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`and 16 are method claims, and each of “generating an enablement signal” and
`
`“sending the enablement signal” is an act that precludes treatment under § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Because the terms themselves connote sufficient structure, the presumption that
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply is “determinative.” Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1366.
`
`B. Even if Construed as Means-Plus-Function, the Algorithm is
`Broader Than Proxense Argues
`But, even if these terms are means-plus-function or steps-plus-function terms,
`
`Proxense is wrong that “the only algorithm disclosed in the specification” is that of
`
`“a service block … providing the corresponding access key.” Paper 5, at 10. Notably,
`
`the ’960 patent discloses a hybrid device providing “additional functionality” where
`
`an access key is not required, including using “credentials ( credit card, account
`
`information, etc.) … to enable a service,” using “cellular service account
`
`information … to enable specific cellular services,” using “personal ID” to identify
`
`an account, etc. ’960 patent, 16:42-46, 17:5-50; see also Ex. 1003, ¶¶91-95. The
`
`’960 patent further explains that “[a]ny variety of different types of [external]
`
`devices may be coupled to signal line 1406 [to an RDC] to receive the authorization
`
`or enabling signal.” ’960 patent, 17:59-61; Fig. 14. Thus, the “algorithm” is not
`
`limited to that of an “access key.”
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00784 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`C. The Board Need Not Construe the “Enabling” Term to Resolve the
`Controversy
`The Board also need not construe the term here because it is not necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Regardless of the construction, Dua and Buer render the claims
`
`obvious. As the Petition explains, Dua discloses receiving RFID transmission data
`
`from the external tag (PDK) in exchange for information such as “communication
`
`settings, media processing capabilities, and other parameters” (access key under
`
`Proxense’s construction, as evidenced by its infringement contentions) for
`
`establishing a wireless connection with the external device. See, e.g., Pet. 23-27, 30-
`
`31; Ex. 1003, at ¶¶120-130, 139-143. Buer similarly discloses receiving necessary
`
`authentication information from the tag (PDK), including “cryptographic keys”
`
`(access keys) to extract credentials to enable a wide variety of applications,
`
`functions, or services on the hybrid device. See, e.g., Pet. 49-55, 58-59; Ex. 1003, at
`
`¶¶184-193, 204-210. Thus, the Board should institute review and cancel all claims.
`
`Dated: September 10, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Erika H. Arner/
`Erika H. Arner
`Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 57,540
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00784 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that a copy of
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`PRELIMINARY REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`
`RESPONSE is served on September 10, 2024, on counsel of record for the subject
`
`patent via email to the address below.
`
`proxense@hechtpartners.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 10, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David L. Hecht
`dhecht@hechtpartners.com
`
`JAMES ZAK
`jzak@hechtpartners.com
`
`HECHT PARTNERS LLP
`125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
`New York, New York 10017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Daniel E. Doku/
`Daniel E. Doku
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
