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’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 27) and Local Patent Rule (“P.R.”) 3-3,
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Samsung” or “Defendants”), hereby disclose these Invalidity Contentions in the above-
`
`captioned case to CardWare, Inc. (“CardWare” or “Plaintiff”). On September 8, 2022,
`
`CardWare served Samsung with Infringement Contentions alleging infringement of claims 1, 4-
`
`20, 22, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520 (the “’520 Patent”); claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 15, 16,
`
`18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,628,820 (the “’820 Patent”); claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,810,579 (the “’579 Patent”); claims 1-21 and 23-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 (the “’538
`
`Patent”); and claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286 (the “’286 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Claims” of the “Asserted Patents”). See Plaintiff CardWare Inc.’s Disclosure of
`
`Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”).
`
`As explained below and in the accompanying exhibits, incorporated by reference herein,
`
`Samsung contends that each of the claims asserted by CardWare is invalid under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112 (pre-AIA and AIA). In its infringement contentions CardWare
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 1 of 139
`
`

`

`“contends that every asserted claim of each asserted patent is entitled to a priority date no later
`
`than March 15, 2013, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/794,891,”
`
`Infringement Contentions at § 3, which would mean that the Asserted Patents fall under pre-
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act patent law (“pre-AIA”) as their effective filing dates fall
`
`before March 16, 2013. Defendants do not concede that any or all of the asserted claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents are entitled to the alleged priority date or to pre-AIA treatment. However, most
`
`of the asserted claims lack written description support in any patent application, provisional or
`
`otherwise. On October 18, 2022, Samsung notified CardWare that there is no apparent Rule 11
`
`basis for making such priority claim contentions and requested an amended identification of
`
`contended priority dates that are warranted by existing law and evidentiary support. CardWare
`
`has not responded. Given CardWare’s ongoing refusal to identify plausible priority dates for the
`
`Asserted Claims, Samsung needs discovery from CardWare (including its experts) into this issue
`
`and, if discovery reveals CardWare is not entitled to the claimed priority date, then intervening
`
`prior art may exist, such as, for example, US Patent No. 11,164,176 to Ngo (the application for
`
`which was filed on December 19, 2014). Samsung reserves the right to supplement these
`
`invalidity contentions with such intervening prior art.
`
`Although the Local Patent Rules do not require Defendants to provide their alleged
`
`priority dates in these invalidity contentions, Defendants note that they may challenge the
`
`priority date of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Exemplary bases for challenging
`
`the claimed priority dates are set forth below.
`
`Regarding the ’520 patent, at least the following terms do not draw support from any
`
`incorporated provisional or non-provisional applications, and were added to the application for
`
`that issued as the ’520 patent by a claim amendment dated December 11, 2018.
`
`2
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 2 of 139
`
`

`

` “wirelessly receiving a static device account number payment information for
`
`storage on the electronic device” (claim 1);
`
` “dynamically-generating a one-time limited-use numbers based on at least one of
`
`a set of information including: user-identifying information; user secrets; device
`
`information; device secrets; time; merchant; facility location; sequence count;
`
`payment information; account information; amount; and transaction information”
`
`(claim 1);
`
` “using said static device account number and said dynamically generated one-
`
`time limited-use number together in the place of issuer provided payment
`
`information for making a payment transaction” (claims 1, 10);
`
` “issuer provided payment information is communicated wirelessly; and, receiving
`
`wirelessly a static device account number payment information for storage on the
`
`electronic device” (claim 10);
`
` “recording a user selection from the user interface of the electronic device of a
`
`user selected account operation, wherein said user selected account operation is
`
`selected from a list of funds transfer operations” (claim 18); and
`
` “wherein said static and dynamic information is combined to perform the user
`
`selected ATM operation” (claim 18).
`
`Thus, at least claims 1, 10, 18, and their dependents—to the extent CardWare proves they
`
`have written description support in any application—are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`
`September 11, 2017, the filing date of patent application No. 15/701,261, which issued as the
`
`’520 patent.
`
`3
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 3 of 139
`
`

