`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
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. PGR2022-00003
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’046 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The ’046 Patent’s Priority Chain ........................................................... 2
`B.
`The ’046 Patent’s Disclosure ................................................................ 2
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 4
`IV. THE ’046 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR POST-GRANT
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 5
`A. Apple Filed Its Petition Outside the Statutory Nine Month
`Post-Issuance Cutoff.............................................................................. 5
`35 U.S.C. §327 Does Not Allow Apple to Substitute for
`Google ................................................................................................... 9
`Even If the Statute Allowed for Apple’s Petition, the Board’s
`Rules Do Not .......................................................................................10
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc.,
`501 U.S. 680 (1991) .......................................................................................... 6, 7
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`RFCyber v. LG Elecs.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00336, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2020) ........................................ 11
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .................................................................................passim
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00495, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013) ............................................ 9
`Visa Inc. v. Universal Security Registry, LLC,
`CBM2019-00025, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2019) .................................... 8
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ................................................................................................ 5, 8, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 327 .................................................................................................... 9, 10
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) .......................................................................................... 1, 12
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`
`Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (Dkt.
`119) in RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00274-
`JRG (Lead Case) (E.D. Tex.), dated September 28, 2021.
`
`Order (Dkt. 120) in RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:20-
`cv-00274-JRG (Lead Case) (E.D. Tex.), dated September 29, 2021.
`
`Stipulation of Dismissal in RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, Case
`No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG (Lead Case) (E.D. Tex.), dated October
`18, 2021.
`
`Email from Adam Seitz to Trials@uspto.gov re PGR2021-00028 –
`Apple’s request to Delay Termination in Order to File a Joinder
`Motion and Copycat Petition, dated October 19, 2021.
`
`Email from Trials @USPTO.gov to Adam Seitz; Trials re:
`PGR2021-00028 – Apple’s Request to Delay Termination in Order
`to File a Joinder Motion and Copycat Petition, dated November 15,
`2021.
`
`Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (Dkt.
`33) in RFCyber Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00336-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.), dated July 30, 2021.
`
`Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 35) in RFCyber Corp. v. LG Elecs.,
`Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG (E.D. Tex.), dated September 8,
`2021.
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On October 20, 2021, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) filed a petition
`
`requesting post-grant review of claims 1-17 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,600,046 (Ex. 1001, “’046 Patent”). Paper 1. (“Petition” or “Pet.”). At the
`
`same time, Apple filed a motion for joinder with PGR2021-00028, which had been
`
`instituted on July 23, 2021. Paper 3 (“Motion”). The Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`(Ex. 1003, “Gray Declaration”) accompanied the Petition and Motion. On
`
`November 8, 2021, the Board issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded for the post-
`
`grant petition and set the time for filing patent owner’s preliminary response. Paper
`
`4. Patent Owner timely filed an opposition to Apple’s Motion on November 22,
`
`2021 (Paper 5), and Apple filed a reply on December 22, 2021 (Paper 6).
`
`
`
`The ’046 Patent issued on March 24, 2020. It became ineligible for PGR on
`
`December 24, 2020. 35 U.S.C. § 321 (c).
`
`
`
`Before Apple filed its Petition, the Parties in PGR2021-00028 had already
`
`jointly moved to terminate the -00028 proceedings due to settlement. PGR2021-
`
`00028, Paper 14. Apple’s motion for joinder comes long after the one-month joinder
`
`window expired on August 23, 2021. 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b).
`
`
`
`The Board should deny institution because the ’046 Patent is not eligible for
`
`PGR. Moreover, as discussed in RFCyber’s Opposition, Apple failed to file a
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`motion for joinder within the one-month joinder window, and Apple has not shown
`
`any reason the Board should suspend its rules to allow a late filing.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the Board should further deny institution because each of the
`
`limitations Apple identifies are described in the ’046 Patent specification itself.
`
`Moreover, the claims of the ’046 Patent are not directed to an abstract idea and
`
`contain inventive concepts.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`II. THE ’046 PATENT
`A. The ’046 Patent’s Priority Chain
`The ’046 Patent is a continuation of Application No. 13/853,937 (the “’937
`
`
`
`Application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,047,601. The ’937 Application is
`
`a continuation-in-part of Application No. 13/350,832 (the “’832 Application”), filed
`
`on Jan. 16, 2012, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 11/534,653,
`
`which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218.
`
`
`
`The ’046 Patent further claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`61/618,802 (the “’802 Provisional”), which was filed on April 1, 2012.
