`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 31
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 12
`571-272-7822
`Entered: July 21, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder as Moot
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to institute inter partes
`review of claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’009
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).1 RFCyber Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to determine whether to
`institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes
`review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to
`institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all
`claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen
`instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to
`proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability
`asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS
`Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting
`the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a
`petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).
`Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the
`Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the
`
`
`1 Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00981 (Paper 3).
`Petitioner indicated that its Petition is “substantially identical to the
`[IPR2021-00981] Petition.” Pet. 4. However, IPR2021-00981 has since
`settled and was terminated. Because IPR2021-00981 has been terminated, ,
`we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to join this proceeding as moot.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 4 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged
`claims of the ’009 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–17) of the ’009 patent, based on the
`grounds asserted in the Petition.
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following district-court proceedings as related
`matters involving the ’009 patent: RFCyber Corp. v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-00916-ADA (W.D. Tex.); RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-
`cv-00274 (EDTX); RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-
`00336 (EDTX); and RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2:20-cv-
`00335 (EDTX). Pet. 2–3; Paper 6, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`The parties also identify the following Board proceedings involving
`petitioner Google LLC and related patents: IPR2021-00954 (U.S. Patent
`No. 8,448,855 B1); IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 B1);
`IPR2021-00956 (U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 B2); IPR2021-00957 (U.S.
`Patent No. 8,118,218 B2); IPR2021-00978 (Patent No. 8,448,855);
`IPR2021-00979 (Patent No. 8,118,218); IPR2021-00980 (Patent No.
`9,189,787); PGR2021-00028 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 B2); and
`PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 B2). Pet. 2–3; Paper 6, 1.
`Petitioner also identifies the following Board proceedings involving the ’009
`patent or related patents, filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.:
`IPR2021-00978 (U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 B1); IPR2021-00979 (U.S.
`Patent No. 8,118,218 B2); IPR2021-00980 (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 B1);
`and IPR2021-00981 (U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 B2). Pet. 3–4; Paper 4, 2–3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 5 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies its real party in interest as Apple Inc. Paper 11
`(Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notice), 2.
`Patent Owner identifies RFCyber Corp. as its real party in interest.
`Paper 6, 1.
`C. Overview of the ’009 patent
`The ’009 patent relates to commerce over networks, and more
`specifically, techniques for personalizing a secure element and provisioning
`an application such as an electronic purse that can be used in portable
`devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and
`mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce). Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:18–24.
`The ’009 patent states that there is a “need to provide techniques to
`personalize a secure element in a contactless smart card or an NFC (Near
`Field Communication)-enabled mobile device so that such a device is so
`secured and personalized when it comes to financial applications or secure
`transactions.” Id. at 2:10–14. Although closed systems—such as smart card
`technology—existed, they were “difficult to be expanded into other areas
`such as e-commerce and m-commerce” because “stored values and
`transaction information are stored in data storage of each tag that is
`protected by a set of keys,” which keys must be “delivered to the card for
`authentication before any data can be accessed during a transaction.” Id. at
`1:33–40. According to the ’009 patent, this required delivery of keys
`“makes systems using such technology difficult to be expanded to an open
`environment such as the Internet for e-commerce and/or wireless networks
`for m-commerce as the delivery of keys over a public domain network
`causes security concerns.” Id. at 1:40–44. The ’009 patent purports to
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 6 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`overcome the limitations of the prior art by providing “techniques for
`personalizing secure elements in NFC devices to enable various secure
`transactions over a network (wired and/or wireless network).” Id. at 2:31–
`34.
`
`Figure 1A, reproduced below, provides a schematic view of one
`embodiment of the ’009 patent.
`
`
`FIG. 1A shows a simplified architecture diagram of computing
`device 100 according to one embodiment of the ’009 patent.
`Ex. 1001, 4:35–36.
`As shown in Figure 1A, mobile device 100 includes near field
`communication (NFC) controller 101 that enables device 100 to interact
`with another device wirelessly to exchange data with. Id. at 6:40–42. A
`user may use mobile device 100 as an e-purse or a wallet to pay for a
`purchase or an admission. Id. at 6:43–44. In operation, the e-purse is
`controlled by secure element (SE) 102. Id. at 6:44–46. The smart element
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 7 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`102 may take the form of a smart card, an integrated circuit (IC), or a
`software module, upgradable by overwriting some of all of the components.