`

`Regarding the ’820 patent, at least the following terms do not draw support from any
`
`incorporated provisional or non-provisional applications, and were added to the application for
`
`that issued as the ’820 patent by claim amendments dated July 1, 2019, November 7, 2019, and
`
`December 11, 2019:
`
` “a cryptographic processor coupled to the memory” (claim 1);
`
` “a smart card reader interface” (claim 1);
`
` “a personal computing device, wherein the personal computing device comprises:
`
`a processor; . . . wherein the processor is operable to generate limited-use
`
`payment information based on the card device payment account information”
`
`(claim 11);
`
` “the personal computing device is operable to generate complete payment
`
`information, including the limited-use payment information, and to convey said
`
`complete payment information via at least one interface of a set comprising: said
`
`display; and the wireless interface” (claim 11);
`
` “wherein card issuer provided payment card information is wirelessly
`
`downloaded into the computing device” (claim 15); and
`
` “at least one of the set comprising: the computing device; and the card-shaped
`
`payment device, is configured to dynamically generate a limited-use payment
`
`information, upon the authorization of a valid computing device user” (claim15).
`
`Thus, at least claims 1, 11, 15, and their dependents—to the extent CardWare proves they
`
`have written description support in any application—are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`
`July 2, 2018 (the filing date of the application that issued as the ’820 patent).
`
`4
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 4 of 139
`
`

`

`Regarding the ’286 Patent, at least the following terms do not draw support from any
`
`prior-filed provisional or non-provisional application:
`
` “a computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; a wireless interface; a
`
`touch-screen user interface operable to provide a visual user-interface for user
`
`payment interactions; and a user-input device coupled to the processor, and
`
`wherein the processor is operable to store a transaction sequence count, a device
`
`account number and secrets limited to the computing device, and wherein the
`
`computing device is operable to receive, store and transmit a card payment
`
`information not visible on the payment card device” (claim 1);
`
` “a card-users personal computing device operable for completing a payment
`
`transaction and comprising: a processor; a touch-screen display interface; a user-
`
`interface; . . . and a memory for storing a payment information accessible to the
`
`processor, wherein the computing device is configured to dynamically generate
`
`limited-use payment information, . . . wherein the limited-use payment
`
`information provided by at least one or both of: the payment card device, and the
`
`computing device, is validated by a card issuing authority when used in merchant
`
`in-store facility transactions” (claim 15); and
`
` “a computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; . . . a touch-screen user
`
`interface operable to provide a visual user-interface for user payment interactions;
`
`and a user-input device coupled to the processor; and wherein the memory is
`
`operable to store a transaction sequence count, a static device account number and
`
`secrets limited to the computing device; wherein the computing device is operable
`
`to receive, store, display and transmit issuer-provided payment information,
`
`5
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 5 of 139
`
`

`

`associated with, but not depicted on, the payment card device; wherein the
`
`processor is operable to dynamically generate at least a portion of a limited-use
`
`payment information for use by an authenticated card user, and to combine said at
`
`least a portion of the limited-use payment information with at least said static
`
`device account number to create combined payment information” (claim 20).
`
`Claims 1 and 15 are original claims filed with the application, and claim 20 was added by
`
`amendment on March 24, 2022. Thus, at least claims 1, 15, 20, and their dependents—to the
`
`extent CardWare proves they have written description support in any application—are entitled to
`
`a priority date no earlier than April 11, 2020 (the filing date of the application that issued as the
`
`’286 Patent).
`
`Regarding the ’579 Patent, at least the following terms do not draw support from any
`
`prior-filed provisional or non-provisional application:
`
` “receiving a request for a transaction payment at said electronic device via the
`
`NFC interface” (claim 1);
`
` “displaying, on the touch-screen display, images of: a card issuer payment method
`
`selection, including a last 4-digit partial number of a card issuer supplied account
`
`number of a payment card; a card logo; and other iconography of the payment
`
`card” (claim 1);
`
` “visually conveying a status of said transaction via a user-interface displayed on
`
`said touch-screen display” (claim 1);
`
` “receiving an input signal at an electronic device, the input signal corresponding
`
`to a request for payment of a transaction at said electronic device, via a recipient
`
`6
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 6 of 139
`
`

