Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Date: May 1, 2025
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
` IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 22, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MONTE T. SQUIRE, ESQUIRE
`Duane Morris
`1201 North Market Street
`Suite 501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 657 4918
`mtsquire@duanemorris.com
`PHILIP W. WOO, ESQUIRE
`pwwoo@duanemorris.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JAMES ZAK, ESQUIRE
`Hecht Partners LLP
`125 Park Ave
`25th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`(212) 851-6821
`jzak@hechtpartners.com
`
`DAVID. L. HECHT, ESQUIRE
`dhecht@hechtpartners.ocm
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 22, 2025,
`commencing at 1:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MCKONE: Good afternoon and welcome. We are here
`for a final hearing and inter partes review for IPR2024-00232 and the joined
`case IPR2024-01334, as well as IPR2024-00233 and its joint case IPR2024-
`01333. All captioned, Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC. I'm Judge McKone.
`With me are Judges Dang and Turner. Let's get the party's appearances.
`Who do we have appearing on behalf of Petitioner?
`MR. SQUIRE: Good afternoon, Your Honors. This is Monte
`Squire appearing on behalf of Petitioner, Apple, Inc., and I'm also joined by
`my colleague, Philip Woo. We're both from the Law Firm of Duane Morris.
`And we also have listening, Your Honors, Christopher Hahn from in-house
`counsel at Apple, as well as Diek Van Nort is also in-house counsel at
`Apple. They'll be listeners in this proceeding. I will be leading the
`argument, accompanied by Mr. Woo.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Who do we have appearing on behalf
`of Patent Owner?
`MR. HECHT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is David Hecht
`from the Law Firm Hecht Partners. With me is James Zak and listening on
`the phone is Tanner Murphy. And I just wanted to say, when you started
`talking, there seemed to be some feedback initially, and then when Mr.
`Squire started talking, it got better. Just wanted to flag that. I don't know if
`someone's mic is experiencing some feedback or anything.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. I'll try again. Are you hearing any
`feedback with my mic right now?
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`MR. HECHT: I think it's okay. Thank you.
`JUDGE MCKONE: And Mr. Hecht, will you be doing the
`speaking today?
`MR. HECHT: Mr. Zak will be leading.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. All right. We've set forth a procedure
`for today's hearing in our oral argument order. Each party will have 60
`minutes of total time to present its arguments. Petitioner has the burden of
`proof and will go first. Patent Owner will then present opposition
`arguments. Then to the extent Petitioner has reserved time, Petitioner will
`present arguments in rebuttal. And then if Patent Owner has reserved sur-
`rebuttal time, Patent Owner may present its short sur-rebuttal.
`As we noted in the hearing order, although we were all appearing
`from different locations and many of us not in hearing rooms and in virtual
`settings, members of the public still do have the option to attend, either in
`the gallery of one of the hearing rooms or via a public line. For example, a
`journalist might be able to attend. In the oral hearing order, we requested
`that if there were any concerns about the disclosure of confidential
`information at this hearing, you were to contact the Board. Neither party
`indicated that they intend to present confidential information. Petitioner, can
`you confirm that you don't intend to discuss confidential information?
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor. That is correct.
`JUDGE MCKONE: And Patent Owner?
`MR. HECHT: That is correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Thank you. For clarity in the transcript and
`since all of us are appearing from different locations, when you refer to an
`exhibit on the screen, please identify the exhibit number and page number.
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`And when you refer to the demonstrative slides, please identify the slide
`number. Counsel should unmute only when speaking.
`If at any time during the hearing you encounter technical or other
`difficulties, please let the panel know immediately so that we can make
`adjustments and also there is technical staff listening in and they will try to
`keep their eyes out for technical problems, as well. Are there any questions
`on behalf of Patent Owner at this time? Any questions on behalf of
`Petitioner at this time?
`MR. SQUIRE: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Petitioner, would you like to reserve a
`certain amount of time for rebuttal?
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes. Petitioner would like to reserve 15 minutes,
`Your Honor, for rebuttal.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Give me one moment to get the timer going
`and you can begin whenever you are ready.
