UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2024-002331
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF REGARDING ESTOPPEL
`AGAINST PATENT OWNER
`
`1 IPR2024-01334 has been joined to this proceeding (“the ’954 IPR”).
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2024-002331
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF REGARDING ESTOPPEL
`AGAINST PATENT OWNER
`
`1 IPR2024-01334 has been joined to this proceeding (“the ’954 IPR”).
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`PATENT OWNER IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM
`ARGUING THE PATENTABILITY OF THE ’954 PATENT
`CLAIMS ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 (“the ’954 patent”).
`Ex. 1002
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954.
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Stephen Gray (Decl.).
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Gray.
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,188,110 to Ludtke (“Ludtke”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0046336 to Kon et al.
`(“Kon”).
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2021-
`01444, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2022).
`Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00320, Dkt. No.
`31, Scheduling Order (W.D. Tex Aug. 18, 2023).
`Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 6-21-cv-
`00210, Dkt. No. 43, Claim Construction Order (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18,
`2022).
`Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 6-21-cv-
`00210, Dkt. No. 149, Memorandum in Support of Claim
`Construction Order (W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2022).
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0023882 to Udom
`(“Udom”).
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0019811 to Lapsley
`et. al (“Lapsley”).
`Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6-23-cv-00320, Dkt. No. 1,
`Complaint (W.D. Tex. May 2, 20223).
`Preliminary infringement contentions for Proxense, LLC v. Google
`LLC, Case No. 6-23-cv-00320.
`Ex. 1015 CERTIFICATION REPORT No. P165: Sony FeliCa Contactless
`Smart Card RC-S860, UK IT Security Evaluation and Certification
`Scheme (March 2002).
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0049806 to Gatz et al.
`(“Gatz”).
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0034492 to Siegel et
`al. (“Siegel”).
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0036297 to Ikegami
`et al. (“Ikegami”).
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1019
`
`Description
`Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6-23-cv-00320, Dkt. No.
`45, Proxense’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (W.D. Tex.
`Dec. 1, 2023).
`Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00320, Dkt. No.
`45, Proxense’s Expert Transcript (W.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2023).
`Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00320, Dkt. No.
`50, Proxense’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief (W.D. Tex. Jan.
`5, 2023).
`Ex. 1022 U.S. District Courts—National Judicial Caseload Profile, available
`at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_dis
`tcomparison0930.2023.pdf (retrieved Jan. 15, 2024).
`Ex. 1023 RESERVED
`Ex. 1024
`Final Rejection, Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/015,053 (Mar. 4,
`2024).
`Ex. 1025 Correspondence to Proxense, dated May 20, 2024
`Ex. 1026 Reply Declaration of Stephen Gray (“Reply Decl.”)
`Ex. 1027 Confidential Settlement Agreement (BOARD AND PARTIES
`ONLY)
`Ex. 1028
`Petitioner’s Trial Hearing Demonstratives
`Ex. 1029 Reserved.
`Ex. 1030 Reserved.
`Ex. 1031 Docket Sheet for Proxsense, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-24-cv-
`00143-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (accessed May 7, 2025).
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) respectfully submits this Opening Brief
`
`Regarding Estoppel Against Patent Owner Proxense, LLC (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“Proxense”). Proxense concedes in its request for adverse judgment filed in
`
`IPR2024-00232 (the “’730 IPR”) that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,352,730 (the
`
`“’730 Patent”) are unpatentable over the prior art. Because of the substantial identity
`
`in claim language and scope between the canceled claims of the ’730 Patent and the
`
`claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,886,954 (the “’954 Patent”), and because Proxense did not
`
`make any separate, distinct arguments for the patentability of the ’954 Patent claims
`
`in this proceeding, Proxense should be collaterally estopped from arguing the
`
`patentability of the ’954 Patent claims over those same prior art grounds. See Ohio
`
`Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“If the
`
`differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims
`
`do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies.”). Thus,
`
`the ’954 Patent claims are unpatentable for the same reasons over the same prior art
`
`as the canceled ’730 Patent claims.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM
`ARGUING THE PATENTABILITY OF THE ’954 PATENT CLAIMS
`The ’954 Patent is a continuation of the ’730 Patent, and thus is part of the
`
`same family and has the same specification. Compare ’730 IPR, Ex. 1001 (’730
`
`Patent), Title, Abstract, Specification, Fig ures with , ’954 IPR, Ex. 10 01 (’954
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`Patent), Title, Abstract, Specification, Figures. The ’730 and ’954 claims are
`
`substantially identical. Compare e.g., ’730 IPR, Ex. 1001, claims 1, 12 with, ’954
`
`IPR, Ex. 1001, claims 1, 16. Petitioner challenged both the ’730 and ’954 claims
`
`based on the same prior art grounds: Ground 1 based on Ludtke, and Ground 2 based
`
`on the combination of Ludtke and Kon. ’730 IPR, Pet. 5–69 with, ’954 IPR, Pet.
`
`5–68. While there are some differences in claim limitations as between the claims
`
`of the ’730 and ’954 Patents, Proxense in the IPR proceedings did not make any
`
`distinct or separate arguments based on these differences, or otherwise indicate that
`
`the claims are patentably distinct or have a different scope. See generally ’730 IPR,
`
`POR 1–2, 8–26; ’954 IPR, POR 1–2, 8–25. Instead, Proxense relied on the same
`
`arguments for the patentability of the challenged claims in both IPRs. Compare ’730
`
`IPR, POR 1–2, 8–26 with, ’954, POR 1–2, 8–25; compare ’730 IPR, PO Sur-Reply
`
`10–20 with, ’954 IPR, PO Sur-Reply 10–18; see, e.g., Ex. 1028 at 8–9.