`

`proximity communication request to an NFC interface of the electronic device”
`
`(claim 15);
`
` “displaying a summary of selectable payment account options at a touch-screen
`
`display user-interface of the electronic device” (claim 15);
`
` “displaying on said display at least one of a set of information comprising:
`
`transaction information; merchant information; a time; a location of the
`
`transaction; a payment bank logo; a card issuer icon; a payment card image; an
`
`amount” (claim 15);
`
` “receiving a user input providing for at least one transaction action, from a set of
`
`actions comprising: approving a transaction; denying a transaction; and adjusting
`
`a transaction” (claim 15);
`
` “an NFC interface operable to receive a transaction request when in proximity to
`
`an NFC recipient” (claim 19);
`
` “responsive to receiving an NFC transaction payment request, generating a
`
`limited-use payment information for use in place of card issuer payment
`
`information” (claim 19); and
`
` “wherein further the processor is operable to cause the display to visually convey
`
`a status of the transaction” (claim 19).
`
`Claims 1 and 19 are original claims filed with the application, and claim 15 was amended
`
`on May 20, 2020 to include the features of a dependent claim. Thus, at least claims 1, 15, 19,
`
`and their dependents—to the extent CardWare proves they have written description support in
`
`any application—are entitled to a priority date no earlier than July 1, 2019 (the filing date of the
`
`application that issued as the ’579 Patent).
`
`7
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 7 of 139
`
`

`

`Regarding the ’538 Patent, at least the following terms do not draw support from any
`
`prior-filed provisional or non-provisional application:
`
` “receiving a request for a transaction payment at said electronic device via an
`
`NFC interface of the device” (claim 1);
`
` “displaying, on a display of the device, a transaction payment request and at least
`
`a portion of an original static issuer-supplied payment account information
`
`associated with a payment method, for a user selection in paying the payment
`
`request” (claim 1);
`
` “receiving information at said electronic device corresponding to a transaction
`
`status of the payment transaction, wherein such transaction status is at least partly
`
`dependent on validation of the transmitted complete device payment information
`
`by a payment processor authority and a payment issuer authority” (claim 1);
`
` “visually conveying the transaction payment authorization status via a user-
`
`interface displayed on said display” (claim 1);
`
` “receiving an input signal at an electronic device, the input signal corresponding
`
`to a request for payment of an online payment transaction by said electronic
`
`device, via a wireless interface of the electronic device” (claim 19);
`
` “receiving a user input providing for at least one transaction authorization actions,
`
`from a set of actions including: approving a transaction, denying a transaction,
`
`selecting a user information, a payment amount adjustment, and selecting a
`
`transaction payment method” (claim 19); and
`
` “wherein further the processor is operable to receive an approval and a denial
`
`confirmation from an online payment facility of the complete device payment
`
`8
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 8 of 139
`
`

