Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 55
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully submits this response to the Amended
`
`Complaint filed by Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. (“RFCyber”). Except as expressly admitted below,
`
`Apple denies each and every allegation set forth in the Amended Complaint. Apple responds to
`
`the numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint and the prayer for relief as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`Complaint No. 1: RFCyber is a Texas corporation with a place of business at 600
`
`Columbus Avenue, Suite 106, Waco, Texas 76701. RFCyber is the owner of all right, title, and
`
`interest in and to, or is the exclusive licensee with the right to sue for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,118,218,
`
`8,448,855, 9,189,787, 9,240,009, 10,600,046, and 11,018,724 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”
`
`or “Asserted Patents”).
`
`1 Apple is adopting all headings used in RFCyber’s Amended Complaint for ease of reference.
`To the extent these headings contain any allegations to which a response is required, Apple
`denies any such allegations.
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 55
`
`1.
`
`Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`set forth in Paragraph 1 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 2: Defendant Apple, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of California, with one or more regular and established places of business in this District at
`
`least at 12545 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas 78727; 12801 Delcour Drive, Austin, Texas
`
`78727; 6800 W Parmer Lane, Austin, Texas 78729, and 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas 78758.
`
`Apple may be served with process through its registered agent, the CT Corp System, at 1999
`
`Bryan St., Ste. 900 Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. In November 2019, Apple stated that it had
`
`approximately 7,000 employees in Austin and that it expected to open, in 2022, a $1 billion, 3
`
`million-square-foot campus with capacity for 15,000 employees. See
`
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/. Apple is registered to do
`
`business in the State of Texas and has been since at least May 16, 1980.
`
`2.
`
`Apple admits that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of
`
`California. Apple admits that it has one or more regular and established places of business in
`
`Austin, Texas. Apple admits that it is registered to do business in the State of Texas and may be
`
`served through its registered agent, the CT Corp System, at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900 in Dallas,
`
`Texas 75201. Apple admits that it has offices in Austin, Texas. Apple denies the remaining
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Complaint No. 3: This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
`
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, and 1367.
`
`3.
`
`Apple admits that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 55
`
`Complaint No. 4: The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`4.
`
`Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`set forth in Paragraph 4 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 5: This Court has specific and personal jurisdiction over Defendant
`
`consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and
`
`the Texas Long Arm Statute. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sufficient minimum
`
`contacts with the forum because Defendant has physical locations and transacts substantial
`
`business in the State of Texas and in this Judicial District. Further, Defendant has, directly or
`
`through subsidiaries or intermediaries, committed and continues to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in the State of Texas and in this Judicial District as alleged in this Complaint, as
`
`alleged more particularly below.
`
`5.
`
`Apple admits that this Court has general jurisdiction over Apple in this action.
`
`Apple denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 and specifically denies that it has
`
`committed any acts of infringement in this District or elsewhere.
`
`Complaint No. 6: Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1400(b) and 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Judicial
`
`District, has committed acts of patent infringement in this Judicial District, and has a regular and
`
`established place of business in this Judicial District. Defendant, through its own acts, makes,
`
`uses, sells, and/or offers to sell infringing products within this Judicial District, regularly does and
`
`solicits business in this Judicial District, and has the requisite minimum contacts with the Judicial
`
`District such that this venue is a fair and reasonable one.
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 4 of 55
`
`6.
`
`For the purposes of this litigation only, Apple admits venue is proper in the Austin
`
`Division of this District. Apple denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement in this
`
`District or elsewhere. Apple denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`Complaint No. 7: On February 21, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 (the “’218 Patent”) entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Providing Electronic Purse.” A true and correct copy of the ’218 Patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 is titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Providing Electronic Purse.” Apple admits that a document that purports to be a copy of the ’218
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit A. Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 8: On May 28, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 (the “’855 Patent”) entitled “Method and Apparatus
`
`For Funding An Electronic Purse.” A true and correct copy of the ’855 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`8.
`
`Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 is titled “Method and Apparatus For
`
`Funding An Electronic Purse.” Apple admits that a document that purports to be a copy of the
`
`’855 patent is attached as Exhibit B. Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 9: On November 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 (the “’787 Patent”) entitled “Method and
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 5 of 55
`
`Apparatus for Conducting E-Commerce and M-Commerce.” A true and correct copy of the ’787
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`9.
