Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66-3 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 5
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66-3 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1of5
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66-3 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Steve Ravel <steve.ravel@kellyhart.com>
`Thursday, March 03, 2022 4:12 PM
`TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright
`rak_aire@raklaw.com; Radsch, Andrew; Thomases, Andrew; Roth, Cassandra; Steve Ravel; Batchelder,
`James R.; Apple-Aire-Ropes-SERVICE
`Aire v. Apple--6:21-cv-001101-ADA
`
`Learned Law Clerks, 
`
`[EXTERNAL] 
`
`The table below sets out a procedural dispute whereby Defendant Apple challenges the adequacy of Plaintiff Aire’s 
`Infringement contentions.  The parties have meet and conferred extensively and are impassed.  “Movant” Apple 
`believes a hearing would be helpful to the Court in resolving this dispute 
`
`Thank you. 
`
`Issue
`Failure to
`Chart Each
`Accused
`Product
`
`Apple’s Position
`Aire charts only one product per patent
`but accuses 32 iPhone and Apple Watch
`models of infringing at least two of the
`three asserted patents. Aire provided no
`explanation or analysis about why the
`charted product is representative of all
`others, let alone explain why “changes
`[between products] are irrelevant for
`each uncharted product” as required.
`WSOU v. OnePlus, 2022 WL 174517,
`at *2. Nor could Aire make such
`showings. For example, Aire relies on
`Face ID functionality for many
`limitations, but Face ID is not available
`on many accused iPhones and any
`accused Watches—and therefore a
`phone with that functionality cannot be
`representative of all accused products.
`Aire also relies on iPhone NFC
`functionality for many limitations, but
`that functionality differs substantially
`on Apple Watches and even among
`iPhones—as public teardown reports
`would show. These differences
`materially impact, and prevent Apple
`from understanding, Aire’s
`infringement theories. Aire should be
`
`Aire’s Position
`Aire’s  PICs  provide  Apple  with  more 
`than sufficient notice of its infringement 
`allegations.   These  allegations  are 
`consistent across all Accused Products, 
`and 
`it 
`is  proper 
`to 
`rely  on  a 
`representative 
`iPhone 
`at 
`this 
`juncture.  
`“[A]t 
`the 
`preliminary 
`infringement 
`contention 
`stage,  a 
`plaintiff  need  only  illustrate  that  the 
`additional  uncharted  products  are 
`‘reasonably similar’ to those specifically 
`charted.”   IGT,  2022  WL  606719,  at 
`*2.  Apple’s cited WSOU decision relates
`to final infringement contentions.
`
`The Accused Products infringe the ’706 
`and  ’249  Patents  in  reasonably  similar 
`ways  through  their  use  of  Apple  Pay, 
`and Apple’s public documentation does 
`not  identify  any  relevant  differences 
`between products in their use of Apple 
`Pay.  
`
`The  fact  that  some  of  the  Accused 
`iPhones  do  not  support  Face  ID  is 
`inapposite because the ’249 allegations 
`similarly  apply 
`to  passcode/Touch 
`ID.   Apple  is  also  wrong  because  the 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66-3 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`ordered to separately chart each accused
`product for each asserted patent.
`
`Doctrine of
`Equivalents
`
`Sufficiency
`of the
`Provided
`Chart
`
`Aire’s PIC cover pleading makes a
`single blanket assertion, without
`analysis, that each element is
`“necessarily … met under” DOE which
`does not provide sufficient notice of
`Aire’s DOE theories. See, e.g.,
`Sycamore IP v. AT&T, 2017 WL
`4517953, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10,
`2017) (collecting cases). Aire must
`specify which limitations it contends
`are met under DOE and why.
`Aire’s charts don’t inform Apple how
`Aire contends the accused products
`meet many limitations. Examples
`include:
`(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)’706 Chart: Aire’s citations to
`different general disclosures about
`Apple Wallet—a single
`application—do not articulate what
`it alleges are “two […]
`applications” (elements [1pre],
`[11a], [18a], [20a]). Similarly,
`Aire’s screenshots about Apple Pay
`and EMV contactless payments do
`not identify what signals Aire
`alleges are “communication-
`readiness signal[s]” ([1a]-[1b], [2],
`[3], [11c], [12], [18c], [20c]).
`(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)’249 Chart: Aire’s general
`Apple Pay and transit-related
`citations do not specify what Aire
`alleges is a “security-establishing
`operation” ([1b], [6], [10pre]).
