`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 10,600,046
`Filing Date: June 2, 2015
`Issue Date: March 24, 2020
`
`Inventors: Xiangzhen Xie, Liang Seng Koh, and Hsin Pan
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOBILE PAYMENTS
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`RFCYBER CORP.’S
`SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Case No. PGR2021-00028
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`
`Discretionary denial is warranted here because the trial in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas (the “Texas Action”), between the same parties as here, will be
`
`completed months before the projected Final Written Decision date in this
`
`proceeding. Institution thus will result in unnecessary duplication of the parties’
`
`and District Court’s substantial efforts and should be denied.
`
`
`
`Moreover, as discussed in Patent Owner’s POPR, the ’046 patent is not
`
`eligible for PGR because every claim has a priority date predating March 16, 2013.
`
`However, if the Board should find that the limitations in claims 6-11 and 15-16
`
`were not disclosed in the pre-AIA applications, it should deny institution because
`
`disclaimed claims are treated as never having existed under controlling law.
`
`I.
`
`
`ALL FINTIV FACTORS FAVOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL
`On May 12, 2021, the District Court in the parallel litigation set trial for
`
`March 21, 2022, with a claim construction hearing on October 28, 2021. Reply, 1.
`
`A. The Significant Time Between Trial and a Final Written
`Decision Weighs Strongly in Favor of Denial
`The District Court’s trial date of March 21, 2022 will come approximately
`
`
`
`four months before the projected Final Written Decision in this case. Id. At that
`
`time, all issues relating to the challenged claims (including claim construction,
`
`validity, and infringement) will have been finally determined by the District Court.
`
`This factor, therefore, weighs strongly in favor of denial. POPR, 59-61.
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`
`Google asserts that this factor is neutral but provides no evidence or
`
`argument to support its assertion. Reply, 1-2.
`
`There Is No Likelihood of a Stay
`B.
`As explained in the POPR, there is no likelihood of a stay in the Texas
`
`
`
`Action because the Court there has explicitly stated that its “consistent and long
`
`established practice [is] to deny motions to stay pending IPR and EPR when the
`
`PTAB or PTO have instituted review on less than all asserted claims of all asserted
`
`patents.” AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG, 2021
`
`WL 465424, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021) (emphasis added); see also POPR at
`
`62-63. There are no instituted reviews on any of the four other patents in the Texas
`
`action, and thus no stay is likely to issue. Accordingly, this factor favors denial.
`
`Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Zircon Corp., IPR2020-01572, Paper No. 10, 9-12
`
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021) (finding, even though no stay had been requested, ITC
`
`was unlikely to stay investigation and therefore this factor favored denial).
`
`
`
`Google ignores the Texas Court’s explicit description of its established
`
`practice and suggests that this factor is always neutral when Petitioner has not
`
`sought a stay. Reply, 1. But Fintiv considers both “whether the court granted a
`
`stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted.”
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`(precedential) (emphasis added). Here, there is no evidence that a stay may be
`
`granted if a proceeding is instituted; to the contrary, there is strong evidence that a
`
`stay will not be granted. Accordingly, this factor favors denial. See Stanley Black
`
`& Decker, IPR2020-01572, Paper No. 10 at 9-12.
`
`C. Overlapping Parties Favors Denial
`Patent Owner and Google are both parties to the parallel District Court
`
`
`
`litigation. POPR, 58. Thus, this factor favors denial of the Petition. E.g., Cellco
`
`P’ship v. Huawei Techs. Co., IPR2020-01352, Paper No. 13 at 15 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`
`5, 2021). Google offers no substantive argument or explanation as to why this
`
`factor does not weigh against it, instead stating, without evidence, analysis, or
`
`citation that the factor is neutral. Reply, 5. But it is well-established that overlap
`
`between parties weighs in favor of denial. E.g., Cellco, IPR2020-01352, Paper No.
`
`13 at 15. Accordingly, this factor weighs against institution.
`
`D. The Overlap of Issues Weighs in Favor of Denial
`Patent Owner has asserted claims 1, 2, and 5 against Google in the Texas
`
`
`
`Action. Google has challenged those claims in this proceeding as well. Pet., 27.
`
`Thus, the same claims are at issue in both proceedings.
`
`
`
`Google attempts to sidestep the substantial overlap by nebulously promising
`
`that it will not assert any §101 grounds or the same written description grounds
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`that were raised in the Petition but only if trial is instituted. Even then, Google
`
`limits its “stipulation” to “the claims on which trial is instituted, while trial is
`
`instituted.” Reply, 4.
`
`
`
`Google’s “stipulation” does not remove the substantial overlap in issues
`
`between the Texas Action and this proceeding. It would not prevent Google from
`
`raising substantially similar written description grounds in the District Court.
`
`Moreover, in view of the fact that the prior art date for Google’s primary reference
`
`in its companion PGR is after the priority date of the ’046 patent, it is likely that
`
`the District Court will have to engage in the same written description analysis that
`
`Google asks the Board to perform here. Accordingly, Google’s stipulation does
`
`not obviate the substantial overlap in issues and this factor favors denial.