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor. Monte Squire speaking on
`behalf of Petitioner, Apple, Inc., and Your Honor, I did have one issue -- a
`preliminary matter to raise with the Board. There were objections made to
`Patent Owner's demonstratives and those objections were filed and these
`specific slides that are objected to identified in the portions of those slides
`identified -- and the question, Your Honors, should that be -- is that an issue
`that we should wait until the demonstrative -- until Patent Owner's
`presentation or is that an issue that the Board would like the parties to
`address at the outset?
`JUDGE MCKONE: Well, I think what we would prefer at this
`point, since we haven't heard the arguments around the slides yet, we will
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`remind both parties that demonstrative slides are not evidence. So at this
`point, we're going to see how things proceed and see what arguments are
`made around these slides. If you feel you need to make an objection, please
`do so on your time. Mr. Zak, if you're objecting to Petitioner's slides, or Mr.
`Squire, if you feel you need to object to Patent Owner’s slides after they've
`been presented, please do so. But it's hard for us to gauge right now until
`we've heard what people are going to say about them as to whether they
`should be excluded. But as I said before, they're not evidence.
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor. With that, I'd like to proceed
`with Petitioner's presentation. I'm going to be sharing my screen
`momentarily, and it should be sharing screen. It's Petitioner's Demonstrative
`Exhibit Slide 1.
`JUDGE MCKONE: Yes, I can see it.
`MR. SQUIRE: Your Honor, I want to start with just an outline of
`where -- the points that we'd like to address as part of this oral argument.
`And so it's part of our outline, we want to first talk about the '730 patent
`claims and the '954 patent claims, which are the two patents at issue and the
`claims that are challenged in both IPRs. Then I will also provide an
`overview of the specific issues that are disputed or that were raised, at least
`in the IPRs and the papers that were involved in the IPRs.
`And we also have some additional slides. The overview of both
`the patents, as well as claim construction and an overview of the primary
`prior art reference, which is a reference called Ludtke. I do not intend to talk
`in detail about these particular sections, unless the Board has some specific
`questions, but we do have slides that -- I'm prepared to discuss those
`particular sections, again, if the Board has questions about those.
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`Primarily, what the focus is going to be on is the issues related to
`the unpatentability of the challenged claims. I'll also flag for the Board or
`make a point that the arguments for both the '954 and the '730 patents are the
`same and so although I may be talking about the '954 patent in some of the
`discussion, those same arguments and that same analyses applies to the
`unpatentability of the '730 patent claims, as well.
`So I'll start with the '730 patent claims. Proxense has already
`conceded that those claims are unpatentable in this proceeding. The '730
`claims are substantially identical to the '954 claims. They're part of the same
`patent family as the '954 claims. They are being challenged in both IPRs
`based on the same prior art as the '954 claims. And so Proxense has already,
`in their request for adverse judgment, which was filed as Paper 29 in the
`'730 IPR, has conceded that those claims are unpatentable over the prior art.
`And as part of the request for adverse judgment, the regulations, the rules
`that govern that, that's a concession of unpatentability over the contested
`subject matter.
`And in this case, the contested subject matter is the prior art
`reference and for the claims, the prior art that is asserted in both the IPRs.
`And so that's an admission, Your Honors, and we think that, really, there's
`nothing further regarding the '730 claims that really need to be addressed.
`They're unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
`JUDGE MCKONE: And I think we discussed at the pre-hearing
`conference -- I think one of the concerns here is we don't have -- the request
`for adverse judgment came a little bit too late for us to get any real briefing
`to consider the impact of a concession in the '233 -- or '232 case what the
`impact would be on the '233 case. It may be as straightforward as you're
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`saying, but I'm not convinced right now that it is. Were the parties able to
`meet and confer and discuss procedure to try to sort this out or is that
`something that we need to take care of after this hearing?
