UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`v.
`WEPAY GLOBAL PAYMENTS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. D. 930,702 S
`Issue Date: Sep. 14, 2021
`Title: DISPLAY SCREEN PORTION WITH
`ANIMATED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
`
`
`
`Case No.: PGR2022-00045
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-322
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS .................................... 4
`II.
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE REVIEW ........................................... 4
`A.
`Petitioner Timely Filed This Petition .................................................... 4
`B.
`§ 325(d) Should Not Bar This Petition. ................................................ 9
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 9
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 9
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 10
`C.
`Lead and Back‐Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ......................... 11
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 12
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................. 12
`V.
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’702 PATENT AND THE PRIOR ART .................. 13
`A.
`The ’702 Patent ................................................................................... 13
`B.
`Prior Art Overview .............................................................................. 16
`1.
`Reddy (Ex. 1004) ...................................................................... 19
`2.
`SGQR (Ex. 1005, 1072) ............................................................ 23
`3.
`GrabPay (Ex. 1006, 1073) ........................................................ 31
`4.
`Digital Debit Video (Ex. 1007, 1074) ....................................... 36
`5.
`Digital Debit Patent (Ex. 1008) ................................................ 44
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 45
`A.
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction .............................................. 45
`B.
`Claim Construction of the ’702 Patent ................................................ 47
`1.
`The broken lines form no part of the claimed design. .............. 47
`2.
`The two embodiments are basically the same and patentably
`indistinct from one another. ...................................................... 49
`The positions and sizes of the Three Square Arrangement and
`the $0.00 relative to the display screen are not part of the
`claimed design. .......................................................................... 51
`
`3.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`VIII. SECTIONS 102, 103 – LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INVALIDITY.......... 57
`A.
`Section 102 Anticipation ..................................................................... 57
`B.
`The Ordinary Observer ........................................................................ 58
`C.
`Section 103 Obviousness .................................................................... 58
`D.
`The Designer of Ordinary Skill ........................................................... 61
`IX. SECTIONS 102, 103 – DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 61
`A. Ground 1: The ’702 Patent claim is anticipated by Reddy. ................ 61
`B. Ground 2: The ’702 Patent claim is obvious over Reddy by itself or
`Reddy in view of SGQR. ..................................................................... 68
`1.
`The ’702 Patent claim is obvious over Reddy. ......................... 68
`2.
`The ’702 Patent claim is obvious over Reddy in view of SGQR.
` ................................................................................................... 71
`C. Ground 3: The ’702 Patent claim is anticipated by GrabPay. ............. 76
`D. Ground 4: The ’702 Patent claim is obvious over the Digital Debit
`Video in view of the Digital Debit Patent. .......................................... 80
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 86
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple, Inc. v. Aylus Networks, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1870710 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2015) ......................................................... 52
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 58
`Campbell Soup v. Gamon Plus,
`10 F.4th 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................... 48
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01359, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021) ............................................ 6, 7
`Dobson v. Dornan,
`118 U.S. 10 (1886) .............................................................................................. 46
`Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne,
`256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 57
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 30, 35, 43
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) ............................................................ 46
`Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40,
`152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965) ......................................................... 51, 65, 76, 85
`General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp.,
`IPR2017-00425, Paper 39 (PTAB July 2, 2018) ................................................ 42
`Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00787, Paper 91 (PTAB July 24, 2020) ........................................ 52, 56
`Google LLC v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01535, Paper 32 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2018) .............................................. 22
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White,
`81 U.S. 511 (1871) .............................................................................................. 57
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Well Servs., LLC,
`No. IPR2021-01032, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 11, 2022) ................................. 6, 7, 8
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
`730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 58, 59, 60
`In re Aslanian,
`590 F.2d 911 (CCPA 1979) ................................................................................ 20
`In re Borden,
`90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 73, 83
`In re Glavas,
`230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956) ........................................................ 60
`In re LAMB,
`286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ................................................................ 60, 69, 70
`In re Nalbandian,
`661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................... 59, 69
`In re Rosen,
`673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ............................................................................ 58
`In re Rubinfield,
`270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959) ................................................ 15, 51
`In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,
`No. 03-MD-1570 (GBD)(SN), 2021 WL 5414948
`(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2021) ....................................................................... 28, 33, 40
`
`In re Zahn,
`617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ............................................................................ 47
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
`589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 57, 67, 79
`Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC,
`895 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`London Luxury LLC v. E&E Co., Ltd.,
`PGR2021-00083, Ex. 1013 (PTAB May 12, 2021) ............................... 28, 34, 40
`Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC v. Reddy,
`IPR2015-00306, Paper 21 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2016) ............................................. 69
`MerchSource LLC v. Dodocase VR, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00494, Paper 43 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2019) .............................................. 30
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
`747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................... 58, 59, 60, 68, 73, 80, 83
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ...................................... 4, 7