`
`The ’046 Patent’s Disclosure
`B.
`The ’046 Patent describes methods and apparatuses for secure contactless
`
`
`
`payment using mobile devices. The inventors, Xiangzhen Xie, Liang Seng Koh, and
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Hsin Pan, recognized that existing payment methods were inefficient and time-
`
`consuming:
`
`For many credit or debit card transactions, the payment process is
`started by a customer asking for a bill when checking out a purchase. A
`cashier or service member brings a bill to the customer for verification.
`The customer then hands out a credit/debit card to the service member.
`The service member brings the card to a Point of Sales (POS) counter
`to initiate a transaction payment. The service member then brings back
`a receipt to the customer for signature to authorize the transaction. It is
`a lengthy process that typically takes a couple of minutes or much
`longer when the service member has to take care of multiple payment
`transactions at a time. In addition, in the case for the debit card
`transactions, the process may be even more troublesome when a PIN is
`needed to authorize the transaction at the POS.
`
`’046 Patent at 1:25-39. The inventors realized that the growing ubiquity of personal
`
`mobile devices allowed for the use of those devices in sales transactions:
`
`With the advancement in mobile devices, it is anticipated that many
`
`consumers will carry one with them. Thus there is an opportunity of
`
`using a mobile device to quickly settle the payment at a point of sale
`
`(POS).
`
`Id. at 1:40-44.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`
`The inventors of the ’046 Patent designed an apparatus and method for using
`
`mobile devices to quickly and efficiently settle payments:
`
`The present invention is related to techniques for mobile devices
`configured to support settlement of charges in electronic invoices or
`bills. According to one aspect of the present invention, a mobile device
`embedded with a secure element generates or is loaded with an
`electronic invoice. When the mobile device is brought to a consumer
`with an NFC mobile device, the data including the electronic invoice
`and other information regarding the mobile device or an owner thereof
`is read off wirelessly into the NFC mobile device. After the user verifies
`the amount being charged and authorizes the payment, the NFC mobile
`device communicates with a payment gateway or network for payment
`that is configured to proceed with the payment in accordance with a
`chosen payment method.
`
`Id. at 1:54-67.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner uses
`
`Apple’s proposed level of skill in the art: bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience
`
`relating to mobile payment technology. Lack of professional experience could be
`
`remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. at 26-27.
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`IV. THE ’046 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR POST-GRANT
`REVIEW
`A. Apple Filed Its Petition Outside the Statutory Nine Month
`Post-Issuance Cutoff
`The Board should deny Apple’s Petition because it was filed on October 20,
`
`2021, nearly 19 months after the ’046 Patent issued. “A petition for a post-grant
`
`review may only be filed not later than the date that is 9 months after the date of the
`
`grant or of the issuance of a reissue patent (as the case may be).” 35 U.S.C. § 321(c).
`
`Congress did not authorize the Board to institute PGRs after the statutory time limit
`
`and the statute does not provide any exception for PGR petitions seeking joinder.
`
`Compare 35 U.S.C. § 315 (setting out express exception for IPR post-complaint time
`
`limit for joinder) with 35 U.S.C. § 325 (providing no such exception for PGR
`
`joinder). If Congress wanted to authorize an exception to the 9-month cutoff, it
`
`could have done so; its decision not to include an exception cannot be ignored. See
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (noting with respect to other
`
`sections of the AIA that “if Congress wanted to adopt the Director’s approach it
`
`knew exactly how to do so” and Congress’ choice not do so “must be given effect”)
`
`Apple does not address this issue in its Petition. See Pet. at 11-21. Indeed,
`
`the Petition’s discussion of PGR eligibility is premised solely on whether the ’046
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Patent’s priority applications lack written description for the claims. Id. The Petition
`
`is silent as to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 321(c).
`
`In Apple’s Reply to RFCyber’s opposition to the motion for joinder, Apple
`
`argues that “37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) gives the Board discretion to ‘waive or suspend’”
`
`the nine-month cutoff. Reply, 1. Apple mischaracterizes the nine-month PGR cutoff
`
`as being “set forth in Rule 42.202.” Id. As described above, however, the nine-
`
`month cutoff is statutory; the Board’s Rules cannot (and do not attempt to) alter or
`
`abrogate the express provisions of the statute. SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1355 (“Where
`
`a statute’s language carries a plain meaning, the duty of an administrative agency is
`
`to follow its commands as written, not to supplant those commands with others it
`
`may prefer.”) The statute provides, with no exceptions, that any petition for post-
`
`grant review must be filed within nine months of the patents’ issuance. The Board
`
`must follow those commands as written.