`
`Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 is titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Conducting E-Commerce and M-Commerce.” Apple admits that a document that purports to be a
`
`copy of the ’787 patent is attached as Exhibit C. Apple lacks sufficient information to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`Complaint No. 10: On January 19, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 (the “’009 Patent”) entitled “Mobile Devices
`
`for Commerce Over Unsecured Networks.” A true and correct copy of the ’009 Patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit D.
`
`10.
`
`Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 is titled “Mobile Devices for
`
`Commerce Over Unsecured Networks.” Apple admits that a document that purports to be a copy
`
`of the ’009 patent is attached as Exhibit D. Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 11: On January March 24, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (the “’046 Patent”) entitled “Method
`
`and Apparatus for Mobile Payments.” A true and correct copy of the ’046 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit E.
`
`11.
`
`Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 is titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Mobile Payments.” Apple admits that a document that purports to be a copy of the ’046 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit E. Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 and on that basis denies them.
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 6 of 55
`
`Complaint No. 12: On May 25, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 11,018,724 (the “’724 Patent”) entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Emulating Multiple Cards in Mobile Devices.” A true and correct copy of the ’724
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`12.
`
`Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 11,018,724 is titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Emulating Multiple Cards in Mobile Devices.” Apple admits that a document that purports to be
`
`a copy of the ’724 patent is attached as Exhibit F. Apple lacks sufficient information to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`Complaint No. 13: RFCyber is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest
`
`to and in, or is the exclusive licensee with the right to sue for, the ’218, ’855, ’787, ’009, ’046,
`
`and ’724 Patents, and holds the exclusive right to take all actions necessary to enforce its rights to
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, including the filing of this patent infringement lawsuit. RFCyber also has the
`
`right to recover all damages for past, present, and future infringement of the Patents-in-Suit and to
`
`seek injunctive relief as appropriate under the law.
`
`13.
`
`Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`set forth in Paragraph 13 and on that basis denies them.
`
`INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS
`
`Complaint No. 14: The technologies of the Patents-in-Suit were variously invented by
`
`Liang Seng Koh, Hsin Pan, Xiangzhen Xie, Futong Cho, and Fuliang Cho. The Patents-in-Suit
`
`generally cover apparatus and methods for enabling secure contactless payment with a portable
`
`device. In one exemplary embodiment, a smart card module including a secure element may
`
`emulate a payment card over near field communications (“NFC”). For example, users may select
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 7 of 55
`
`one of a plurality of payment cards stored in a memory of the secure element, and carry out a
`
`transaction via NFC at a point of service (“POS”). In another embodiment, the device may
`
`securely conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server. By facilitating the
`
`settlement of charges using an NFC mobile device to read off data pertaining to an electronic
`
`invoice, the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit provide significant time-savings, particularly in
`
`situations where a payment process would otherwise involve more than one contact between a
`
`merchant and consumer.
`
`14.
`
`Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`set forth in Paragraph 14 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 15: Apple has manufactured, used, marketed, distributed, sold, offered for
`
`sale, and exported from and imported into the United States devices and software that infringe the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Apple has distributed variants of Apple Pay that have included functionality to
`
`emulate a payment card and settle a transaction via NFC and/or MST at least since October
`
`2014.1 Apple Pay is operable on a range of Apple devices, including at least all devices from the
`
`iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, and above, including, at least all variants of the following Apple devices:
`
`iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X,
`
`iPhone 11, iPhone 12, iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad, and iPad mini models with Touch ID or Face ID,
`
`Apple Watch Series 1 and later, Mac models with Touch ID, Mac computers with Apple Silicon
`
`that are paired with a Magic Keyboard with Touch ID, and all Apple devices released since
`
`October 2014.2 The current and previous versions of Apple Pay and devices running Apple Pay,
`
`alone and together, are non-limiting instances of the Accused Products. The Accused Products
`
`include, for example, the representative iPhone X running Apple Pay. The Accused Products
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 8 of 55
`
`practice the claims of the Patents-in-Suit to improve the shopping experience of their users, and to
`
`improve Apple’s position in the market.