`Id. at 6:44–46. “In one embodiment, the SE 102 is a tamper proof Smart
`Card chip capable to embed smart card-grade applications (e.g., payment,
`transport ...) with the required level of security and features.” Id. at 6:61–64.
`According to the ’009 patent, “SE 102 enables mobile device 100 to
`perform financial transaction, transport ticketing, loyalty, physical access
`control, and other exciting new services in a secured manner.” Id. at 6:46–
`49. To offer such services, the SE 102 is configured to support various
`applets, applications or modules (e.g., Applet 104 and E-Purse Application
`106). Id. at 6:49–51.
`When a mobile device is first purchased by or delivered to a customer,
`SE 102 in the mobile device is installed with a set of default keys (e.g., an
`Issuer Security Domain (ISD) key set by the SE manufacturer). Id. at 6:55–
`58. In one embodiment, SE 102 is or includes a software module loaded in
`secured memory space 107 in mobile device 100. Id. at 7:7–9. The software
`module may be updated by downloading updating components from a
`designated server using network interface 103 (e.g., a 3G network or an LTE
`network) in mobile device 100. Id. at 7:9–12.
`SE 102 needs to go through a personalization or provisioning process
`before it can be used. Id. at 7:13–18. According to one embodiment, the
`provisioning is performed over the air (“OTA”) to cause the SE to be
`personalized while installing an application or enabling a service (i.e.,
`application installation and personalization). Id. at 7:18–22. Applications
`are available for an NFC-enabled mobile device to download from a server
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 8 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`or a TSM portal—a TSM, standing for Trusted Service Management, is a
`collection of services. Id. at 7:32–36.
`The provisioning process in the preferred embodiment proceeds as
`follows. First, the customer registers his/her mobile phone via a server
`(often TSM web portal). Id. at 7:61–62. The TSM server is configured to
`push a universal resource identifier (“URI”) of a provisioning manager to the
`registered mobile phone. Id. at 7:62–65. The customer can download the
`provisioning manager into the mobile device and start the personalization
`process. Id. at 7:65–66. The server uses information from the device, such
`as its serial number, to confirm that the device is genuine. Id. at 8:4–20.
`Once verified, the device then communicates and is registered with the
`server. Id. at 8:20–27. Once the device becomes part of the system, various
`services or data may be communicated to the device via the network. Id. at
`8:27–29. As part of the personalization process, the server requests device
`information of the SE, including the Issuer Security Domain information for
`this SE. Id. at 8:29–42.
`The device information is used to facilitate the generation of a set of
`keys. Id. at 8:63–65. The server is configured to establish a secured channel
`using the default ISD between its hardware security module (HSM) and the
`SE. Id. at 8:65–67. The server is also configured to compute a derived key
`set for the SE. Id. at 8:67–9:1. A master ISD key may be housed in a
`hardware security module (HSM) associated with the server or in a local
`HSM of the SE issuer. Id. at 9:2–9. If the master ISD key is housed in the
`HSM of the server, the server is configured to instruct the HSM to compute
`the derived key set. Id. at 9:9–11. If the master ISD key of the SE issuer is
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 9 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`in a local HSM of the SE issuer, the server is configured to interact with the
`remote HSM to retrieve the keys. Id. at 9:13–16.
`The set of keys is securely delivered to the SE. Id. at 9:18. The set of
`keys is thus personalized to the SE and will be used for various secured
`subsequent operations or services with the device. Id. at 9:18–21.
`SE 102 of Figure 1A may be perceived as a preload operating system
`in a Smart card, providing a platform for PIN management and security
`channels (security domains) for card personalization. Id. at 9:62–65.
`According to the ’009 patent, “SE 102 combines the interests of smart card
`issuers, vendors, industry groups, public entities and technology companies
`to define requirements and technology standards for multiple applications
`running in the smart cards.” Id. at 9:65–10:2. As an example, the ’009
`patent describes one module 104, referred to as an e-purse security, that
`defines a set of protocols that enable micro payment transactions to be
`carried out in both wired and wireless environments. Id. at 10:3–6. With an
`electronic purse (a.k.a., e-purse) stored on a smart card, a set of keys (either
`symmetric or asymmetric) is personalized into the e-purse after the e-purse
`is issued. Id. at 10:6–9. During a transaction, the e-purse uses a set of
`respective keys for encryption and MAC computation in order to secure the
`message channel between the e-purse and a SAM (Security Authentication
`Module) or backend servers. Id. at 10:9–13. During the personalization or
`provisioning process described above, the single functional card access keys
`(or its transformation) are personalized into the e-purse with the e-purse
`transaction keys. Id. at 10:13–18.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 10 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`D. The Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–17 of the ’009 patent. Pet. 1. Of the
`challenged claims, claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
`below, is illustrative of the subject matter recited in the challenged claims
`(bracketing added).