`Similarly, based on Aire’s broad
`citations about information in Apple
`Pay, transit, and cardholder
`verification methods, Apple cannot
`determine what Aire specifically
`2
`
`infringing 
`
`is  not  accused  of 
`Watch 
`the ’249 Patent.   
`
`  
`Finally, the Accused Products all infringe 
`the  ’360  Patent  in  reasonably  similar 
`ways by utilizing NFC chipsets with low 
`power detection functionality.  
`
`  
`Aire has provided notice of its
`infringement theories which will be
`further detailed with discovery from
`Apple
`in
`its final
`infringement
`contentions.
`This issue is not ripe. See WSOU,
`2022 WL 174517, at *3 (denying
`motion to strike DOE before final
`contentions). Upon receiving
`the
`Court’s determination on claim
`construction and discovery from
`Apple, Aire will supplement its DOE
`theories.
`
`final
`seeks
`Apple prematurely
`infringement contentions and expert
`report level detail. Aire has provided
`more than sufficient disclosures of its
`infringement
`theories based on
`publicly available information and its
`own testing.
`
`’706 Chart: Apple Wallet is capable
`of hosting multiple cards, such as
`credit, debit, transit, membership,
`rewards, etc. Aire has explained that
`these cards have unique application
`identifiers, which are contained in the
`“communication-readiness signals”
`communicated
`to
`a
`payment
`terminal.
`
`’249 Chart: Aire has explained that
`the Accused
`iPhones perform a
`security-establishing operation as
`part of Apple Pay transactions. The
`Accused iPhones create information
`about the user authentication method
`used
`in
`a
`transaction
`and
`communicate it to the terminal. For
`example, Aire explains that Apple
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66-3 Filed 10/07/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`alleges is the “result of the security-
`establishing operation” to which
`certain information is attached ([1a],
`[10c]), “[authentication] quality
`information” ([1a], [10c]), or a
`“digital signature” ([2], [11]). It is
`also unclear whether Aire alleges
`not requiring authentication is a
`“different quality user
`authentication method” ([1pre],
`[10pre]).
`(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0)’360 Chart: Aire relies on a
`component it does not contend is in
`any accused product as meeting the
`claimed “measuring device” and
`“switching apparatus” in [1c]-[1d],
`[15a]/[15c]. For “search signals,”
`Aire shows oscilloscope
`measurements without providing
`any information needed to
`understand what they purport to
`show.
`
`
`
`Aire must identify, separately for each
`accused product and each asserted
`claim, what specifically it contends
`meets each element.
`Order Aire to, within 14 days, serve
`supplemental PICs addressing these
`deficiencies, which impact Apple’s
`ability to provide fulsome contentions
`and discovery about accused products.
`These deficiencies are apparent from
`information Aire already has, and
`cannot be cured based on later-
`identified material. Cf. OGP n.6.
`
`Pay typically requires a user to
`authenticate using a passcode, Touch
`ID, or Face ID. Aire cannot provide
`the level of detail that Apple requests
`without the forthcoming discovery
`(including source code).
`
`’360 Chart: The specific datasheets
`for the NFC chipsets in the Accused
`Products
`are
`not
`publicly
`available. As such, Aire cites to
`datasheets for similar chipsets and
`testing conducted on the Accused
`Products to explain why each claim
`limitation is met. Aire will provide
`further detail with (or before) final
`infringement
`contentions
`after
`receiving the forthcoming discovery.
`
`
`than
`received more
`Apple has
`sufficient disclosures which provide
`extensive
`detail
`about Aire’s
`infringement
`theories.
`The
`information Apple seeks is premature
`and will be provided with (or before)
`final infringement contentions. Aire
`looks forward to Apple’s initial
`production of technical documents
`and source code on March 31.
`
` 
`
`Requested
`Relief
`
`  
`  
`  
`  
`J. Stephen Ravel 
`Partner, Austin Office 
`
` 
`303 Colorado Street,  Suite 2000 
`Austin, Texas 78701 
`(512) 495‐6429 (phone) 
`(512) 495‐6401 (fax) 
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com   www.kellyhart.com 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66-3 Filed 10/07/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`  
`
`CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This electronic transmission and any documents or other writings sent with it constitute 
`confidential information which is intended only for the named recipient and which may be legally privileged.  If you have 
`received this communication in error, do not read it.  Please reply to the sender at Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP that you 
`have received the message in error.  Then delete it.  Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action 
`concerning the contents of this communication or any attachment(s) by anyone other than the named recipient is 
`strictly prohibited. 
`  
`  
`
`4
`
`