`MR. SQUIRE: We did meet and confer about the estoppel issue,
`Your Honor, and we do have a -- and we can discuss that at the end of -- at
`the conclusion of this hearing. But Your Honor, the arguments I flag and in
`the next slide, I kind of discuss in detail, the arguments that we're basing --
`these are the arguments. This concession is something specific to the '730
`claims. The request for adverse judgment was entered against the '730
`claims.
`
`The argument we're making with respect to the '954 claims is not
`really an estoppel argument. It's really an argument about the patentability
`arguments that were made by Patent Owner in this proceeding, specific to
`the '954 claims. So we're not necessarily saying that estoppel applies to the
`'954 claims. What we're saying is -- and I'll go to the next slide, Your
`Honor, is that the same arguments that were made in this proceeding for the
`patentability of the '954 claims and for the '730 claims are the same claims.
`The scope of those claims are identical, nearly identical and there's no
`dispute from Patent Owner that there's any distinctions between the two
`claims.
`
`And so what we're saying is it's not really -- it may be an estoppel
`issue, which we'll address in the briefing, but it's not an estoppel argument.
`It's the fact that these arguments happen to be the same arguments for the
`same claims with the same scope. If the '730 claims are unpatentable, in
`which we will show just on this record, even for final written decision, not
`withstanding what's happening with respect to the re-examination or the
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`request for adverse judgment.
`We're saying that necessarily so, if those are the same arguments
`for patentability with respect to those claims and those arguments fail or
`conceded, or are not failed in the merits, the same would apply -- that same
`analysis, because they're the same arguments and because there's no
`distinction between the scope of the claims, that same argument would apply
`to the '954.
`And so perhaps it's related to some extent the request for adverse
`judgment, but it's not really -- we don't really need to rely on the request for
`adverse judgment because we have briefing, we have papers, a petition, we
`have Patent Owner's papers, we have Patent Owner's arguments, which
`happen to be the same for both patents in both cases, and so it's really on the
`merits.
`
`And to the extent -- aside from whatever is happening with the
`request for adverse judgment, we'd say based on the papers and the evidence
`as we go through, that this could be decided and we would request that it be
`decided as a final written decision because we think that both IPRs succeed
`on the merits and the claims are unpatentable on the merits. And I'll just
`go -- just to talk a little bit about the close -- yes, Your Honor?
`MR. ZAK: You know, just to address really quickly -- I don't want
`to interrupt, Mr. Squire, but these are different claims. We objected to these
`slides, you know --
`JUDGE MCKONE: I understand and that's why I'm questioning
`what the impact would be on the '954 case. And you'll have your
`opportunity if you want to contest this when you get to speak in a few
`minutes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`MR. ZAK: Appreciate that, Your Honor.
`MR. SQUIRE: Your Honor, and so --
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel? Counsel?
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, this is Judge Turner. Let me ask --
`just to go back to Slide 3 previously, one thing that sort of came out of the,
`you know, the pre-hearing conference that we had, Patent Owner -- and I
`don't want to necessarily put words in Patent Owner's mouth, but they're sort
`of -- are contending that their concession here, the conceding that these are
`unpatentable, is maybe perhaps contingent on the entry of the examiner's
`amendment.
`But they're really not saying, oh, well we're saying that they're not,
`you know -- we're saying, only if the examiner's amendments actually
`entered in the -- you know, this related and this ex-parte re-examine. Well,
`then that's the only way that our concession has fruit, you know, that it bears
`fruit. Until that happens, we're only conceding for purposes of, you know --
`to get entry of this amendment.
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor. We understood -- that's what
`Patent Owner said at the pre-hearing conference and that's -- I guess that's
`what's listed in the request for adverse judgment, but it's our point, Your
`Honor, that there has been a concession as to the patentability of those
`claims. But even aside from the concession point, to the -- just based on the
`briefing and the arguments, and the evidence that was submitted in the IPRs
`themselves.
`So aside from the request for adverse judgment and aside from the
`re-examination, we think on the merits, which we're contesting on the
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`merits, as well, and that's part of our, kind of what we're here to discuss also,
`we think that if they'll -- for that reason, too, and to the extent the '730
`claims fail on the merits, I guess the point is that the '954 claims would fail
`on those very same merits because in these proceedings, they're saying that
`the scope -- the claims are nearly identical. There's no argument that there
`are a differences or specific arguments associated with one IPR versus
`another over the specific art that was asserted.