`[1.PREAMBLE] A mobile device for conducting a
`secured transaction over a network, the mobile
`device comprising:
`[1a] a network interface;
`[1b] an interface to receive a secure element;
`[1c] a memory space for storing at least a module and an
`application downloaded from the network;
`[1d] a processor coupled to the memory space and
`configured to execute the module to perform
`operations including:
`[1di] sending to a server via the network interface an
`identifier identifying the application together with
`device information of a secure element, [1dii]
`wherein the application is downloaded from the
`network in the mobile device;
`[1diii] establishing a secured channel between the secure
`element and the server using a key set installed on
`the secure element, [1div] wherein the server is
`configured to prepare data necessary for the
`application to function as designed on the mobile
`device; and
`[1dv] receiving the data from the server to associate the
`application with the secure element, [1dvi]
`wherein the application subsequently functions in
`conjunction with the secure element.
`
`Id. at 24:16–36.
`E. Evidence
`Petitioner submits the following evidence:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 11 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`Evidence
`Declaration of Gerald W. Smith
`Dua, US 2006/0165060 A1 (published July 27, 2006, filed
`Jan. 21, 2005) (“Dua”)
`GlobalPlatform Card Specification Version 2.1.1 (March
`2003) (“GlobalPlatform” or “GP”)
`Smart Card Handbook Third Edition, by Wolfgang Rankl
`and Wolfgang Effing (2003) (“Smart Card Handbook”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0174352 A1
`(published August 3, 2006, filed January 31, 2006)
`(“Thibadeau”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1003
`1004
`
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1041
`
`F. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`Reference(s)
`1–6, 13–17
`1032
`Dua, GlobalPlatform
`Dua, GlobalPlatform, Smart
`7–10
`103
`Card Handbook
`Dua, GlobalPlatform, Smart
`Card Handbook, Thibadeau
`
`11–12
`
`103
`
`Pet. 6. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s asserted grounds of
`unpatentability. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`III. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–6 and 13–17 of the ’009 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dua in view of
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’009 patent claims benefit
`of a September 24, 2006, filing date, which is before the effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendments. Ex. 1001, (63). Petitioner states that the
`“Board may presume that the effective filing date” to “resolve Petitioner’s
`challenge.” Pet. 7. Thus, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103. Our decision would be the same were we to apply the AIA version of
`the statute.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 12 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`GlobalPlatform, claims 7–10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Dua in view of GlobalPlatform and Smart Card Handbook, and
`claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`Dua in view of GlobalPlatform, Smart Card Handbook, and Thibadeau.
`Pet. 6.
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`
`
`3 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of secondary
`considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary
`considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 13 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in
`inter partes review).
`We organize our patentability analysis into four sections. First, we
`address the level of ordinary skill in the art. Second, we address claim
`construction. Third, we provide an overview of the asserted references.
`And fourth, taking account of the information presented, we consider
`whether the Petition satisfies the threshold requirement for instituting an
`inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In assessing the level
`of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the
`“type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those
`problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the
`technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom
`Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.
`1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id.
`Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner
`contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’009 patent “would have
`been knowledgeable regarding mobile payment methods and systems
`pertinent to the ’009 patent.” Pet. 9. Petitioner also contends that an
`ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an
`equivalent, and about one year of professional experience relating to mobile
`payment technology, which would have exposed them to concepts like
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 14 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`GlobalPlatform and smart cards” and that “[l]ack of professional experience
`[can] be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–29). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s
`proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response.
`Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
`Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’009 patent and the
`asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art,
`itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).
`B. Claim Construction
`Next, we turn to claim construction. In interpreting the claims of the
`’009 patent, we “us[e] the same claim construction standard that would be
`used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).”
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard
`includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`meaning of such claims as would have been understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.;
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`banc).
`Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning to
`the claims as no specific constructions are required to resolve the grounds
`presented in this Petition.” Pet. 10. Patent Owner contends that “claim
`construction is not required to resolve any issues” at this point in the
`proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 9.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 15 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim
`construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`C. The Prior Art
`Before turning to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability, we
`provide brief summaries of the asserted references.