`

`information, and cause the display to visually convey a status of the online
`
`purchase transaction” (claim 25).
`
`Claims 1, 19, and 25 were added with the rest of the ’538 Patent claims in a preliminary
`
`amendment on June 16, 2021. Thus, at least claims 1, 19, 25, and their dependents—to the
`
`extent CardWare proves they have written description support in any application—are entitled to
`
`a priority date no earlier than of October 20, 2020 (the filing date of the application that issued as
`
`the ’538 Patent).
`
`Defendants reserve the right to challenge the alleged priority date for any of the asserted
`
`claims and present herein prior art references that are applicable to pre-AIA and AIA treatment
`
`for certain asserted claims.
`
`Likewise, should any application for one of the Asserted Patents contain or have
`
`contained at any time, a claim having an effective filing date of March 16, 2013, or later, or a
`
`specific reference under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that
`
`contains or contained at any time such a claim, the AIA’s provisions would apply to every claim
`
`to have issued from such an application. See AIA § 3(n)(1). As such, these invalidity
`
`contentions and the attached exhibits address invalidity and ineligibility under both pre-AIA and
`
`AIA patent law. Unless stated otherwise, each citation to any of 35 U.S.C. section 101, 102,
`
`103, and/or 112, shall be interpreted as referring to both the pre-AIA and AIA section(s).
`
`For purposes of these Invalidity Contentions, Defendants identify prior art references and
`
`provide element-by-element claim charts based, in part, on the apparent claim constructions
`
`advanced by Plaintiff in its Infringement Contentions. The citation of prior art herein and in the
`
`accompanying exhibits is not intended to reflect Defendants’ claim construction positions, which
`
`will be disclosed in due course in accordance with the Docket Control Order, and may instead
`
`9
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 9 of 139
`
`

`

`reflect Plaintiff’s apparent (and potentially erroneous) claim constructions based on its
`
`Infringement Contentions. Nothing stated herein shall be treated as an admission or suggestion
`
`that Defendants agree with Plaintiff regarding either the scope of any of the Asserted Claims or
`
`the claim constructions advanced in the Infringement Contentions. Moreover, nothing in these
`
`Invalidity Contentions shall be treated as an admission that Defendants’ accused technology
`
`meets any limitations of the claims.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions herein reflect Defendants’ knowledge as of this early
`
`date in the present action. Defendants reserve the right, to the extent permitted by the Court and
`
`the applicable statutes and rules, to modify and/or supplement their Invalidity Contentions in
`
`response to becoming aware of additional prior art or information regarding prior art, any
`
`modification or supplementation of Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, any claim construction
`
`by the Court, or as otherwise may be appropriate.
`
`Defendants’ Exhibits attached hereto cite to particular teachings and disclosures of the
`
`prior art as applied to features of the Asserted Claims. However, persons having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) generally view a prior disclosure in its entirety (e.g., view specific
`
`disclosures in the context of the general disclosures), in the context of other publications,
`
`literature, products, and understanding and knowledge of such a person. As such, the cited
`
`portions of prior art identified herein are exemplary only. Defendants may rely on the entirety of
`
`the prior art references listed herein, including un-cited portions of those prior art references, and
`
`on other publications, systems, evidence, and expert testimony shedding light on those prior art
`
`references or the state of the art in general, including as aids in understanding and interpreting
`
`the cited portions, as providing context thereto, and as additional evidence that the prior art
`
`discloses a claim limitation.
`
`10
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 10 of 139
`
`

`

`Defendants may also rely on documents, systems, products, testimony, and other
`
`evidence to establish bases for, and motivations to make, combinations of or modifications to
`
`certain cited references that render the Asserted Claims obvious. Defendants may rely upon
`
`corroborating documents, products, testimony, and other evidence, including materials obtained
`
`through further discovery, investigation, and third-party discovery of the prior art identified
`
`herein that describes the invalidating features identified in these contentions; evidence of the
`
`state of the art in the relevant time period (irrespective of whether such references themselves
`
`qualify as prior art to the Asserted Patents), including prior art listed on the face of the Asserted
`
`Patents and/or disclosed in the specification(s) (i.e., applicant admitted prior art); and/or expert
`
`testimony to provide context to or aid in understanding the cited portions of the identified prior
`
`art.
`
`The references discussed in the Exhibits hereto disclose the elements of the Asserted
`
`Claims explicitly, inherently, and/or in combination with themselves or the knowledge of one
`
`skilled in the art at the time of filing. The references also may be relied upon to show the state of
`
`the art in the relevant time frame. To the extent the attached claim charts cite to a reference for
`
`each element or limitation of an Asserted Claim, Defendants contend that such reference
`
`anticipates that claim or renders it obvious, either alone or in combination with other references.
`
`To the extent suggested obviousness combinations are included in the attached exhibits, they are
`
`provided in the alternative to Defendants’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to
`
`suggest that any reference included in the combinations is not by itself anticipatory.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4, Defendants provide disclosures and related documents
`
`pertaining only to the Asserted Claims as identified by Plaintiff in its Infringement Contentions.
`
`Defendants will further supplement their P.R. 3-4 document production should they later find
`
`11
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 11 of 139
`
`

