IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CARDWARE INC.,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00141-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND
`PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule (“P.R.”) 4-2 and the Court’s December 28, 2022, Amended
`
`Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 59), Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., hereby serve on Plaintiff CardWare Inc. the following preliminary
`
`proposed claim constructions of terms in U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520; U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,628,820; U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579; U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538; and U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,328,286 (“the Asserted Patents”), and their preliminary identification of extrinsic evidence.
`
`Defendants’ proposed claim constructions herein are consistent with the understanding of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the intrinsic evidence, including the specifications,
`
`patent claims, the file histories of the Asserted Patents, the Asserted Patents and/or any patent
`
`application(s) incorporated by reference in the Asserted Patents, any related patents, the file
`
`histories of any related patent applications and the specifications of the patents that issued from
`
`those related patent applications, and relevant extrinsic evidence, including dictionary and
`
`textbook evidence.
`
`1
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 1 of 19
`
`

`

`Defendants’ proposed claim constructions and identification of extrinsic evidence are
`
`preliminary. Defendants reserve the right to supplement and/or amend, for example, after they
`
`have had a full opportunity to review Plaintiff’s proposed constructions and extrinsic evidence,
`
`and as they meet and confer with Plaintiff as required under P.R. 4-2(c). Defendants reserve the
`
`right to propose constructions for any additional terms that are identified by CardWare Inc.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to supplement and/or amend as the parties work toward the
`
`preparation of a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement as required under P.R. 4-3.
`
`As discovery is ongoing, Defendants reserve the right to supplement and/or amend their
`
`proposed constructions based on newly available evidence, including documents, discovery
`
`responses, and testimony obtained during discovery. Defendants further reserve the right to
`
`supplement and/or amend their proposed constructions if new products are accused of
`
`infringement.
`
`In addition to the preliminary disclosure of extrinsic evidence herein, Defendants reserve
`
`the right to rely on prior art and invalidity positions identified in Defendants’ Invalidity
`
`Contentions, and other prior art, to explain the state of the art and/or to show the ordinary
`
`meaning of claim terms to those skilled in the art.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to supplement and/or amend as otherwise allowed
`
`pursuant to the Patent Local Rules.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`
`to support Defendants’ preliminary claim constructions, including Defendants’ indefiniteness
`
`challenges, and to respond to any claim construction offered by Plaintiff. If needed, testimony
`
`from Dr. Madisetti may concern the state of the art, ordinary meanings of one or more of the
`
`claim terms, including the proposed claim terms identified herein, and what one of ordinary skill
`
`2
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 2 of 19
`
`

`

`in the art would understand those claim terms to mean in view of the intrinsic evidence,
`
`including the specifications, patent claims, the file histories of the Asserted Patents, the patents
`
`and/or any patent application(s) incorporated by reference in the Asserted Patents, any related
`
`patents, the file histories of any related patent applications and the specifications of the patents
`
`that issued from those related patent applications, and relevant extrinsic evidence, including
`
`dictionary and textbook evidence. That testimony may also include testimony that certain claim
`
`terms are indefinite because they fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to include additional extrinsic evidence in support of
`
`their preliminary claim constructions, as well as the right to add expert testimony to support
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions and/or indefiniteness positions and to respond to proposed
`
`constructions and/or supporting arguments offered by Plaintiff. If needed, testimony from such
`
`an expert may concern the state of the art, ordinary meanings of claim terms, and what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean in view of the intrinsic and/or
`
`extrinsic evidence. Such testimony could further include an opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would find claim terms indefinite, because when viewed in light of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, they fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the claimed invention. Defendants reserve the right to rely on the
`
`positions of Plaintiff or its expert witnesses concerning claim construction or the scope and/or
`
`meaning of claim terms in any other proceedings.
`
`Notwithstanding their proposed constructions herein, Defendants reserve the right to
`
`assert defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness and lack of written description and/or
`
`3
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 3 of 19
`
`