`
`E.
`
`The Significant Investment of the Parties and District
`Court Favors Denial
`Patent Owner served its infringement contentions on May 12, 2021.
`
`
`
`According to the parties’ agreed schedule, Petitioner will serve its invalidity
`
`contentions (including § 101 contentions) on July 14, 2021. RFCyber Corp. v.
`
`Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG, Dkt. 55-1 at 4-5 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2021).
`
`Claim construction briefs will be filed with the Court in September and October,
`
`with a claim construction hearing on October 28, 2021. Id. Accordingly,
`
`substantial resources will have been expended by the parties by the time of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`institution decision and shortly after. Far more resources will have been expended
`
`by the time a Final Written Decision can issue, as by then a claim construction will
`
`have issued, both fact and expert discovery will have concluded, dispositive
`
`motions will have been decided, pretrial disclosures will be made, and trial on the
`
`merits will have occurred. This factor, therefore, favors denial. E.g., Supercell Oy
`
`v. Gree, Inc., PGR2021-00009, Paper No. 9, at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2021)
`
`(finding this factor weighed toward denying institution when “the district court and
`
`parties have each already invested, and will have invested even more, substantial
`
`resources in claim construction, fact discovery, expert discovery, dispositive
`
`motions, and pretrial disclosures”).
`
`
`
`Google also argues that its alleged diligence weighs in favor of institution.
`
`Reply, 4 (“Petitioner acted diligently in filing the Petition within three months of
`
`being served with the Complaint . . . .”). But Google filed its Petition on
`
`December 23, 2020, the day before the ’046 patent’s alleged PGR eligibility
`
`expired. Google was not diligent when it waited to the end of the PGR window.
`
`The Weakness of Google’s Petition Favors Denial
`F.
`As discussed in the POPR, Google’s Petition is extraordinarily weak as it
`
`
`
`relies on the wrong standard for written description support (considering only in
`
`haec verba support) and failed to supply constructions for key claim terms. POPR,
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`63. Google’s §101 arguments also failed to focus on the relevant case law or
`
`analyze the claims as a whole. Id. Google failed to respond to these deficiencies
`
`in its Reply. Reply, 5.
`
`II. DISCLAIMED CLAIMS CANNOT CONFER ELIGIBILITY
`
`Google relies on RetailMeNot, Inc. v. Honey Sci. Corp., PGR2019-00060,
`
`Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020) and Unified Patents, LLC v. Pebble Tide, LLC,
`
`PGR2020-00011, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2020), which held that disclaimed
`
`claims confer PGR-eligibility. Reply, 5-7. As explained in the POPR, those non-
`
`precedential decisions came to an incorrect conclusion. POPR, 18-22.
`
`
`
`Neither RetailMeNot nor Unified considered the Genetics Institute decision
`
`cited in the POPR. See POPR, 18 (quoting Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis
`
`Vaccines & Diags., Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In that decision,
`
`the Federal Circuit explained that “upon entry of a disclaimer under § 253, we treat
`
`the patent as though the disclaimed claim(s) had ‘never existed.’” 655 F.3d at
`
`1299 (emphasis added). If the Board were to use disclaimed claims as a basis for
`
`PGR-eligibility, it would necessarily be treating the ’046 patent as though those
`
`claims had existed. Such a result contradicts Federal Circuit precedent and the
`
`only PTAB precedential decision on the effect of disclaimer. Facebook, Inc. v.
`
`Skky, LLC, CBM2016-00091, Paper 12 at 11 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`(precedential) (“[D]isclaimed claims must be treated as if they never existed.”).
`
`
`
`Google further argues (parroting the RetailMeNot decision) that 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.207(e), which recites that “[n]o post-grant review will be instituted based on
`
`disclaimed claims” means that the PTAB will not institute trial to review
`
`disclaimed claims but can and should institute trial where PGR-eligibility is based
`
`solely on those claims. Reply at 7. As stated in the POPR, this interpretation is
`
`contrary to the language of the Rule. POPR at 22. The RetailMeNot Panel relied
`
`on a comment to the Rule, but that comment merely states that no PGR will be
`
`instituted to review disclaimed claims; it does not state that disclaimed claims
`
`provide eligibility. RetailMeNot PGR2019-00060, Paper 17 at 15. Moreover, the
`
`interpretation is at odds with the Patent Office’s recent amendments to Rule
`
`42.208, requiring the Board to institute on all challenged claims and with no
`
`exception for disclaimed claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208 (a).
`
`
`
`In any event, as discussed in the POPR, the Provisional Application provides
`
`full support for the disclaimed claims. POPR at 22-23.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution. Moreover, the Board should not use the disclaimed claims to confer
`
`PGR-eligibility.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/
`
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`A copy of RFCYBER CORP.’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`has been served on Petitioner’s counsel of record as follows:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Email: andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Email: scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Jonathan R. Bowser
`Email: jon.bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Angela M. Oliver
`Email: angela.oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Attorneys for Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`/
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Tel. (212) 257-5797
`Fax. (212) 257-5796
`
`