`

`additional prior art or obtain translations of previously-produced art. Much of the art identified
`
`in the attached Exhibits reflects common knowledge and the state of the art near the filing date of
`
`the Asserted Patent.
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims1 of the Asserted Patents is anticipated by and/or obvious in
`
`view of one or more items of prior art identified herein, alone or in combination. Specific
`
`examples of this anticipation and obviousness, along with the motivation to combine the selected
`
`prior art, are set forth in the attached Claim Charts (Exhibits A-01 through E-38) and
`
`Combinations Exhibit (Ex. K). The identification of obviousness combinations is not intended to
`
`be exhaustive, as there are many possible combinations of the references that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to make, and it is not practical to provide details of all
`
`such possible combinations, particularly at this early stage of the case.
`
`The Docket Control Order and the Patent Rules contemplate that these Invalidity
`
`Contentions would be prepared and served in response to Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`However, Plaintiff has not complied with, and continues not to comply with, its obligation of
`
`complete disclosure in multiple respects. By way of example, and without limitation, these
`
`deficiencies were detailed in letters from Samsung to CardWare on October 10, 2022 and
`
`October 18, 2022.
`
`Due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly allege infringement of the above claims and/or
`
`provide complete disclosure of its Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1, Defendants reserve
`
`the right to seek leave from the Court to amend these Invalidity Contentions should Plaintiff
`
`amend its Infringement Contentions or its apparent claim constructions. Defendants also reserve
`
`
`1 For reasons analogous to those identified herein, Defendants contend all non-asserted claims of
`the Asserted Patent are invalid as anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art, patent
`ineligible subject matter, indefinite, not enabled, or not supported by the written description.
`
`12
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 12 of 139
`
`

`

`the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement their Invalidity Contentions in light of positions
`
`that Plaintiff or its expert witnesses may assert concerning claim construction, infringement,
`
`and/or invalidity issues.
`
`I.
`
`Background and State of the Art / System Prior Art
`A.
`
`Contactless Payments and Key Fobs
`
`Contactless payment has been known since at least 1997. Exxon/Mobile, McDonalds and
`
`Bank of America launched contactless payment systems in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
`
`http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-05-29-mcdonalds-e-payments.htm,
`
`https://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/freedompay-makes-waves-in-contactless-payment/.
`
`Exxon’s system, known as SpeedPass, used RFID technology to transmit payment related data
`
`wirelessly from a key fab to a payment terminal. The key fobs included no printed user or
`
`account identifying information thereon:
`
`Visa (discussed further below) provided key fobs to users as early as 2007 that were capable of
`
`facilitating contactless payments at Visa PayPass point of sale terminals:
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, September 26, 2007–Visa announced today
`the availability of the Visa Micro Tag, a new key fob payment
`device embedded with Visa payWave, Visa’s contactless
`technology feature. The Visa Micro Tag is designed to easily
`attach to a key ring, and allows cardholders to pay by simply
`
`13
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 13 of 139
`
`