`
`15.
`
`Apple denies that any of its devices or software infringe the asserted patents.
`
`Apple admits that Apple Pay is operable on certain Apple devices including certain iPhone, iPad,
`
`Apple Watch, and Mac computers. Apple denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
`
`15.
`
`Complaint No. 16: In August of 2016, LogicPatents, a broker, contacted Apple regarding
`
`the RFCyber patent portfolio, specifically the ’218, ’855, ’787, and ’009 Patents, as well as the
`
`applications that eventually issued as the ’046 and ’724 Patents.
`
`16.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 16.
`
`Complaint No. 17: No agreement was reached with Apple regarding any of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`17.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 17.
`
`Complaint No. 18: At least as a result of LogicPatents contacting Apple, Apple has had
`
`knowledge of the ’218, ’855, ’787, and ’009 Patents since at least August 2016.
`
`18.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 9 of 55
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 18.
`
`Complaint No. 19: On information and belief, as a result of LogicPatents contacting
`
`Apple, Apple has had knowledge of the ’046 and ’724 Patents since they issued on March 24,
`
`2020 and May 25, 2021, respectively.
`
`19.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 19.
`
`Complaint No. 20: Apple is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 10,878,414 (“the ’414
`
`Patent”). On September 23, 2016, during prosecution of the ’414 Patent, Apple listed the
`
`publication of the ’009 Patent’s application in an information disclosure statement to the United
`
`States Patent Office. Apple therefore had knowledge of the ’009 Patent since at least September
`
`23, 2016. On information and belief, Apple’s investigation that discovered the ’009 Patent
`
`provided it with knowledge of the other Patents-in-Suit at least as of the same time.
`
`20.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 20.
`
`Complaint No. 21: Apple is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 10,929,843 (“the ’843
`
`Patent”). During prosecution, the Patent Examiner cited 15 RFCyber patents and applications,
`
`including the ’009 and ’046 Patents. Apple therefore had knowledge of at least the ’009 and ’046
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 10 of 55
`
`Patents at least as of April 29, 2020, when the Examiner cited them during prosecution of the ’843
`
`Patent.
`
`21.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 21.
`
`Complaint No. 22: On information and belief, as a sophisticated company with an
`
`experienced legal department, Apple investigated RFCyber’s issued patents after seeing numerous
`
`RFCyber patents and applications cited during prosecution of the ’843 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, Apple further had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit at least since November 29, 2017,
`
`when the Examiner cited six RFCyber patent applications during prosecution of the ’843 Patent.
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 22.
`
`Complaint No. 23: Apple has also had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit, and the way that
`
`its products infringe those patents, since it received the original Complaint in this case, filed on
`
`September 7, 2021 and served on September 13, 2021.
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 16.
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 11 of 55
`
`Complaint No. 24: Apple’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit is willful. Apple continues
`
`to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement,
`
`and Apple knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of
`
`infringement. Apple’s infringement of patents that were specifically disclosed to it, and that it
`
`declined to reach an agreement on, and its continuing infringement after the filing of the original
`
`Complaint, is particularly egregious.
`
`24.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
`
`Complaint No. 25: RFCyber has at all times complied with the marking provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the Patents-in-Suit. On information and belief, any prior assignees
`
`and licensees have also complied with the marking provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`25.
`
`Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`set forth in Paragraph 25 and on that basis denies them.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of the ’218 Patent)
`
`Complaint No. 26: Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference as if
`
`fully set forth in their entireties.
`
`26.
`
`Apple incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 25 herein by reference.
`
`Complaint No. 27: RFCyber has not licensed or otherwise authorized Apple to make, use,
`
`offer for sale, sell, or import any products that embody the inventions of the ’218 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Apple lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`set forth in Paragraph 27 and on that basis denies them.
`
`Complaint No. 28: Apple infringes, contributes to the infringement of, and/or induces
`
`infringement of the ’218 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing, exporting
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 12 of 55
`
`from, and/or importing into the United States products and/or methods covered by one or more
`
`claims of the ’218 Patent, including, but not limited to, at least the Accused Products.