`
`Collateral estoppel prevents Proxense from re-litigating in the ’954 IPR the
`
`issue of whether Ludtke and/or Kon teaches substantially the same disputed claims
`
`limitations of the ’954 Patent, after Proxense has already admitted so in the ’730
`
`IPR. Collateral estoppel applies where: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue;
`
`(2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in
`
`that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v Apple,
`
`Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
`
`First, the prior ’730 IPR presented issues substantially identical to those
`
`presented in the ’954 IPR. For example, in the ’730 IPR, the issue of whether Ludtke
`
`discloses or renders obvious the “receiving an access message from the agent
`
`allowing the user access to an application” limitation of claim 1 of the ’730 Patent
`
`was presented. ’730 IPR, Pet. 32–36; POR 17–25. Similarly, in the ’954 IPR, this
`
`same issue was presented as to the substantially identical “receiving, at an
`
`application, an access message from the trusted authority…allowing the user access
`
`to the application” limitation of claim 1 of the ’954 Patent. ’954 IPR, Pet. 28–32;
`
`POR 17–25. Both IPRs also addressed and presented the issue of whether Ludtke
`
`discloses or renders obvious all of the other substantially identical limitations of
`
`claim 1 of the ’730 Patent and claim 1 of the ’954 Patent. Compare ’730 IPR, Pet.
`
`8–36 and POR 8–25 with, ’954 IPR, Pet. 8–32 and POR 8–25.
`
`Second, in the ’730 IPR, the issue of patentability and whether the prior art
`
`discloses or renders obvious substantially the same limitations at issue in the ’954
`
`IPR were raised, extensively briefed, argued, and litigated in the parties’ papers filed
`
`in the ’730 IPR. See IPR2024-00232, Pet. 5–69; POR 8–25; Pet. Reply 7–16; PO
`
`Sur-Reply 10–19; M2M Solutions LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2022-1122, 2023
`
`WL 2154964, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2023) (affirming the Board’s decision that
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`patent owner is collaterally estopped from arguing that prior art failed to disclose
`
`substantially identical limitation litigated in prior IPR). Proxense relied on
`
`substantially identical arguments regarding the patentability of the ’730 claims and
`
`the ’954 claims over identical prior art grounds asserted in both IPRs: Ludtke
`
`(Ground 1), and the combination of Ludtke and Kon (Ground 2). Compare ’730 IPR,
`
`POR 1–2, 8–26 and PO Sur-Reply 10–20 with, ’954 IPR, POR 1–2, 8–25 and PO
`
`Sur-Reply 10–18; see also Ex. 1028 at 8–9. Regarding the ’954 Patent limitation that
`
`the access message is received “at an application,” Proxense basically admitted that
`
`it did not raise this as a separate argument in the ’954 IPR. ’954 IPR, Hrg. Tr., Paper
`
`31 at 44:24–45:9.
`
`Third, the judgment in the ’730 IPR necessarily required determination of the
`
`identical issue in the request for adverse judgment. Proxense expressly “conceded
`
`the unpatentability of the claims at issue in this proceeding” over the same prior art
`
`grounds asserted in the ’954 IPR. ’730 IPR, Paper 33 at 3 (entering “Judgment” and
`
`“Final Written Decision” ordering “that claims 1–6 and 8–17 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,352,730 B2 are cancelled”). Proxense’s concession of unpatentability constitutes
`
`an admission on the issue of whether Ludtke discloses “receiving an access message
`
`from the agent allowing the user access to an application” and thus, via Proxense’s
`
`own admission a substantially identical issue in the ’954 IPR that was adjudged and
`
`necessarily determined in the ’730 IPR. While Proxense tried to argue at the hearing
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`that its request for adverse judgment on the ’730 claims was “not acknowledging
`
`directly that any of the prior art is directly applicable,” Proxense admitted that
`
`“We’re saying that this is unpatentable.” ’954 IPR, Hrg. Tr., Paper 31 at 49:2–5.
`
`Fourth, Proxense had full representation by counsel throughout the prior
`
`proceeding. Indeed, in the ’730 IPR, Proxense was represented by the same law firm
`
`and attorney, Hecht Partners LLP and David L. Hecht (’730 IPR, Paper 28 at 3), that
`
`represents Proxense in the ’954 IPR (Paper 27 at 2) and the related district court
`
`litigation (Ex. 1031 at 1–2).
`
`Accordingly, because the criteria for collateral estoppel are met, Proxense is
`
`precluded from arguing that the same prior art asserted in the ’730 IPR (Ludtke
`
`and/or Kon) does not disclose or render obvious substantially the same disputed
`
`claim limitations at issue in the ’954 IPR.
`
`Dated: May 8, 2025
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`
`
`BY: /Philip W. Woo/
`Philip W. Woo
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,880
`Duane Morris LLP
`260 Homer Avenue #202
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00233
`Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a complete and entire copy of the
`
`foregoing PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF REGARDING ESTOPPEL
`
`AGAINST PATENT OWNER was served electronically on May 8, 2025, on
`
`counsel of record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`David L Hecht
`E: dhecht@hechtpartners.com
`James Zak
`E: jzak@hechtpartners.com
`proxense@hechtpartners.com
`Hecht Partners LLP
`125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`
`BY: /Philip W. Woo/
`Philip W. Woo
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,880
`Duane Morris LLP
`260 Homer Avenue #202
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`
` ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`6
`
`
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
