Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`RFCyber CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VISA U.S.A. Inc.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 6:22-cv-00697
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VISA U.S.A INC.’s ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant, Visa U.S.A Inc. (“Visa”) answers and responds to each of the allegations of
`
`Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. (“Plaintiff” or “RFCyber”) as follow:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, as Visa
`
`lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
`
`2.
`
`Visa admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Delaware, it is registered to do business in the State of Texas, and it has an agent registered in
`
`Texas, the Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporated, at 211 E. 7th Street
`
`Suite 620 Austin, Texas. Except as expressly admitted herein, Visa denies all remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`RFCyber CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VISA U.S.A. Inc.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 6:22-cv-00697
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VISA U.S.A INC.’s ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant, Visa U.S.A Inc. (“Visa”) answers and responds to each of the allegations of
`
`Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. (“Plaintiff” or “RFCyber”) as follow:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, as Visa
`
`lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
`
`2.
`
`Visa admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Delaware, it is registered to do business in the State of Texas, and it has an agent registered in
`
`Texas, the Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporated, at 211 E. 7th Street
`
`Suite 620 Austin, Texas. Except as expressly admitted herein, Visa denies all remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Visa admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 1338. Visa denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`4.
`
`Visa does not contest that this Court has personal jurisdiction solely for the
`
`purposes of this particular action. Visa admits it maintains certain physical offices in the State of
`
`Texas and in this Judicial District. Visa denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the
`
`Complaint, and specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement within this
`
`District, or any other District.
`
`5.
`
`Visa does not contest that venue is proper in this District for the purposes of this
`
`particular action but denies that venue is convenient or in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1404(a). Visa denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Visa admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 (the
`
`“’218 Patent”) is attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint. Visa further admits that the face of
`
`what appears to be the ’218 Patent indicates that it is titled “Method and Apparatus for Providing
`
`Electronic Purse” and that the date of the patent is February 21, 2012. Visa denies that the ’218
`
`Patent was duly and legally issued. Visa denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Visa admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 (the
`
`“’855 Patent”) is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint. Visa further admits that the face of
`
`what appears to be the ’855 Patent indicates that it is titled “Method and Apparatus for Funding
`
`an Electronic Purse” and that the date of the patent is May 28, 2013. Visa denies that the ’855
`
`Patent was duly and legally issued. Visa denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`8.
`
`Visa admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 (the
`
`“’787 Patent”) is attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint. Visa further admits that the face of
`
`what appears to be the ’787 Patent indicates that it is titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Conducting E-Commerce and M-Commerce” and that the date of the patent is November 17,
`
`2015. Visa denies that the ’787 Patent was duly and legally issued. Visa denies all other
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Visa admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 (the
`
`“’009 Patent”) is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint. Visa further admits that the face of
`
`what appears to be the ’009 Patent indicates that it is titled “Mobile Devices for Commerce Over
`
`Unsecured Networks” and that the date of the patent is January 19, 2016. Visa denies that the
`
`’009 Patent was duly and legally issued. Visa denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph
`
`9 of the Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Visa denies that RFCyber has any right to recover damages or seek an injunction
`
`under any of the ’218, ’855, ’787, and ’009 Patents. Visa denies all other allegations contained
`
`in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint appear intended to reflect
`
`Plaintiff’s legal contentions, proposed claim constructions, and theories of infringement, and
`
`Visa therefore denies them. Visa specifically denies that it infringes any valid claim of
`
`Plaintiff’s patents.
`
`12.
`
`Visa admits that Visa has operated services, including Visa Token Service (a.k.a.
`
`VTS), Visa Ready, Token ID, and Visa payWave. Visa denies all remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 12 and specifically denies that it has infringed any valid claim of Plaintiff’s patents.
`
`13.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`14.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint except
`
`that Visa admits that it received a subpoena issued in the action RFCyber v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`and Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2:20-cv-00335 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`15.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, as Visa
`
`lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of the ’218 Patent)1
`
`16.
`
`Visa reasserts and incorporates by reference the responses to all preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, as Visa lacks sufficient
`
`knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27.
`
`
`
`1 Visa includes the headings from RFCyber’s Complaint for ease of reference only. Visa
`denies the statement in this heading and all other headings that assert that Visa infringes any
`valid patent.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of the ’855 Patent)
`
`33.