`

`enablementof claim terms, including, for instance, those exemplarily set forth in Defendants’
`
`Invalidity Contentions and the following terms:
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Proposed Claim Constructions and Preliminary Extrinsic Evidence
`
`
`
`Claim(s
`Evidence
`“cryptographic processor”|“a processor that is dedicated to|Ross ANDERSON ETAL.,
`carrying out cryptographic
`CRYPTOGRAPHIC
`operations”
`PROCESSORS — A SURVEY,
`UNIVERSITY OF
`CAMBRIDGE COMPUTER
`LABORATORY,
`TECHNICAL REPORT
`NUMBER 641 (AUGUST
`2005).
`(Bates Nos. SAM-CW-
`00079308-SAM-CW-
`
`
`
`
`
`2. “a sensor capable of identifying|Defendants reserve the“biometric sensor”
`a user through contact”
`right to rely on expert
`testimony regarding this
`term.
`
`°520 patent: Claim 20
`’820 patent: Claim 20
`°579 patent: Claims 7, 15
`°538 patent: Claim 1
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 4 of 19
`
`=PTerm/Phrase/Clauseand
`
`Constructions that Apply to Independent Claims
`
`PreliminaryConstruction
`
`’820 patent: Claim 1
`°579 patent: Claim 23
`°538 patent: Claim 27
`
`PreliminaryExtrinsic
`
`CRYPTO-PROCESSOR —
`ARCHITECTURE,
`PROGRAMMING AND
`EVALUATION OF THE
`SECURITY (PH.D THESIS,
`JEAN MONNET
`UNIVERSITY,2012),
`INCLUDING AT 3.1.2.2.
`(Bates Nos. SAM-CW-
`00079327-SAM-CW-
`00079516)
`
`Defendants reserve the
`right to rely on expert
`testimony regardingthis
`term.
`
`00079326) LUBOS GASPAR,
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase/Clause and
`Claim(s
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`Preliminary Extrinsic
`Evidence
`
`3.
`
`“static”
`
`Defendants reserve the
`IPR Disclaimer:
`right to rely on expert
`“remaining the same and not
`’520 patent: Claims 1, 10,|updated after a certain number|testimony regarding this
`18, 23
`of transactions or certain time
`term.
`’820 patent: Claim 18
`period”!
`°579 patent: Claims 21, 22
`’538 patent: Claims 1, 21,
`27-30
`°286 patent: Claims 20,
`
`“in place of”
`
`Defendants reserve the
`IPR Disclaimer:
`right to rely on expert
`“replacing, not by means of
`
`’520 patent: Claims 1, 10,|encryption” testimony regardingthis
`23
`term.
`°820 patent: Claims 1,11,|OR
`15
`°579 patent: Claims 1, 3-6,|“replacing the actual
`15, 19, 21, 23
`physical/logical placeholder for
`°538 patent: Claims 1, 4,
`credit card information”
`8, 18-21, 23, 25, 27-30
`
`21, 24-27 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`5. “a request for payment details|Defendants reserve the“transaction payment
`
`request”
`received at a user device via
`right to rely on expert
`NFCtransmission”
`testimony regarding this
`term.
`
`°579 patent: Claim 19
`°538 patent: Claim 1
`
`OR
`
`“a request for limited-use
`payment information received
`at a user device via NFC
`transmission”
`
`
`
`6. “device account number”|IPR Disclaimer: Defendants reserve the
`
`“account numberspecific to a
`right to rely on expert
`
`’520 patent: Claims 1, 10,|single device” testimony regarding this
`12, 13, 17, 19
`term.
`
`1 Samsungcontends this claim term is indefinite, as set forth in Section II.B, but to the extentit is not found
`indefinite, Samsung proposesa construction in the alternative.
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 5 of 19
`
`

`

`Preliminary Construction
`
`Preliminary Extrinsic
`Evidence
`
`Term/Phrase/Clause and
`Claim(s
`820 patent: Claim 10
`°579 patent: Claims 2-6, 9,
`12, 21-23
`’538 patent: Claims 5, 6,
`18, 21, 23, 27, 29
`°286 patent: Claims 1, 20,
`
`21, 24-27 7.
`
`
`
`“card issuer”
`
`Defendants reserve the
`IPR Disclaimer:
`right to rely on expert
`“an entity that issues payment
`
`’820 patent: Claims 1, 10,|cards to consumers” testimony regarding this
`11, 15, 20
`term.
`°579 patent: Claims 1-6, 9,
`12, 15, 19, 21, 23
`’286 patent: Claims 1, 4,
`6, 11, 12,17
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 6 of 19
`
`