`

`waving their Visa Micro Tag in front of a contactless payment
`terminal without the need to physically swipe or insert the device
`into a point-of-sale terminal.
`
`The Visa Micro Tag allows financial institutions to offer
`cardholders a companion device to an existing credit, debit or
`prepaid account. Designed to be small and durable, the Visa Micro
`Tag makes paying for purchases faster and more convenient.
`
`Visa Micro Tags display the Visa Brand Mark and contactless
`indicator. A Visa account number is not required to be embossed
`or printed on the device, providing an additional layer of security
`for consumers carrying a Visa Micro Tag in visible ways, such as
`on a keychain . . . .
`
`Cardholders making purchases with Visa payWave-enabled
`products enjoy additional layers of security because the payment
`device never leaves the customer’s hand, can only be read at
`extremely close proximity to a reader, and submits a unique digital
`watermark to the Visa payment network for each transaction.
`
`Visa Unveils New Contactless Payment Device – Visa Micro Tag,
`
`https://www.securetechalliance.org/visa-unveils-new-contactless-payment-device-visa-micro-
`
`tag/ (September 26, 2007) (emphasis added). Visa PayWave is discussed further below.
`
`MasterCard offered a similar key fob for use with MasterCard PayPass contactless terminals:
`
`MasterCard PayPass ® is a “contactless” payment solution that
`enables consumers simply to tap or wave their payment card or
`other payment device, such as a phone, key fob or wristband, on a
`specially equipped terminal.
`
`MASTERCARD INC, FORM 10-K, (Annual Report), Filed 02/28/07 for the Period Ending
`
`12/31/06, https://s25.q4cdn.com/479285134/files/doc_financials/2006/q4/658dd46b-769b-4c17-
`
`9e23-8ae0073ddc96.pdf, p. 14 (emphasis added). See also, KickStarter, Simplify, Organize and
`
`Pay with Loop; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/loop/pay-with-loop:
`
`14
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 14 of 139
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`The PCI DSS, EMV and ISO Standards
`
`By 2004, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) and the EMV
`
`(EuroPay, Mastercard, Visa) standards had been established. PCI DSS was focused on
`
`increasing controls around cardholder data to reduce credit card fraud. EMV concerned smart
`
`cards (chip cards), a/k/a integrated circuit (IC) cards, capable of storing data on integrated circuit
`
`chips embedded in the card. PCI DSS was implemented in the EMV environment to enhance
`
`credit card transaction security and fraud-reduction:
`
`This document compares and contrasts the current fraud-reduction
`capabilities of EMV within the security framework of the Payment
`Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) and examines
`the rationale for why it remains necessary to implement PCI DSS
`in the EMV environments that exist today.
`
`pci_dss_emv.pdf (pcisecuritystandards.org),
`
`https://listings.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/pci_dss_emv.pdf (PCI DSS Applicability in an EMV
`
`Environment, A Guidance Document, Version 1, Release date: 5 October 2010). The ISO
`
`15
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 15 of 139
`
`

`

`published standards on credit card numbering and contactless card structure, technology,
`
`operation and protocols well before 2013. ISO/IEC7812 (Card issuers numbering),
`
`ISO/IEC14443 (contactless operation)2, ISO/IEC 7816 (smartcard hardware, commands,
`
`command management). A discussion of relevant ISO and EMV standards can be found at
`
`29C3: A Rambling Walk Through an EMV Transaction (EN) - YouTube,
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdNm9JJmCzg (December 30, 2012).
`
`C.
`
`Samsung’s History with NFC Contactless Payments for Smartphones
`
`NFC was developed in the mid-2000s.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110628203003/http://www.nfc-
`
`forum.org/news/pr/view?item_key=d8968a33b4812e2509e5b74247d1366dc8ef91d8;
`
`ISO/IEC14443. Samsung began integrating NFC technologies into its phones for contactless
`
`payments as early as 2007. INSIDE Contactless to Equip KTFMobile Payment Project Mobile
`
`Phones; Korean Manufacturer Confirms INSIDE’s NFC Maturity by Embedding MicroRead into
`
`LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics Mobile Phones for its Mobile Payment Project,
`
`Business Wire, July 16, 2007, (“On a first basis, 200 MicroRead chips have been delivered to LG
`
`Electronics and Samsung Electronics to equip both manufacturers’ NFC phones.”); New NFC-
`
`Enabled Phones to Hit Europe, ReadWriteWeb, February 18, 2011 (Samsung Wave 578,
`
`Samsung’s Galaxy S II). Samsung even designed and manufactured its own NFC chips for use
`
`in its mobile devices. Samsung cooks up its own NFC module, destined for the Nexus S?,
`
`Engadget, December 1, 2010 (“Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a world leader in advanced
`
`semiconductor solutions, announced today a new near field communications (NFC) chip with
`
`embedded flash memory.”)
`
`2 Standing Document 1 (SD1): WG8 Projects (archive.org),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110927044225/http://wg8.de/sd1.html#14443 (Sept. 27, 2011) (4
`parts and related Amendments (AMx)).
`
`16
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 16 of 139
`
`