`
`Apple further argues that § 321’s silence regarding joinder must mean that a
`
`petition seeking joinder is not subject to the nine-month cutoff. Id. Apple quotes
`
`Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 703 (1991) out of context for the
`
`idea that “The Supreme Court has soundly rejected attempts to make law out of what
`
`the legislature has not said.” But that case dealt with interpreting regulations in view
`
`of the regulations’ governing statute. Id. at 701-02. More critically, the rejected
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`position was “inconsistent with the text of the authorizing statute.” Id. at 702. Apple
`
`sums up with the curious interpretation that “Congress did not draft 35 U.S.C. § 321
`
`to foreclose a petitioner’s ability to join a properly instituted PGR past the 9-month
`
`window and no such prohibition should be read into this provision.” Reply, 2. In
`
`other words, Apple’s position is that because § 321 does not contain the text “There
`
`are no exceptions to this provision,” it is subject to exceptions imported from another
`
`chapter of the statute.
`
`Apple’s position is nonsensical. §§ 321 and 325 provide no exception to the
`
`nine-month cutoff, and Apple cannot import the IPR joinder exception into the PGR
`
`chapter of the statute. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355 (“Congress’s choice to depart
`
`from the model of a closely related statute is a choice neither we nor the agency may
`
`disregard.”). Indeed, the IPR joinder exception is not only specific to IPRs, it is
`
`specific to one and only one IPR time bar:
`
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting
`the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the
`petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with
`a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set
`forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder
`under subsection (c).
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (emphasis added). The exception is thus limited by its express
`
`terms to obviating the 1-year post complaint bar. It does not exempt joinder petitions
`
`from every time limit applying to IPRs. For example, it does not allow joinder
`
`petitions, if the petitioner or a real party in interest filed a civil action challenging
`
`the validity of a clam of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 315(a). Nor does it allow exceptions
`
`to the IPR filing deadline under §311.
`
`Apple cites only one case in support of its position. Reply, 2 (citing Visa Inc.
`
`v. Universal Security Registry, LLC, CBM2019-00025, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jun.
`
`11, 2019)). That case, which has not been designated as precedential, did not
`
`concern the applicability of §321(c) because CBM review is expressly exempt from
`
`§321(c)’s requirements. AIA § 18(a)(1)(A). Moreover, the Patent Owner did not
`
`file an opposition to the motion for joinder or a preliminary response to the petition.
`
`Visa, CBM2019-00025, Paper 7 at 2. Accordingly, Visa provides no guidance as to
`
`this case.
`
`In sum, Congress made a clear and conscious decision to allow one exception
`
`to the various IPR deadlines in the case of joinder, while not providing any exception
`
`to the PGR-eligibility deadline. The Board should not infer such an exception and
`
`defy the expressed will of Congress. SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355.
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the ’046 Patent is not eligible for PGR and the Board should
`
`deny the Petition.
`
`B.
`
`35 U.S.C. §327 Does Not Allow Apple to Substitute for
`Since Google and RFCyber filed their motion to terminate the -00028
`
`proceeding before Apple filed its petition, the statute mandates that the -00028
`
`proceeding be terminated, leaving Apple with nothing to join. 35 U.S.C. § 327(a)
`
`(“A post-grant review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect
`
`to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless
`
`the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination
`
`is filed.” (emphasis added)). As the Board has noted, the AIA does not allow Apple
`
`to substitute itself for Google now that the parties have settled. Sony Corp. of Am.
`
`v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00495, Paper 13 at 9 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013)
`
`(“The AIA, however, does not provide for the ‘replacement’ of a party. A petitioner
`
`may settle with the patent owner and upon entering the joint request, the review will
`
`terminate with respect to the petitioner.”) (emphasis added) (quoting 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48680, 48707 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`Apple’s only response to this point is to again argue that the Board should
`
`disregard the express language of the statute. Reply, 4 (“Rule 42.72 leaves it to the
`
`Board’s discretion to join Petitioner prior to ruling on the pending motion to
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`terminate.”) As discussed above, the Board’s rules do not override the statute. SAS
`
`Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1355 (“Where a statute’s language carries a plain meaning, the
`
`duty of an administrative agency is to follow its commands as written…”). Apple’s
`
`citation to AT&T Services, Inc. v. Covergent Media Solutions, LLC, IPR2017-01237,
`
`Paper 10, at 27 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2017) is irrelevant. There, the party seeking
`
`joinder filed its petition before the parties in the other proceeding filed their motion
`
`to terminate. Id. at 27. This precise sequence of events—the opposite of what
`
`happened in this case—was key to the Board’s decision to grant joinder and institute.
