Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 43 Other Not for motions - Petitioners Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2019)
USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary Considerations In his declaration, Dr. Jakobsson opined that the claimed features were • “directly responsible for the commercial success of Apple Pay and Visa Checkout services.”
Reply at 23-24 USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary Considerations Dr. Jakobsson’s errata changed his testimony that he reviewed Visa code.
USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary Considerations • Dr. Jakobsson conceded that key features purportedly showing long- felt need were already known
The KEK encryption in substitute claim 56 lacks written description support Issue Addressed in Briefing CMTA Opp.
Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett USR responds by arguing that KEKs are not shared USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 19
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 43 Other Not for motions - Petitioners Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 129 (D.Del. Aug. 30, 2018)
LR 7.1.2(b), Defendant Apple Inc. submits supplemental authority in support of its Motion to Stay (D.I.
Aug. 29, 2018), attached as Ex. 1, Judge Bencivengo granted a motion to stay pending decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on whether to institute Apple’s petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the six patents at issue.
The court found that the simplification of the issues factor favors a stay because, as a result of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), “for any petition on which the PTAB institutes IPR, each of the challenged claims will either (1) be confirmed, estopping Apple from asserting invalidity challenges in this case that it raised or could reasonably have raised in the IPR, or (2) be invalidated, reducing the number of issues before the Court.” Id. at 3.
If the PTAB institutes and cancels all the asserted claims of any patent, it will remove that patent from the case, thereby significantly reducing the scope of this litigation.
This is relevant to Apple’s argument in its pending Motion to Stay because it demonstrates that the PTAB proceedings are already simplifying this case and will likely continue to do so.
Cite Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 129 (D.Del. Aug. 30, 2018)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 42 Reply - POs Reply to MTS Opposition (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2019)
In addition to further testimony by Dr. Shoup, Petitioner’s reply also proffered a brand new expert witness, Dr. Ari Juels (Ex-1120), which Patent Owner has moved to strike.
As explained in the opening motion, this new evidence is untimely because it was not presented in the original Petition, and Petitioner’s newly minted theory that Dr. Juels is also a necessary fact witness because he is an inventor of the asserted prior art reference, compounds that tardiness.
Moreover, because the Board has denied allowing Patent Owner to rebut this last minute factual and expert evidence, failure to strike Dr. Juels’ declaration is highly prejudicial.
Indeed, this new factual evidence is akin to proffering new embodiments of references, which the Federal Circuit has upheld the Board’s declining to consider when a petitioner fails to identify or discuss in a petition.
“Unlike district court litigation – where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material – the expedited nature of IPRs brings with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge LTD., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s refusal of reply brief and expert declaration).
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 42 Reply - POs Reply to MTS Opposition (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 40 Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Strike (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 40 Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Strike (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 35 Reply - Petitioners Sur Reply to Patent Owners Reply to Opposition to Conditional Motion to Amend (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 35 Reply - Petitioners Sur Reply to Patent Owners Reply to Opposition to Conditional Motion to Amend (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 121 (D.Del. Jul. 27, 2018)
Cite Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 121 (D.Del. Jul. 27, 2018)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 34 Motion - POs Motion to Strike (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 34 Motion - POs Motion to Strike (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 34 Motion - POs Motion to Strike (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 34 Motion - POs Motion to Strike (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00810, No. 39 Other Not for motions - Petitioners Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00810, No. 39 Other Not for motions - Petitioners Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00810, No. 40 Other Not for motions - Patent Owners Demonstrative Exhibits (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00810, No. 40 Other Not for motions - Patent Owners Demonstrative Exhibits (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 113 (D.Del. Jul. 16, 2018)
Cite Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 113 (D.Del. Jul. 16, 2018)
+ More Snippets
Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 104 (D.Del. Jul. 2, 2018)
Cite Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 104 (D.Del. Jul. 2, 2018)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 31 Reply - Patent Owners Reply to MTA Opposition (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 31 Reply - Patent Owners Reply to MTA Opposition (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 30 Reply - Patent Owners Sur reply (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)
Cite Document
IPR2018-00813, No. 30 Reply - Patent Owners Sur reply (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)
+ More Snippets
Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 38 (D.Del. Oct. 23, 2017)
Cite Document
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-00585, No. 38 (D.Del. Oct. 23, 2017)
+ More Snippets