`1. Dua (Ex. 1004)
`Dua is a published U.S. patent application entitled “Method and
`Apparatus for Managing Credentials Through a Wireless Network.”
`Ex. 1004, code (54). Dua discloses a “system and methodology for
`conducting financial and other transactions using a wireless device.” Id. at
`Abstract. Dua’s wireless device includes a “wallet application” that
`receives, stores, manages, and transmits multiple payment, identification,
`and other confidential information electronically. Id. ¶ 41. Card issuers like
`banks or merchants can develop custom “extensions” which are installed in
`the wallet application and stored in an embedded smart card. Id. ¶¶ 289,
`295. One example of an extension is a stored-value card extension for
`paying subway fare. Id. ¶¶ 290, 293. The stored value card extension
`“need[s] to be programmed” to support “over-the-air reload,” i.e., wireless
`funding of the e-purse. Id. ¶ 293.
`2. GlobalPlatform (Ex. 1006)
`GlobalPlatform Card Specification version 2.1.1 describes the
`“[s]pecifications that shall be implemented on GlobalPlatform smart cards.”
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 16 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`Ex. 1006, 16. GlobalPlatform describes its own security architecture and
`commands for use in installing and personalizing applications on
`GlobalPlatform cards. Ex. 1006, 65–67, 88–90. GlobalPlatform is a
`“hardware-neutral,” “vendor-neutral,” and “Application-independent” “chip
`card standard” which “provides a common security and card management
`architecture.” Ex. 1006, 16; Ex. 1008, 290. “GlobalPlatform is intended to
`run on top of any secure, multi-application card runtime environment”
`including Java Card. Ex. 1006, 16 (§ 1), 29 (§ 3.1). GlobalPlatform
`specifies the card architecture, security architecture, Life Cycle models for
`smart cards and their Applications, the Card Manager, Security Domains for
`key management and establishing Secure Channels. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–63.
`GlobalPlatform describes sequences of commands for installing,
`personalizing, and deleting applications on multi-application smart cards.
`Ex. 1006, 65–67, 88–90.
`3. Smart Card Handbook (Ex. 1008)
`Smart Card Handbook is a textbook by Wolfgang Rankl and
`Wolfgang Effing published by John Wiley & Sons. Among the many things
`it explains about smart cards, it describes card management systems that
`employ databases for holding data related to unique smart cards and data on
`the cards themselves. Ex. 1008, 251, 301, 600. Smart Card Handbook also
`discusses managing security keys on smart cards. Ex. 1008, 202–208.
`Smart Card Handbook explains that one technique for generating keys
`during personalization includes the use of a “card number” or “chip number”
`to generate an encryption key by a security module to secure the
`personalization data transmitted to the card. Id. at 645.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 17 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`
`4. Thibadeau (Ex. 1041)
`Thibadeau is a published U.S. patent application entitled “Method and
`Apparatus for Providing Versatile Services on Storage Devices.” Ex. 1041,
`(54). Thibadeau describes a way of storing “virtual smart cards” managed
`by “Card Operating System,” software “needed to interface into”
`standardized card environments such as GlobalPlatform-based smart cards.
`Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 91, 99; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–96.
`D. Alleged Ground of Unpatentability Over Dua and GlobalPlatform
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–6 and 13–17 of the ’009 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dua in view of
`GlobalPlatform. Pet. 14–52. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 10–17.
`Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
`the record establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`on this asserted ground of unpatentability.