`

`The Samsung Star included NFC capabilities for mobile contactless payments in early
`
`2010 for mobile payments use. Mobile Contactless Payments Trialed Live at Mobile World
`
`Congress 2010; GSMA, Samsung, Telefónica and Visa, with Giesecke & Devrient, Ingenico, ITN
`
`International and La Caixa, collaborate across industries to give Congress attendees an
`
`opportunity to experience NFC, Business Wire, February 15, 2010 (“The participating
`
`companies have provided more than 400 NFC handsets to guests for use at the Congress. The
`
`Samsung Star NFC handsets contain Telefónica SIM cards from O2 pre-loaded with (EURO) 60
`
`airtime credit as well as a La Caixa Visa Mobile Payment Application. Participants can use their
`
`NFC phones to pay for food and drink up to a value of (EURO) 75 at over 30 merchant locations
`
`around the Congress. . . . Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. provided the NFC-enabled Samsung Star
`
`handsets and offered technical support to ensure the stability of the very first NFC payment
`
`trial.”).3 Another early smartphone to incorporate NFC was the Samsung Nexus S in 2010.
`
`https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_google_nexus_s-3620.php ;
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20131005041615/http://blogs.computerworld.com/17359/eric_schm
`
`idt android gingerbread; https://www.androidcentral.com/gingerbread-feature-near-field-
`
`communication. That phone was launched as a further stepping stone to mobile payment capable
`
`devices. Google unveils first Android NFC phone — but Nexus S is limited to tag reading only
`
`for now • NFCW; https://www.nfcw.com/2010/12/07/35385/google-unveils-first-android-nfc-
`
`phone-but-nexus-s-is-limited-to-tag-reading-only-for-now/.4 Samsung’s innovations in NFC-
`
`
`3 See also “La Caixa” 2010 Annual Report, p. 68 (“Jointly with Movistar and Visa, the first
`experiment in Spain was conducted as regards payments made via mobile phones with NFC
`technology.”)
`https://fundacionlacaixa.org/documents/10280/944807/informe_anual_2010_en.pdf.
`4 Samsung also incorporated NFC into smartwatches. Samsung to Unveil NFC Smartwatch -
`Has Wrist-Payments’ Time Come?, Payments Source, September 2, 2013, Copyright 2013
`SourceMedia LLC d/b/a Arizent (“The upcoming Samsung Galaxy Gear smartwatch will have a
`
`17
`
`CARDWARE EXHIBIT 2011
`CARDWARE V. SAMSUNG
`PGR2023-00013
`Page 17 of 139
`
`

`

`based mobile contactless payment technology and products continued in 2011 with the launch of
`
`mobile devices capable of mobile contactless payments in France in 2011.
`
`https://www.01net.com/actualites/nice-premiere-ville-a-passer-au-paiement-sans-contact-
`
`516923.html; https://www.nfcw.com/2011/02/14/35968/orange-to-offer-samsung-wave-578-nfc-
`
`across-europe-%e2%80%94-but-not-the-uk/; https://www.nfcw.com/2010/12/16/35498/orange-
`
`to-roll-out-nfc-services-across-europe-in-2011/. Further, the Samsung Nexus S 4G sold through
`
`Sprint allowed mobile payments via Google Wallet in 2011 in the United States. Google Wallet
`
`Mobile Payments Coming to New York, San Francisco; Google Wallet will launch this summer
`
`to enable consumer