`And so I guess what we could underscore is, yes, they would fail
`as part of this request for adverse judgment -- any concession -- and that's
`what the adverse judgment means, even if it is conditional, I presume. It's
`still a concession that it doesn't prevail over this particular prior art. But
`even aside from that, I think once we get just to the merits and moving
`toward a final written decision on the merits, the claims still fail for that
`reason, too. So there are really two pieces --
`JUDGE TURNER: This is Judge Turner. Just to follow-up, I
`acknowledge what you're saying, but you have a whole slide here on Slide 3
`that's talking about the concession, so I wanted to kind of drill down. I
`understand you're going to get to the merits. You have the rest of your oral
`argument to talk about the merits, but I think what I'm hearing you say is
`that you see this as a statement against interest, even if it's not a full bred
`concession?
`MR. SQUIRE: But --
`JUDGE TURNER: And I don't want to put words in your mouth,
`but if that's what I'm hearing you say, you can confirm that to me.
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor. I think that is exactly what
`we're saying. We just want to make that point and it's a point to be made,
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`but to me, at least to Petitioner, it's an alternative point, right? It's an
`alternative reason why the claims are invalid because again, as we get to the
`merits, they're invalid on the merits, too, should the Board want to proceed
`that route.
`JUDGE TURNER: All right, thank you.
`JUDGE MCKONE: The briefing that we have, Mr. Squire, is on
`the merits and we don't have much context to decide whether you want to
`phrase this as estoppel or whether you want to phrase this as some kind of
`statements against interest. We don't have much to go on that and it may be
`better to get some arguments on that in the papers first before trying to deal
`with them on the fly here. So I think you might be better using your time on
`the merits and then meet and confer with the other side to figure out how we
`would sort out any collateral impact from the 232 case into the 233.
`MR. SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor, and I'll go right to the primary
`issues. That's well taken. You have the demonstratives, and we can address
`at least the estoppel issue as part of the -- and collateral issues as part of the
`briefing, so I'll go right to the merits. And again, I think the arguments that
`we're pointing out -- I'll underscore again -- all the arguments that were
`made for the '730 were made for the '954, and so this is what -- these are the
`arguments or the issues that were raised in the Patent Owner response,
`following the Board's institution decision.
`And so these are the merits arguments that we want to address.
`The first one deals with the third-party elements of the claims, which apply
`to both '730 and '954, and the third-party trusted authority elements. I'll
`characterize those as a group of elements, but they all -- there's really no
`dispute as to what they cover or what they relate to in both sets of claims.
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`The second is the other limitation that's at issue is the receiving an
`application and access message from the trusted authority and the allowing
`user access to the application. Those are the really two elements of the
`claims that are in dispute and then we have two additional issues and the
`person that the Patent Owner relies upon has submitted declarations for in its
`papers, we address whether or not Mr. Carrothers is a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`And then there's also an issue with respect to arguments about the
`'730 re-exam, and the reason that we're talking about it at this late juncture
`and not earlier in the proceeding is when those arguments were
`specifically -- what time in the proceeding those arguments have come up, at
`what time in the proceeding the request for adverse judgment was submitted.
`And so I'll go -- unless Your Honors have a specific question about the '954
`patent or the overview, in the interest of time, I'd like to go right to -- I'll
`mention briefly claim construction and then go right to the two primary
`issues.
`
`First, I'll start with claim construction. Really, there are no issues
`to be construed now to resolve -- there are no terms to be construed now to
`resolve any of the issues. The Board has -- there's a corresponding -- a
`parallel district court litigation that's dealing with construction of these same
`claims. Here in this proceeding, the Board has already addressed the claim
`construction of certain -- of these terms, and there's really no dispute.