`Petitioner contends that Dua discloses “[a] mobile device for
`conducting a secured transaction over a network, the mobile device
`comprising” (the [Preamble]) and “a network interface” (limitation [1a]) of
`claim 1. See Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 2, 15, 107, 313, 405, Figs. 1,
`3, 8 (wireless devices 200, 400, 800 and wireless device interfacing with
`communications tower); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–109, 111). Petitioner relies on the
`combination of Dua and GlobalPlatform to account for “an interface to
`receive a secure element” (limitation [1b]), “a memory space for storing at
`least a module and an application downloaded from the network” (limitation
`[1c]), and “a processor coupled to the memory space and configured to
`execute the module to perform operations” (limitation [1d]). Pet. 17–21
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 8, 14, 215, 293, 295, 309; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115, 118–
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 18 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`124, 128–130; Ex. 1006, 29 (§ 3.2), 31 (§ 3.5), 39 (5.1.1.1), 62 (§ 6.4.1), 65
`(§ 6.4.1.2); Ex. 1008, 53, 55, 735–786, 963; Ex. 1012, 1–2, 9; Ex. 1042,
`168–69 (’009 patent File History)). Petitioner also relies on Dua and
`GlobalPlatform to account for the operations performed by the processor
`(limitations [1di]–[1dvi]). Id. at 21–30. In particular, Petitioner contends
`that Dua in view of GlobalPlatform accounts for the operations of “sending
`to a server via the network interface an identifier identifying the application
`together with device information of a secure element” ([1di]). Id. at 21–23
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 160, 179, Fig. 3; Ex. 1006, 18 (§ 1.3), 20 (§ 1.4), 81,
`92–93 (§ 7.6.2), 98 (§ 7.7.4); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–136; Ex. 1008, 237, 257, 600,
`650; Ex. 1012, 6 (SmartMX P5CT072 Secure Dual Interface PKI Smart
`Card Controller Specification (4 Oct. 2004)). Petitioner argues that Dua,
`either alone or combination with GlobalPlatform, accounts for the operation
`of “wherein the application is downloaded from the network in the mobile
`device” (limitation [1dii]). Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104, 215, 289,
`293; Ex. 1003 ¶ 138; Ex. 1008, 650; Ex. 1014, 11 (ETSI Technical
`Specification 102 226 v6.12.0 (Sept. 2005)). Petitioner asserts that the
`combination of Dua and GlobalPlatform accounts for the operation of
`“establishing a secured channel between the secure element and the server
`using a key set installed on the secure element” (limitation [1diii]). Id. at
`24–26 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–205, 247; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98–105, 141–145;
`Ex. 1006, 29, 40, 53, 54, 218). Petitioner contends that Dua, either alone or
`in combination with GlobalPlatform, accounts for the operation of “wherein
`the server is configured to prepare data necessary for the application to
`function as designed on the mobile device” (limitation [1div]). Id. at 26–27
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26, 57, 58, 148, 215, 297; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147, 148;
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 19 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`Ex. 1006, 44, 65–66, 88, 102). Finally, Petitioner relies on the combination
`of Dua and GlobalPlatform to account for the last two operations, “receiving
`the data from the server to associate the application with the secure element”
`(limitation [1dv]) and “wherein the application subsequently functions in
`conjunction with the secure element” (limitation [1dvi]). Id. at 28–30 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18, 22, 26, 180, 215, 247, 290, 293, 295, 296, 309, 318, 378;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148, 150–152, 155; Ex. 1006, 30, 65, 88, 89, 102).
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to combine Dua and GlobalPlatform because Dua does not
`provide conventional smart card implementation details, but does refer to
`standards being developed that a person of ordinary skill would recognize as
`including GlobalPlatform. Pet. 14–16. Petitioner submits that
`“GlobalPlatform discloses ‘a hardware-neutral, vendor-neutral, Application-
`independent [smart] card management specification’ that provides a security
`architecture that protects the ‘structure and function of cards within the
`GlobalPlatform system’ for the life of the card—thus providing a ‘secure
`element’ as claimed.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1006, 16, 32). Petitioner further
`notes that “Dua’s ‘wallet application should meet standards defined by card
`organizations,’ and GlobalPlatform was specifically developed by such card
`organizations.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 525; Ex. 1006, 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99–
`101). Thus, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have
`been motivated and “would find it obvious to employ the well-known
`GlobalPlatform system with Dua’s smart cards.” Id. Petitioner provides
`another rationale that, because Dua describes using “a Java platform and
`Java applets” for wireless devices, the ordinary artisan would look to the
`JavaCard implementation described in GlobalPlatform, because
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 22-5 Filed 06/08/23 Page 20 of 31
`IPR2022-00413
`Patent 9,240,009 B2
`
`“GlobalPlatform ‘has primarily become the de facto standard for loading and
`managing Java-based applications with the Java Card operating system.[’]”
`Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1008, p. 290).
`Petitioner further notes that Dua discloses the use of a Java platform
`and Java applets with its wireless devices, which a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have recognized as being a reference to Java Card. Id.
`(Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 195, 500; Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). Petitioner submits that
`GlobalPlatform is designed to be compatible with Java Card. Id. at 16
`(citing Ex. 1006, 24, 29). Petitioner argues that “GlobalPlatform ‘has
`primarily become the de facto standard for loading and managing Java-based
`appli