`
`28.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
`
`Complaint No. 29: Apple has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the
`
`’218 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and in violation
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the United
`
`States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’218 Patent.
`
`Upon information and belief, these products include the Accused Products that practice the
`
`methods and systems covered by the ’218 Patent, including, for example, card emulation and
`
`NFC payment functionality implemented by Apple Pay running on an Apple device, such as the
`
`representative iPhone X. For example, these products infringe at least claim 1 of the ’218 Patent.
`
`29.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.
`
`Complaint No. 30: For example, Apple has and continues to directly infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ‘218 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the
`
`United States products that implement a method for providing an e-purse, the method comprising:
`
`providing a portable device including or communicating with a smart card pre-loaded with an
`
`emulator configured to execute a request from an e-purse applet and provide a response the e-
`
`purse applet is configured to expect, the portable device including a memory space loaded with a
`
`midlet that is configured to facilitate communication between the e-purse applet and a payment
`
`server over a wireless network, wherein the e-purse applet is downloaded and installed in the
`
`smart card when the smart card is in communication with the payment server, the portable device
`
`further includes a contactless interface that facilitates communication between the e-purse applet
`
`in the smart card and the payment server over a wired network; personalizing the e-purse applet
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 13 of 55
`
`by reading off data from the smart card to generate in the smart card one or more operation keys
`
`that are subsequently used to establish a secured channel between the e-purse applet and an e-
`
`purse security authentication module (SAM) external to the smart card, wherein said
`
`personalizing the e-purse applet comprises: establishing an initial security channel between the
`
`smart card and the e-purse SAM to install and personalize the e-purse applet in the smart card,
`
`and creating a security channel on top of the initial security channel to protect subsequent
`
`operations of the smart card with the e-purse SAM, wherein any subsequent operation of the
`
`emulator is conducted over the security channel via the e-purse applet.
`
`30.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
`
`Complaint No. 31: The Accused Products provide a portable device, such as the Apple
`
`iPhone X, including or communicating with a smart card pre-loaded with an emulator configured
`
`to execute a request from an e-purse applet and provide a response the e-purse applet is
`
`configured to expect. For example, the iPhone X includes or communicates with a smart card
`
`such as an NFC module, and/or assembly of an NFC module, secure element, processor,
`
`microcontroller, and/or memory, such as an NXP 80V18 PN80V NFC Controller. On information
`
`and belief, the smart card (e.g. NFC module) of the iPhone X is pre-loaded with an emulator
`
`configured to execute a request from an e-purse applet, such as a payment card applet within
`
`Apple Pay, and provide a response that the applet is configured to expect.
`
`31.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.
`
`Complaint No. 32: For example, Accused Products, such as the iPhone X, include a
`
`memory space loaded with a midlet, such as Apple Wallet or other software, that is configured to
`
`facilitate communication between the e-purse applet, such as a payment card stored on the
`
`product, and a payment server, such as a merchant and/or financial institution payment server,
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 14 of 55
`
`over a wireless network. For example, on information and belief, the Apple iPhone X comprises
`
`memory such as RAM, ROM, Flash, and/or EEPROM, including in both the NFC module and
`
`secure element. For example, on information and belief, the secure element of the Apple iPhone
`
`X running Apple Pay further comprises a memory such as RAM, ROM, Flash, and/or EEPROM.
`
`32.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.
`
`Complaint No. 33: The Accused Products further perform a method wherein the e-purse
`
`applet is downloaded and installed in the smart card when the smart card is in communication
`
`with the payment server. For example, the Apple iPhone X running Apple Pay operates to
`
`download and install a payment card applet when the NFC module is in communication with the
`
`payment institution’s server:
`
`33.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33.
`
`Complaint No. 34: The Accused Products further include a contactless interface that
`
`facilitates communication between the e-purse applet in the smart card and the payment server
`
`over a wired network. For example, on information and belief, the NFC module of the Apple
`
`iPhone X includes a contactless NFC interface that facilitates communication between a payment
`
`card applet and a payment server over a wired network, such as via a payment card reader at a
`
`POS connected to a payment server via wired network:
`
`34.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34.