`Particularly, with respect to access message and the third-party
`limitations that I mentioned. Third-party limitations and entities separate
`from the parties to a transaction, there's portions of the Board's institution
`decision that addresses that, as well as the access message claim
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`construction. And so there's really no dispute about that and I just flagged
`for the Board that again, in the parallel district court action, these terms have
`also been addressed.
`And now let's go to the merits. I also won't go through -- unless
`the Board has any specific questions about the Ludtke reference, it is the
`primary reference in both, the '730, as well as the '954 IPR. There's really
`no dispute about kind of where it's directed. It's certainly in the same field
`as the patents at issue and really, a lot of the disclosure that we'll address on
`the merits have to do with the TPCH or the transaction processing
`clearinghouse -- privacy clearinghouse, that Ludtke discloses. So unless the
`Board has any specific questions about Ludtke in general or the overview of
`Ludtke, I'd like to go right into the issue one, which is its disclosure of the
`third-party that operates as a trusted authority and those third-party trusted
`authority limitations.
`Here's where it appears in representative Claim 1, a third-party that
`operates a trusted authority. The trusted authority is referenced in the last
`limitation, the receiving limitation. And there really shouldn't be any
`dispute. Ludtke's TPCH is a third-party trusted authority. It's certainly not
`the consumer, it's not the vendor, and in fact, there's disclosures specific to
`Ludtke that it is the middleman in the transaction, but then Figure 4 kind of
`illustrates that it's not -- you know, it is something separate. It is not the
`vendor or the consumer.
`It acts -- the disclosure and the portions in the petition, as well as
`our expert declaration that supports it identifies that it acts in a transaction as
`a third-party and it is a trusted authority. It's consistent with the Board's
`construction for that third-party trusted authority. And I would flag for the
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`Board, the arguments Patent Owner raises in that Patent Owner response,
`they're all the same arguments that previously had been raised and really that
`the Board addressed and rejected in the institution decision.
`And just to get just some more support or more evidence, really, as
`to why the TPCH satisfies that limitation, the third-party limitation, or
`element of the claims, it meets the construction. It's an entity separate from
`the parties to a transaction. As I mentioned, it's not the user, it's not the
`vendor. That's not disputed. It's not the retailer, and really key to this and
`our expert has opined specifically on this issue, it functions as the
`middleman. It's the middleman in the transaction, and this is disclosure
`specifically from the Ludtke reference that supports that determination.
`And Patent Owner made some arguments in the Patent Owner
`response. Again, arguments that were made prior and addressed by the
`Board and rejected effectively by the Board, well, that Ludtke's TPCH's is
`the application, but that's not supported by evidence. It's really just attorney
`argument and statements -- at least some statements from Mr. Carrothers
`who we’ll address, who's not a POSITA.
`But even by the '954 and the '730 patents' disclosure, an
`application is defined as a resource that can be accessed by or verified by an
`authenticated user. Ludtke's TPCH is not an application, according to that
`definition, so it can't be, you know -- it doesn't even satisfy that definition of
`an application, according to at least the patent's disclosure. And so really, it
`comes back to the point that it's the middleman in the transaction. It's the
`separate entity that's not the primary or principal parties to the transaction.
`And here are the arguments. The arguments that Patent Owner
`made or again, the same arguments that have been addressed. And I'll just
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`underscore, to the extent, Patent Owner cites to Mr. Carrothers' testimony --
`one, that testimony is conclusory; and two, again, we'll get to it, but Mr.
`Carothers is not a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`So essentially, the arguments, these claim construction arguments
`that -- at least that Patent Owner -- at least appears to be trying to make in
`their Patent Owner response are really -- they were just attorney argument.
`Unsupported by evidence, or at least unsupported by any expert testimony as
`to what a person of ordinary skill would've understood those skills to mean
`in the context of the claims, the prior art, and the patents at issue.
`And so now let's go to the second issue, Your Honors, and that
`second issue is the limitation receiving an application, an access message
`from the trusted authority allowing the user access to the/or in an
`application. Again, this is another limitation that's in both the '730 claims, as
`well as the '954 claims, and I'll address how Ludtke discloses or at least
`renders obvious this limitation.
