Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VISA U.S.A. INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF RFCYBER CORP.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT VISA U.S.A. INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION
`TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW (DKT. 22)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Proceedings in the Patent Office ............................................................................. 2
`
`Proceedings Before This Court ............................................................................... 3
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Not Simplify the Case Before the Court ............................................. 3
`
`A Stay Will Unduly Prejudice RFCyber ................................................................. 5
`
`The Stage of the Case Does Not Favor a Stay ........................................................ 5
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 3 of 11
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management, LLP,
`IPR2022-01240, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023) .............................................................2
`
`Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management, LLP,
`IPR2022-01241, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023) .............................................................2
`
`Kerr Mach. Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`No. 6-20-CV-00200-ADA, 2021 WL 1298932 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) ...............................5
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1058, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) ............................................3
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 1:23-cv-00661-ADA (W.D. Tex.)...............................................................................2, 4, 6
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-916-ADA, Dkt. 100 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2022) ....................................................6
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:20-cv-274 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................2
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-336 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................2
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:20-cv-335 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................2
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.,
`IPR2021-00978, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021) ..........................................................2
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.,
`IPR2021-00979, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021) ..........................................................2
`
`Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00168-ADA, 2022 WL 2307475 (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2022) .....................3, 4, 5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ...........................................................................................................................4
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 4 of 11
`
`Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. (“RFCyber” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submits this response in opposition to Defendant Visa U.S.A. Inc.’s Opposed
`
`Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. 22) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny Visa’s request for a stay “until the PTAB resolves the pending IPR
`
`proceedings on the ’787 and ’009 Patents.” Motion at 11. While Visa styles its request as seeking
`
`a stay only until July 2023 (Motion at 1), it asks the Court to “allow the parties to seek a further
`
`stay” after that time. Id. at 11. Presumably, Visa’s “further stay” would be until all appeals
`
`regarding the IPRs are complete.
`
`Visa’s suggested stay would not simplify any issues in the case. Two of the four patents
`
`in this case are not subject to any IPRs, much less instituted IPRs. Indeed, the Board has denied
`
`institution of IPRs against the ’218 and ’855 patents multiple times. Thus, this case will progress
`
`with respect to the ’218 and ’855 Patents, regardless of the PTAB’s Final Written Decisions
`
`relating to the ’787 and ’009 Patents.
`
`Moreover, the same Visa functionality infringes each of the four Patents-in-Suit. (Ex. A
`
`at 2-4.) Thus, the scope of discovery will not change, even if the PTAB finds all claims of the
`
`’787 and ’009 Patents unpatentable.
`
`Accordingly, the Court should deny Visa’s motion.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`RFCyber asserts four patents in this case, the ’218, ’855, ’787, and ’009 Patents. The
`
`Patents-in-Suit are all members of the same family and claim priority back to the ’218 Patent.
`
`These patents have been asserted in other cases, now settled, against Google, LG Electronics, and
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 5 of 11
`
`Samsung.1 These patents are also asserted in a pending case against Apple before this Court.
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00661-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`A.
`
`Proceedings in the Patent Office
`
`Each of Google, Samsung, and Apple filed petitions for inter partes review against the four
`
`patents in this case.2 Google’s IPRs were terminated before institution due to settlement.
`
`Samsung’s IPRs against the ’218 and ’855 Patents were denied institution, while its IPRs against
`
`the ’009 and ’787 Patents were terminated after institution due to settlement. Apple’s IPRs against
`
`the ’218 and ’855 Patents were denied institution. See Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.,
`
`IPR2021-00978, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021) (denying institution of inter partes review
`
`on the ’855 Patent); Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management, LLP, IPR2022-01241,
`
`Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023) (same); Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.,
`
`IPR2021-00979, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021) (denying institution of inter partes review
`
`on the ’218 Patent); Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management, LLP, IPR2022-01240,
`
`Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023) (same). Its IPRs against the ’787 and ’009 Patents were
`
`instituted, with oral argument held on April 21, 2023.
`
`Separately, in ex parte reexamination proceedings, the Board confirmed the patentability
`
`of all claims of the ’218 and ’855 Patents with no amendments to any claims. (Ex. B.)
`
`In sum, the ’218 and ’855 Patents are not subject to any Patent Office proceedings, and
`
`indeed, have withstood multiple challenges. The ’787 and ’009 Patents are the subject of one
`
`pending IPR each, with Final Written Decisions expected in July 2023.
`
`
`1 RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-274 (E.D. Tex.); RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics,
`Inc., No. 2:20-cv-336 (E.D. Tex.); RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-
`335 (E.D. Tex.).
`2 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,118,218 (the “’218 Patent”), 8,448,855 (the “’855 Patent”), 9,189,787 (the
`“’787 Patent”), and 9,240,009 (the “’009 Patent”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 6 of 11
`
`B.
`
`Proceedings Before This Court
`
`RFCyber filed its complaint against Visa on June 28, 2022. (Dkt. 1.) The Accused Products
`
`are the same for each Patent. (Dkt. 1 at 4; see also Ex. A at 2-5.)
`
`On June 16, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Disputed Scheduling Order.
`
`(Dkt. 26.) In that motion, Visa argued that the Court should delay entering the scheduling order
`
`until the Board enters Final Written Decisions in the IPRs. (Id. at 2.) The Court rejected Visa’s
`
`position and adopted RFCyber’s proposal. (Dkt. 27.)3 Notably, Visa requested, and RFCyber
`
`agreed to, an 18-day extension for Visa to submit its invalidity contentions. (Dkt. 26 at 1.)
`
`Trial is currently set for October 21, 2024 and the Markman hearing is scheduled for
`
`October 23, 2023. (Id. at 3-4.)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“District courts typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay
`
`pending inter partes review of a patent in suit: (1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the
`
`nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage,
`
`including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay will
`
`likely result in simplifying the case before the court.” Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No.