`

`syTerm/Phrase/Clauseand
`
`Claim(s
`“security number”
`
`
`
`°579 patent: Claim 5
`
`
`inary Extrinsic
`Evidence
`Defendants reserve the
`right to rely on expert
`testimony regardingthis
`term.
`Entire Claim The claimed method steps must|Defendants reserve the
`
`be performedin the order that_|right to rely on expert
`°579 patent: Claim 13
`they are claimed.
`testimony regarding this
`term.
`
`Constructions that Apply to Only Dependent Claims
`
`PreliminaryConstruction
`
`“a numberhaving the same
`functionality as a card issuer
`provided security code”
`
`Prelimin
`
`
`
`
`Il.
`
`Indefinite Terms
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims — Each of the following independent claims lacks a clear
`
`antecedentbasis for the identified term/phrase/clause. For each term/phrase/clause identified
`
`below, Samsung reserves the right to rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Vijay Madisetti. Dr.
`
`Madisetti may opine on how the quoted languagefails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of that language because, for example,(a) it lacks antecedent
`
`basis in the claim, (b) there are multiple possible antecedent bases, (c) it is unclear whether there
`
`is intended to be an antecedentbasis, or (d) is otherwise not reasonably certain. If CardWare
`
`proposes a construction, Dr. Madisetti may opine on the construction of the claim to the extent
`
`possible based on the intrinsic record and any extrinsic evidenceidentified.
`
`ne Term/Phrase/ClauseandClaim(s)
`
`“the paymentinformation”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`’520 patent: Claim 1 oy‘saidstaticdeviceaccountnumber”
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 7 of 19
`
`

`

`No. Term/Phrase/Clause and Claim(s)
`°520 patent: Claim 1
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`3.|“wherein the identification, selection,|Indefinite
`information and authorizing
`operations are exchanged wirelessly
`between the electronic device and the
`ATM via NFC; and, wherein the ATM
`is configured for performing the user
`selected account operation using the
`identification and authorizing
`information; and, wherein the
`identification and authorizing
`information exchanged wirelessly
`between the electronic device and the
`ATM comprises:statically and
`dynamically generated limited-use
`numberportions”
`
`4.|“the payment information provided by|Indefinite
`the computing device is used in online
`transactions in place of a card issuers
`paymentcard information”
`
`’520 patent: Claim 18
`
`’820 patent: Claim 15
`
`
`
`
`
`5.|“the electronic device”: “the device Indefinite
`
`
`inputs”; and “the electronic device”
`
`°538 patent: Claim 25
`
`6.|“said limited-use payment Indefinite
`
`
`information”
`
`°538 patent: Claim 1
`
`
`
`7.|“the communication interface” Indefinite
`
`°538 patent: Claim 25
`
`8.|“the card issuer authority”; “a card Indefinite
`
`
`issuer authority”
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 8 of 19
`
`

`

`No. Term/Phrase/Clause and Claim(s)
`
`
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`B.
`
`Dependent Claims — Each of the following dependentclaims lacks a clear
`
`antecedentbasis for the identified term/phrase/clause either in the identified claim or a claim
`
`from which it depends. For each term/phrase/clause identified below, Samsung reserves the
`
`right to rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Vijay Madisetti. Dr. Madisetti may opine on howthe
`
`quoted language fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope
`
`of that language because, for example, (a) it lacks antecedent basis in the claim or any claim
`
`from whichthe identified claim depends, (b) there are multiple possible antecedent bases, (c) it is
`
`unclear whether there is intended to be an antecedentbasis, or (d) is otherwise not reasonably
`
`certain. If CardWare proposesa construction, Dr. Madisetti may opine on the construction of the
`
`claim to the extent possible based on the intrinsic record and any extrinsic evidenceidentified.
`
`[Ro|Term/PhraseCinuse and Cim()
`20. 6
`1.
`“issued paymentinformation”;
`“an
`Indefinite
`issuer provided payment information”;
`“the issuer provided payment
`information”; “‘a static device account
`number payment information”; “the
`payment information”;
`
`¢
`information”; “payment information”;
`“issuer provided payment
`information”
`
`’520 patent: Claim 10
`
`“a issuer provided payment nm.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.|“the payment information” Indefinite
`
`’520 patent: Claim 23
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 9 of 19
`
`