`
`Complaint No. 35: The Accused Products further personalize the e-purse applet (e.g.
`
`payment card applet within Apple Pay) by reading off data from the smart card (e.g. NFC Module
`
`or secure element) to generate in the smart card one or more operation keys that are subsequently
`
`used to establish a secured channel between the e-purse applet and an e-purse security
`
`authentication module (SAM) external to the smart card. For example, on information and belief,
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 15 of 55
`
`Apple Pay establishes operations keys that operate to establish secure connections between a
`
`stored payment card and an authentication module at a server of the card issuer and/or merchant
`
`when adding a given card to the device for the first time, and/or subsequently during transactions:
`
`35.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.
`
`Complaint No. 36: The Accused Products further practice a method wherein
`
`personalizing the e-purse applet (e.g. configuring the payment card applet within Apple Pay)
`
`comprises establishing an initial security channel between the smart card and the e-purse SAM to
`
`install and personalize the e-purse applet in the smart card. For example, on information and
`
`belief, Apple Pay operates to establish a security channel with at least an Apple server after a user
`
`enters details for a given payment card, and operates to install and personalize the applet in the
`
`smart card, such as to install the card with the user’s personal information in the secure element:
`
`36.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36.
`
`Complaint No. 37: The Accused Products create a security channel on top of the initial
`
`security channel to protect subsequent operations of the smart card within the e-purse SAM,
`
`wherein any subsequent operation of the emulator is conducted over the security channel via the
`
`e-purse applet. For example, on information and belief, once a payment card applet is installed,
`
`operation of the emulator is conducted via operation of the e-purse applet using the security key
`
`installed during the personalization process.
`
`37.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
`
`Complaint No. 38: Apple has had knowledge and notice of the ‘218 Patent at least as of
`
`August 2016.
`
`38.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 16 of 55
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 38.
`
`Complaint No. 39: Apple has had knowledge of how its products infringe the ’218 Patent
`
`since at least September 7, 2021. Despite that knowledge, Apple continues to infringe the ’218
`
`Patent both directly and indirectly.
`
`39.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`RFCyber’s indirect and willful infringement claims (ECF No. 98), Apple understands that it need
`
`not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, Apple denies all allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 39.
`
`Complaint No. 40: Apple has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’218 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by inducing infringement
`
`by others, such as Apple’s customers and end-users, in this District and elsewhere in the United
`
`States. For example, Apple’s customers and end-users directly infringe, either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, through their use of the inventions claimed in the ’218 Patent. Apple
`
`induces this direct infringement through its affirmative acts of manufacturing, selling,
`
`distributing, and/or otherwise making available the Accused Products, and providing instructions,
`
`documentation, and other information to customers and end-users suggesting that they use the
`
`Accused Products in an infringing manner, including technical support, marketing, product
`
`manuals, advertisements, and online documentation. Because of Apple’s inducement, Apple’s
`
`customers and end-users use Accused Products in a way Apple intends and directly infringe the
`
`’218 Patent. Apple performs these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’218 Patent and with
`
`the intent, or willful blindness, that the induced acts directly infringe the ’218 Patent.
`
`40.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40.
`
`WEST/300046833
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 104 Filed 09/26/22 Page 17 of 55
`
`Complaint No. 41: Apple has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’218 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by contributing to direct
`
`infringement by others, such as customers and end-users, in this District and elsewhere in the
`
`United States. Apple’s affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell the Accused Products in this
`
`District and elsewhere in the United States and causing the Accused Products to be manufactured,
`
`used, sold and offered for sale contributes to others’ use and manufacture of the Accused Products
`
`such that the ’218 Patent is directly infringed by others. The accused components within the
`
`Accused Products are material to the invention of the ’218 Patent, are not staple articles or
`
`commodities of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to
`
`be especially made or adapted for use in the infringement of the ’218 Patent. Apple performs
`
`these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’218 Patent and with intent, or willful blindness, that
`
`they cause the direct infringement of the ’218 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`Apple denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41.
`
`Complaint No. 42: Because of Apple’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’218
`
`Patent