`
`6:21-CV-00168-ADA, 2022 WL 2307475, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2022) (quoting NFC Tech.
`
`LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Will Not Simplify the Case Before the Court
`
`Visa’s requested stay will not simplify the issues before the Court.
`
`
`3 In view of the Court’s Scheduling Order, RFCyber requested that Visa withdraw the instant
`motion. Visa refused to do so.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 7 of 11
`
`First, both the ’218 and ’855 Patents are not subject to any petitions for IPR—instituted or
`
`otherwise. Indeed, the Board has twice refused to institute IPRs against those patents, and the
`
`Patent Office has separately confirmed the patentability of all claims of each patent in ex parte
`
`review proceedings. The case will thus proceed with respect to at least the ’218 and ’855 Patents,
`
`regardless of how the Board decides the IPRs at issue.
`
`Moreover, the same Visa functionality that infringes the ’787 and ’009 Patents also
`
`infringes the ’218 and ’855 Patents. Thus, the same discovery will be required, even if the ’787
`
`and ’009 Patents are found unpatentable.
`
`Second, Visa is not a party to either of the instituted IPRs and has not agreed to be bound
`
`by the ensuing estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). Visa, moreover, has not attempted to join the
`
`instituted IPRs, and the deadline for such joinder is long past. Thus, if the Board finds claims not
`
`unpatentable, the case will not have been simplified in any way. This Court has noted the lack of
`
`potential simplification when a party seeks a stay based on a third party’s IPRs. Sonrai, 2022 WL
`
`2307475, at *3.
`
`Visa provides no relevant basis for its assertion that “any decision on the ’787 and ’009
`
`Patents will undoubtedly simplify the issues and assist the Court.” (Motion at 8.) For example,
`
`while Visa argues that RFCyber may make some statement relevant to claim construction (id.), the
`
`briefing in the IPRs is already complete and the record therein is public. Visa identifies no possible
`
`statement that the PTAB could issue that would affect this Court’s claim construction analysis.
`
`Moreover, Visa’s stay would not affect such a consideration because the stay would end before
`
`the opening Markman briefs are due on August 21, 2023. (Dkt. 27 at 2.) Finally, Visa suggests that
`
`delaying this case is justified because RFCyber and Apple may settle the Apple case. (Motion at
`
`9.) But such speculation does not justify a stay here.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 8 of 11
`
`Accordingly, Visa’s stay will not simplify the issues before the Court and this factor weighs
`
`strongly against a stay.
`
`B.
`
`A Stay Will Unduly Prejudice RFCyber
`
`As this Court has held, a patentee can be unduly prejudiced by a stay due to the risk of
`
`“loss of testimonial and documentary evidence potentially valuable to [plaintiff]’s case.” Sonrai,
`
`2022 WL 2307475, at *2. The same risks exist here.
`
`For example, one of the accused products is the Visa Token Service. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) This
`
`service launched in 2014. (Ex. C.) Even a modest stay risks the loss of evidence relating to, e.g.,
`
`the launch of the service and Visa’s reasons for implementing it.
`
`Moreover, RFCyber “like all patentees, has an interest in the timely enforcement of its
`
`patent rights.” Sonrai, 2022 WL 2307475, at *2. Delaying this case, which will resolve all issues
`
`relating to Visa’s infringement, in favor of the IPRs, which will resolve only some invalidity
`
`challenges to some patents, does not make logical sense. Id. at *3. Indeed, as explained above,
`
`the stay would not simplify any issues and only result in an unjustified delay. This Court has
`
`refused to enter a stay in similar circumstances. E.g., Kerr Mach. Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings,
`
`LLC, No. 6-20-CV-00200-ADA, 2021 WL 1298932, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) (“[T]he Court
`
`believes that allowing this case to proceed to completion will provide a more complete resolution
`
`of the issues including infringement, all potential grounds of invalidity, and damages. Further, the
`
`Court sees the pursuit of a stay as a delay tactic that would only benefit Vulcan.”).
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs against a stay.
`
`C.
`
`The Stage of the Case Does Not Favor a Stay
`
`The Court has set a trial date for October 21, 2024. (Dkt. 27 at 4.) However, the case is at
`
`a relatively early stage.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 9 of 11
`
`This case’s particular stage does not weigh in favor of a stay. Under the Court’s scheduling
`
`order, the only milestones before the presumed end of the stay would be invalidity contentions and
`
`the initial exchange of claim terms for construction. (Dkt. 27 at 2.) As explained above, these
`
`tasks will need to be completed no matter how the PTAB rules on the current IPRs. Thus, while
`
`discovery is not open and the Court has not issued a Markman ruling in this case,4 in these
`
`circumstances, the stage of the case does not weigh in favor of a stay.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, RFCyber respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant
`
`Visa U.S.A. Inc.’s Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. 22).
`
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Richard M. Cowell
`Raymond W. Mort, III
`Texas Bar No. 00791308
`Email: raymort@austinlaw.com
`THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
`100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel/Fax: 512-865-7950
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice to be filed)
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice to be filed)
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice to be filed)
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Richard M. Cowell (Admitted pro hac vice)
`
`
`4 The Court has issued a Markman ruling in the Apple case. RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No.
`6:21-cv-916-ADA, Dkt. 100 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2022).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 10 of 11
`
`NY Bar No. 4617759
`Email: rcowell@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`RFCYBER CORP.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA Document 28 Filed 06/22/23 Page 11 of 11
`
`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 June 22, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Richard M. Cowell
` Richard M. Cowell
`
`
`
`
`
`