`
`Id. (“The Petition and motion for joinder in this proceeding were, therefore, pending
`
`sufficiently in advance of Patent Owner’s filing of its motion to terminate the
`
`pending review for the Board to consider the Petition and motion for joinder prior
`
`to deciding whether to terminate the pending review.” (emphasis added)).
`
`Accordingly, §327 provides a separate, independent basis to deny the Petition.
`
`C. Even If the Statute Allowed for Apple’s Petition, the
`Board’s Rules Do Not
`Apple argues that it should be allowed to file its Petition out of the statutory
`
`time and join the -00028 PGR because RFCyber sued Apple after the 9-month PGR
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`eligibility window and the 30-day IPR joinder window had closed. Apple states that
`
`the sequencing of lawsuits is “gamesmanship.”
`
`Apple is wrong. There is no requirement for RFCyber to sue every infringer
`
`of its patents at the same time. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429
`
`F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A patentee does not have to sue all infringers at
`
`once.”). RFCyber initially filed suit against three different defendants in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas: Samsung, Google, and LG. See Pet. at 2; see also RFCyber v. LG
`
`Elecs., No. 2:20-cv-00336, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2020). The LG case reached
`
`a settlement in principle on July 20, 2021 and the parties moved for dismissal on
`
`September 8, 2021; RFCyber filed suit against Apple in the Western District of
`
`Texas on September 7, 2021. Ex. 2006, 2007; Motion at 3. The sequence of events
`
`shows that RFCyber acted reasonably and there was no gamesmanship.
`
`However, even if the Board were inclined to grant Apple some leniency based
`
`on Apple being sued after the 30-day IPR joinder window had passed,1 Apple’s
`
`further delay cannot be excused. Apple did not seek joinder when it was first sued
`
`on September 7, 2021. Apple still did not seek joinder when Google and RFCyber
`
`
`1 As noted above, the PGR statute provides no exception for parties who were sued
`
`after the 9-month PGR window had closed.
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`announced their settlement on September 28, 2021. See Ex. 2001, 2002. Apple did
`
`not even seek joinder when Google and RFCyber filed a stipulation of dismissal in
`
`the District Court on October 18, 2021. See Ex. 2003. Instead, Apple waited until
`
`October 20, 2021, the day after Google and RFCyber filed the Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate the -00028 PGR on October 19, 2021.
`
`The Board’s Rules do not allow for such dilatory conduct. “Any request for
`
`joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the
`
`institution date of any post-grant review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.222(b). Apple cannot show good cause to suspend the rules because of its delay.
`
`Apple argues that it acted diligently in waiting five weeks to attempt to join
`
`Google’s PGR. But Apple’s Petition is admittedly a copycat Petition. Indeed, Apple
`
`did nothing more than substitute its name and counsel for Google’s. For example,
`
`Apple’s Petition falsely states that “Petitioner is also concurrently filing a petition
`
`for post-grant review of the ’046 Patent that challenges claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103.” Pet. at 3. Apple did not act diligently.
`
`Because Apple did not act diligently, it cannot show good cause to suspend
`
`the Board’s Rules. The Board should accordingly deny the Petition.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Apple’s Petition comes long after the ’046 Patent became statutorily ineligible
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`for post-grant review. The statute provides no exception to the 9-month PGR cutoff.
`
`Moreover, even if the statute allowed for Apple’s belated petition, the Board’s rules
`
`do not and Apple cannot show good cause to suspend those Rules. Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny Google’s Petition in its
`
`entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/
`
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Fabricant LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
` Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: 212-257-5797
`Facsimile: 212-257-5796
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the portions of the above-captioned
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE specified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`has 2,754 words in compliance with the 18,800-word limit set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24. This word count was prepared using Microsoft Word 2010.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/
`
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Fabricant LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
` Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: 212-257-5797
`Facsimile: 212-257-5796
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00003
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`A copy of RFCYBER CORP.’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE and
`
`EXHIBITS (Nos. 2006 and 2007) have been served on Petitioner’s counsel of record
`
`as follows:
`
`Adam P. Seitz
`Email: Adam.Seitz@eriseip.com
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Paul R. Hart
`Email: Paul.Hart@eriseip.com
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5601
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`February 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III /
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
` Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Tel. 212-257-5797
`Fax. 212-257-5796
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