`Here's where it appears in at least '954 representative Claim 1.
`Again, receiving in an application an access message from the trusted
`authority, and the other relevant portion that I'll highlight is allowing the
`user access to the application. Ludtke discloses this and it's really -- it
`expressly discloses this. And from the institution decision, that third-party
`trusted authority, which Ludtke -- corresponds to Ludtke's TPCH, it issues
`what they call a transaction -- what Ludtke describes as a transaction
`confirmation.
`And after it issues that transaction confirmation -- so that
`transaction confirmation is an access message from the trusted authority
`corresponding to the claims. It's issued after validating the different -- yes,
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`Your Honor?
`JUDGE MCKONE: So in this case, if the transaction confirmation
`is the access message, does that mean that the personal POS terminal is what
`you're contending is the application?
`MR. SQUIRE: No, Your Honor. The personal POS terminal is
`part of the -- it's certainly part of the transaction, but the disclosure -- there's
`also a disclosure and a disclosure that our expert relies upon and that's relied
`upon in the mapping of the claims, is the transaction -- the web browser is
`actually the application. The web browser is what corresponds to the
`application that is actually for which access the user -- is access is allowed to
`the user, such that the user can get the content. In this case, Ludtke
`describes it as the electronic content or services that that web browser offers.
`JUDGE MCKONE: In the example you have on the screen right
`now, though, that's not the web browser, right? There's no web browser here
`receiving the transaction confirmation?
`MR. SQUIRE: Your Honor, maybe I should have highlighted it,
`but if I -- I'll go back. If you look at the excerpt, I think I should've
`probably -- we should've probably included -- I think we included it in other
`slides. It issues a transaction confirmation back to the POS terminal, but
`also, there's disclosure here, Your Honor.
`If you can see my arrow, I think it begins at lines -- I'm looking at
`lines 36 and it's the disclosure from Ludtke Column 29, I believe, lines 15
`to, I think, 17, through 20. If you look at those lines, it talks about the
`transaction confirmation going back to the web browser and the transaction
`device, and so that's the disclosure of that transaction confirmation, which is
`from the TPCH. That is also -- that is sent to the web browser. And I think
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`that's -- from the access -- the transaction confirmation is issued from the
`TPCH and it's received at the -- eventually, at the web browser. And here's
`that disclosure, Your Honor. This is kind of more fulsome of the same
`disclosure.
`I guess we're at Slide 38, Your Honor. And this is what I kind of
`wanted to get to. TPCH's transaction confirmation, which corresponds to
`the access message from the trusted authority, it's reflected back to the web
`browser, and that's the application of the claims. And after that, following
`that secured -- or as part of that secured distribution of physical or electronic
`content to the users perform based on that confirmation. So that maps
`directly to the claim language, Your Honors.
`Here's more support for that. Ludtke's disclosure that the secure
`distribution of physical or electronic content is performed once the
`transaction is authorized, so once that transaction confirmation is issued
`from the TPCH. And then it also describes, and our expert discusses, is that
`the distributed content includes the content itself or a reference to such
`content. And for example, that would be a web URL.
`And with respect to the definition of application, which I don't
`think is disputed, but we addressed just to be clear, a website is -- the '954
`patent, as well as the '730 patent, specifically describe an application as
`being computer software, a website, or a file. And certainly, we point to the
`disclosure of it being a website and that's right from the patent spec itself
`explicitly.
`And so when you pull all that together, Your Honors, you have
`Ludtke disclosing receiving at a web browser webpage. Again, that's the
`application. A transaction confirmation, which is an access message from
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00232 (Patent 8,352,730 B2)
`IPR2024-00233 (Patent 8,886,954 B1)
`the trusted authorities, issued from the TPCH of Ludtke, and it allows the
`user to access electronic content, whereas that electronic content on the web
`browser. So it's allowing the user to access the application. And that falls
`squarely within the limitation and disclosure of the claims.
`But Ludtke discloses another embodiment. There's also another
`embodiment. That's one embodiment, but there's also another embodiment
`that satisfies this limita