`

`
`
`No. Term/Phrase/Clause and Claim(s)
`’520 patent: Claims6, 7
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`*Samsung alternatively contends that this claim
`is an improper dependent claim andis therefore
`invalid under pre-AIA § 112(4) and/or AIA
`§ 112 94.
`
`°579 patent: Claim 13 Indefinite
`
`“the payment transaction comprises a
`cryptographic hashof the transaction
`unit”
`
`°520 patent: Claim 8
`
`“accepting a user input of issued
`payment information input at a touch
`screen display of the electronic
`device”; “the electronic device is
`configured to accept the user input by
`at least one of a means comprising: a
`touch sensorarray; a touch screen; a
`keypad; buttons; device motion; an
`accelerometer; a biometric input; a
`proximity contact sensor; optical
`sensors; an NFC unit; a wireless
`interface; a wired connection; a USB
`connection; an RF antenna; an
`inductor assembly”
`
`°520 patent: Claim 11
`
`“the issuer provided payment
`information”
`
`’520 patent: Claim 17
`
`“the identification and authorizing
`information”
`
`°520 patent: Claim 19
`
`*the card processing authority”
`
`°820 patent: Claim 4
`
`“a successful priming action”
`
`10.
`
`“said confirmation result”
`
`Indefinite
`
`10
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 10 of 19
`
`

`

`No. Term/Phrase/Clause and Claim(s)
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`11.
`
`Indefinite
`
`°538 patent: Claim 4
`
`12.
`
`“said combining device”
`
`Indefinite
`
`13.
`
`“said device-specific information”
`
`Indefinite
`
`“said dynamically generating said card|Indefinite
`14.
`validation value number”
`
`15.
`
`“The electronic device of claim 25,
`further comprising .
`. .”
`
`Indefinite
`
`“sreron BS
`“ron So
`°538patent:Claims4-6,8-17 ee
`
` 21. “said device account information”
`
`“the limited-use payment information”|Indefinite
`16.
`
`17.
`
`“the singular counted transaction”
`
`Indefinite
`
`18.
`
`“said information”
`
`’538patent:Claims6,9 en
`
`Indefinite
`
`19.
`
`“said device processor”
`
`Indefinite
`
`20.
`
`“said information”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`11
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 11 of 19
`
`

`

`No. Term/Phrase/Clause and Claim(s)
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`°286 patent: Claims 4
`
` 22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`°538 patent: Claim 27
`
`“said payment account information”
`
`°538 patent: Claim 27
`
`“said payment account”
`
`°538 patent: Claim 29
`
`“said user device”
`
`°538 patent: Claim 30
`
`“the information presented on an
`interface of said card device”
`
`°286 patent: Claim 5
`
`“The user computing device of claim
`12”
`
`°286 patent: Claim 13
`
`“a card issuer authority”
`
`Cc.
`
`Claims Indefinite For Lack of Clarity Based on Reasons Other than Antecedent
`
`Basis — The following claim terms/phrases/clauses are indefinite because a POSITA would not
`
`understand them with reasonable certainty. For each term/phrase/clause identified below,
`
`Samsungreservesthe right to rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Vijay Madisetti. Dr. Madisetti
`
`may opine on how the quoted languagefails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in
`
`the art about the scope of that language for reasons including the exemplary anticipated expert
`
`testimony identified below. If CardWare proposes a construction, Dr. Madisetti may opine on
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNGV. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 12 of 19
`
`