`
`Visa reasserts and incorporates by reference the responses to all preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`34.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, as Visa lacks sufficient
`
`knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 50.
`
`COUNT III
`(Infringement of the ’787 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`Visa reasserts and incorporates by reference the responses to all preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 52 except that RFCyber has not
`
`licensed Visa the ’787 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 53.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 54.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 55.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 56.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 57.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 58.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 59.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 60.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 61.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 62.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 63.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 64.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 65.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 66.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`(Infringement of the ’009 Patents)
`
`67.
`
`Visa reasserts and incorporates by reference the responses to all preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`68.
`
`Visa denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 68, as Visa lacks sufficient
`
`knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 69.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 70.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 71.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 72.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 73.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 74.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 75.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 76.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 77.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 78.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 79.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 80.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 81.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 82.
`
`Visa denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 83.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`84.
`
`Visa is not required to respond to Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`Visa denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including any and all
`
`relief requested in Plaintiff’s “Prayer for Relief.” To the extent any statement in the Prayer for
`
`Relief is deemed factual and/or requires a response, it is denied.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Any allegation in RFCyber’s Complaint not expressly admitted by Visa is hereby
`
`denied. Having answered RFCyber’s Complaint, Visa denies that RFCyber is entitled to the
`
`relief requested in RFCyber’s Prayer for Relief or to any relief whatsoever.
`
`SEPARATE DEFENSES
`
`Without prejudice to the denials set forth in its Answer, and without admitting any
`
`allegations of the Complaint not expressly admitted, Visa asserts the following separate
`
`defenses to the Complaint without assuming the burden of proof on any such defense that
`
`would otherwise rest with RFCyber.
`
`FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`RFCyber has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the ’218 patent, ’855 patent, ’787 patent, and the ’009 patent are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the ’218 patent, ’855 patent, ’787 patent, and the ’009 patent are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by one or more prior art references.
`
`FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the ’218 patent, ’855 patent, ’787 patent, and the ’009 patent are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in view of one or more prior art references.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 9 of 12
`
`FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the ’218 patent, ’855 patent, ’787 patent, and the ’009 are invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.
`
`SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`RFCyber is precluded from recovering damages for any alleged infringement taking
`
`place more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 286.
`
`SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that RFCyber, any predecessors in interest, or any licensees to the ’218
`
`patent, ’855 patent, ’787 patent, and the ’009 patent failed to properly mark any relevant
`
`products or materials as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, or otherwise give proper notice that
`
`Visa’s specific actions allegedly infringe the ’218 patent, ’855 patent, ’787 patent, and the
`
`’009 patent, Visa is not liable to RFCyber for the acts alleged to have been performed before
`
`Visa received adequate notice that it was allegedly infringing the ’218 patent, ’855 patent, ’787
`
`patent, and the ’009 patent and how it was allegedly doing so
`
`EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`By reason of statements, representations, concessions, admissions, arguments, and/or
`
`amendments, whether explicit or implicit, made by or on behalf of the applicant during the
`
`prosecution of the patent applications that led to the issuance of the Asserted Patents,
`
`Plaintiff’s claims of infringement are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of prosecution
`
`history estoppel.
`
`NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by an express or implied license and/or
`
`the patent exhaustion doctrine.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for infringement are barred by the doctrine of ensnarement.
`
`ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
`
`Visa reserves all defenses, at law or equity, which may now exist or in the future be
`
`available on discovery and further factual investigation in this case.
`
`WHEREFORE, Visa respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in its favor and
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`against Plaintiff as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against Visa;
`
`2.
`
`Denying all relief that Plaintiff seeks in its Complaint;
`
`3.
`
`Finding this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Visa all costs
`
`and attorney’s fees; and
`
`4.
`
`Awarding any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Visa demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 11 of 12
`
`Dated: May 24, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James C. Yoon
`
`James C. Yoon (CA State Bar No. 177155)
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Fax: (650) 493-6811
`
`Jamie Y. Otto (CA Bar No. 229323) (pro hac vice pending)
`jotto@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Fax: (866) 974-7329
`
`Attorneys for Defendant VISA U.S.A. Inc.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 18 Filed 05/24/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`document has been served on all counsel of record via ECF on May 24, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ James C. Yoon
`James C. Yoon
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