`

`the construction of the claim to the extent possible based on the intrinsic record and any extrinsic
`
`evidence identified.
`
`faa Term/Phrase/Clause
`
`and Claim(s
`“static”
`
`1.
`
`’520 patent: Claims 1,
`10, 18, 23
`°820 patent: Claim 18
`°579 patent: Claims
`21, 22
`°538 patent: Claims 1,
`21, 27-30
`’286 patent: Claims
`20, 21, 24-27
`
`Indefinite”
`
`ExpertTestimony
`
`the pseudo accountidentifier
`of the prior art reference
`29>
`Carlsonis “not even‘static
`becauseit is “regularly
`updated by the payment
`processor, and may even be
`limited to a single use by the
`device.” Because CardWare
`has taken the position that such
`information is not“static,” a
`POSITAcould not be
`reasonably certain whatis
`required by “static” in the
`claims.
`
` CardWarehasrepresented that
`
`
`
`°286 patent: Claim 1
`
`2.|“its limitations of use”|Indefinite The word“its” in “wherein a
`
`card issuer authority is
`operable to reject as invalid a
`transaction attempt outside of
`its limitations of use” could
`refer to the “card issuer
`authority,” the “transaction
`attempt,” or the “limited-use
`card payment information.”
`
`3.|“proximity contact Indefinite The specification provides no
`
`
`
`sensor’; “proximi
`guidance on howto interpret
`contact”; “proxunity
`the subjective term
`possession”and “a
`“proximity.”
`biometric sensing of a
`recognized user
`proximity”
`
`’520 patent: Claim 11
`
`In addition, proximity and
`contact mean different things,
`and as such a POSITA could
`not be reasonably certain about
`
`? To the extentthis claim term is not foundindefinite, Samsung contends it should be construed as set forth in
`Section L.A.
`
`13
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 13 of 19
`
`

`

`’579 patent: Claims 8,
`9, 11, 13, 15
`’286 patent: Claim 12
`
`4. “a statically generated
`portions”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’538 patent: Claim 25
`
`5. “said limited-use
`number”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’538 patent: Claim 21
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`“when used in
`merchant in-store
`facility transactions”
`
`’286 patent: Claim 15
`
`“The electronic device
`of claim 25, further
`comprising a
`processor and a non-
`transitory, computer-
`readable medium
`storing computer
`executable
`instructions”
`
`’538 patent: Claim 30
`
`8. “said transacted
`payment information”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’286 patent: Claim 6
`
`the scope of the term
`“proximity contact.”
`
`It is unclear whether this
`requires one or plural portions.
`Additionally, if the portions
`are generated, it is unclear how
`they can also be static,
`particularly in view of
`CardWare's IPR arguments.
`
`Claim 19, from which Claim
`21 depends, refers to “at least
`one limited-use numbers,” and
`“combining said at least one
`limited-use numbers” (using
`the plural term “numbers”). It
`is unclear if Claim 21 concerns
`all limited-use numbers of
`Claim 19, or just one such
`number.
`
`It is unclear whether this claim
`term refers to using “the
`limited-use payment
`information,” “the payment
`card device,” or “the
`computing device.”
`It is unclear what quantity of
`non-transitory, computer-
`readable media are within the
`scope of Claim 30, and on
`which device(s) those
`computer-readable media are
`located.
`
`It is unclear whether this term
`is referring to the Claim 1
`recitation of “a card payment
`information” or “a limited-use
`card payment information.”
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 14 of 19
`
`14
`
`

`

`9.
`
`“valid range of device
`limitations”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`’286 patent: Claim 6
`
`10. “the computing device
`is operable to reject
`and accept a user
`authorization to use
`the device based on
`the security challenge
`response”
`
`’286 patent: Claim 12
`
`11. “all valid device
`generated limited-use
`information elements”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’538 patent: Claim 8
`
`12. “operable to accept a
`user approval and
`denial of a payment
`transaction”
`
`’286 patent: Claim 17
`
`Indefinite
`
`13. “said selected account
`information”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’538 patent: Claim 19
`
`Indefinite
`
`14. “wherein a card
`issuing authority is
`operable to reject as
`invalid, a payment
`information used
`outside of its valid
`limitations of use”
`
`’286 patent: Claim 15
`
`It is unclear which “device” is
`referred to in Claim 6 when
`read in view of Claim 1.
`
`It is unclear how the
`computing device can both
`reject and accept a single user
`authorization.
`
`The specification provides no
`guidance as to how to define
`the set of all valid device
`generated limited-use
`information elements.
`
`It is unclear how the touch-
`screen display can both accept
`and deny a single payment
`transaction.
`
`It is unclear what “said
`selected account information”
`combined with the at least one
`limited-use number is referring
`to in this claim.
`
`It is unclear whether “its”
`refers to the “card issuing
`authority,” the “payment
`information,” the “limited-use
`payment information,” or
`something else.
`
`15
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 15 of 19
`
`

`

`15. “a one-time limited-
`use numbers”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’520 patent: Claim 1
`
`16. “device-specific
`[information]”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’520 patent: Claims 1,
`10
`’538 patent: Claims 6,
`8
`
`17. “user-specific
`information”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’520 patent: Claims 1,
`10
`’538 patent: Claims 8,
`28
`
`18. “user entered
`identification and
`authorizing
`information is
`recorded through the
`user interface of the
`electronic”
`
`’520 patent: Claim 20
`
`19. “a biometric sensor
`confirming the
`electronic device has
`remained in the
`possession of the user
`from activation to
`transaction”
`
`’520 patent: Claim 20
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`The claim is unclear because it
`recites “a” (singular) one-time
`limited-use “numbers” (plural).
`
`It is unclear how one would
`distinguish between device-
`specific and user-specific
`information, particularly given
`the overlap in those sets of
`information set forth in ’520
`patent dependent Claims 12
`and 13.
`
`It is unclear whether this
`“entered identification and
`authorizing information” is the
`same as “the identification and
`authorizing information”
`recited in Claim 18 or some
`other information.
`
`The claim concerns a method
`of facilitating and authorizing
`an ATM transaction.
`However, identification and
`authorization must be
`completed before the ATM
`processes the selected
`operation because that
`information is used in the
`ATM operation. Therefore, it
`is unclear what duration the
`biometric sensor is confirming.
`
`16
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 16 of 19
`
`

`

`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`20. “thin shaped body”; “a
`thin payment device”;
`“a thin card-shaped
`payment card device”
`
`’820 patent: Claims 1,
`11, 15
`
`21. “wherein a limited-use
`number comprises a
`device account
`number”;
`“combining the
`limited-use number
`and said device
`account number”
`
`’579 patent: Claim 4
`
`22. “completing the
`transaction on the
`electronic device”
`
`’579 patent: Claim 11
`
`23. “imminent payment”;
`”imminent
`performance”
`
`Indefinite
`
`’579 patent: Claims
`18, 19
`
`24. “cryptographically
`combining of at least
`one information
`
`Indefinite
`
`The specification provides no
`guidance on what the
`subjective term “thin” means,
`or how to distinguish between
`“thin,” “thin-shaped,” and
`“thin card-shaped.”
`
`The limited-use number
`comprises a device account
`number, but the device account
`number and the limited-use
`must also be combined. It is
`unclear whether or how this
`claim requires a portion of a
`number to be combined with
`itself.
`
`“Completing the transaction on
`the electronic device” is
`unclear when reading Claim 11
`in view of Claim 1 (concerning
`transmission of payment
`information to perform a
`transaction).
`
`The claim phrase is also
`unclear because some
`transaction steps necessarily
`occur elsewhere, but the
`specification does not define
`what step constitutes the
`“completing” action.
`
`The word “imminent” is
`subjective, and the
`specification provides no
`guidance on its interpretation.
`
`The claim requires
`cryptographically combining
`“at least one information,”
`which includes in its scope
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 17 of 19
`
`17
`
`

`

`accessible on the
`electronic device”
`
`’579 patent: Claim 23
`
`Indefinite
`
`25. “disabling a device
`priming operation
`responsive to
`completing a
`transaction”
`
`’579 patent: Claims
`13, 14
`
`“cryptographically combining
`one information” with nothing.
`A POSITA would not be
`reasonably certain what is
`required by cryptographically
`combining an information with
`nothing.
`
`This method claim previously
`recites disabling the priming
`operation and does not recite
`re-priming the device, thus a
`POSITA could not be
`reasonably certain what is
`required by this method step.
`
`18
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 18 of 19
`
`

`

`DATED: April 27, 2023
`
`By: /s/ Allan M. Soobert
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`Kecia Reynolds (pro hac vice)
`keciareynolds@paulhastings.com
`David Valente (pro hac vice)
`davidvalente@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Facsimile: 202-551-1705
`
`Robert Laurenzi
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX Bar No. 24001351)
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served
`
`via email to all counsel of record on this 27th day of April, 2023.
`
` /s/ Allan M. Soobert
`Allan M. Soobert
`
`19
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2006
`SAMSUNG V. CARDWARE
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 19 of 19
`
`