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB. June 16, 2020) .............................................. 8
`Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`No. 02 C 3293, 2004 WL 2367740 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004) ............................. 26
`Trucook, LLC v. Bond/Helman, Inc.,
`2001 WL 826864 (N.D. Il. 2008) ....................................................................... 51
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................... 9
`Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.,
`IPR2020-01037, Paper 39 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2021) ............................................... 22
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 1:2022-cv-01061 (N.D. Ill.) ................................................................... 10, 53
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:2022-cv-00223 (W.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 7, 9, 10
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.,
`1:2022-cv-00105 (N.D. Ill.) .......................................................................... 10, 55
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`1:2022-cv-00103 (N.D. Ill.) ................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation,
`1:2022-cv-01064 (N.D. Ill.) ................................................................................ 10
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PayPal, Inc.,
`6:2021-cv-01094 (W.D. Tex.) ................................................................ 10, 54, 79
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`1:2021-cv-05052 (N.D. Ill.) .......................................................................... 10, 54
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:2021-cv-01095 (W.D. Tex.) ........................................... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 52, 54
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Tesla, Inc.,
`6:2022-cv-00224 (W.D. Tex.) ............................................................................ 10
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`1:2022-cv-01062 (N.D. Ill.) ............................................................................... 11
`Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank NA,
`1:2022-cv-00363 (WDTX) ................................................................................. 11
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 24 .......................................................................................................... 30
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................... 1, 3, 12, 13, 31, 18, 19, 24, 25, 31, 36, 43, 44, 57, 61
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................... 1, 3, 13, 57, 58, 60, 61, 68, 69, 71, 76, 80, 86
`35 U.S.C. §324(a) .................................................................................................. 4, 9
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) ...................................................................................................... 9
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) ................................................................................................. 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 CFR § 42.6(a) ...................................................................................................... 88
`37 CFR § 42.105 ...................................................................................................... 87
`37 CFR § 42.200 (b) ................................................................................................ 46
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(4) .................................................................. 26, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41
`Fed. R. Evid. 902(3) ................................................................................................. 27
`MPEP § 1504.03 ................................................................................................ 59, 60
`MPEP § 1504.05 .................................................................................... 51, 65, 76, 85
`MPEP § 2128 ......................................................................................... 28, 29, 34, 41
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. D930,702 S (the “’702 Patent”)
`1002 Expert Declaration of Dr. Gonzalo Arce
`1003
`File History of U.S. Patent No. D930,702 S
`1004 US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0260806 (“Reddy”)
`1005
`Screenshots of YouTube video entitled “SGQR – Singapore Quick
`Response Code,” uploaded by the Monetary Authority of Singapore
`(“SGQR”). Retrieved from the Internet at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VmJm9imBp4
`Screen shots of YouTube video entitled “GrabPay Standalone,”
`uploaded by DCS Synthesis (“GrabPay”). Retrieved from the Internet
`at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc84sn1xTRc
`Screenshots of YouTube video entitled “Digital Debit App Preview,”
`uploaded by Digital Debit (“Digital Debit Video”). Retrieved from the
`Internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDqvQFJB8GA
`1008 U.S. Patent No. D857,054 S to Grecia (“Digital Debit Patent”)
`1009
`Singapore Quick Response Code (SGQR), Monetary Authority of
`Singapore, Internet Archive (Mar. 31, 2020), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20200331192535/https:/www.mas.gov.sg/
`development/e-payments/sgqr
`1010 Vivian Shiao, “Singapore launches unified payment QR code, said to
`be world’s first,” Baking & Finance (Sept. 17, 2018), available at
`https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/singapore-
`launches-unified-payment-qr-code-said-to-be-worlds-first
`1011 Monetary Authority of Singapore, “Who We Are,” Internet Archive
`(March 31, 2020), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20200331173357/https://www.mas.gov.sg
`/ who-we-are
`1012 YouTube Help, “Verification badges on channels,” available at
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3046484?hl=en
`“Singapore Introduces World’s First United Payment QR Code –
`SGQR,” Media Releases (Sept. 17, 2018), available at
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1013
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Description
`https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/2018/singapore-
`introduces-worlds-first-unified-payment-qr-code
`1014 YouTube Help, “Schedule video public time,” available at
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1270709?hl=en
`1015 YouTube Help, “Upload video,” available at
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57407?
`hl=en&ref_topic=9257439
`1016 Comments on the YouTube video entitled “SGQR – Singapore Quick
`Response Code,” uploaded by the Monetary Authority of Singapore
`(“SGQR”). Retrieved from the Internet at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VmJm9imBp4
`1017 YouTube, “YouTube Search,” available
`athttps://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/product-
`features/search/
`First Inventor to File (FITF) Comprehensive Training: Prior Art Under
`the AIA
`Jon Russell, “Grab, the Uber rival in Southeast Asia, is now officially
`also a digital payments company,” TechCrunch (Nov. 1, 2017),
`available at https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/grab-takes-a-big-step-
`into-digital-payments/.
`1020 DCS Synthesis, “About Us,” available at
`https://www.synthesis.bz/about-us/
`1021 National Counsel of Social Service, “MyRetailer Android POS,”
`available at https://www.ncss.gov.sg/our-initiatives/tech-and-go/it-
`solutions/detailpage/MyRetailerAndroidPOS
`1022 DCS Synthesis, “Corporate Video,” available at
`https://www.synthesis.bz/our-video
`1023 YouTube, DCS Synthesis, Videos, available at
`https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ySHeYnyaNu6VgFIIzbB2A/vi
`deos
`Jon Russell, “Grab, the Uber rival in Southeast Asia, is now officially
`also a digital payments company,” TechCrunch (Nov. 1, 2017, 1:12
`
`1024
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`a.m. PDT), available at https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/grab-takes-
`a-big-step-into-digital-payments/
`1025 Grab, “What is Grabpay,” available at
`https://www.grab.com/sg/pay/guide/what-is-grabpay/
`1026 Raymond Zhong, “Uber to Sell Its Southeast Asia Business to Grab, a
`Regional Rival,” New York Times (March 25, 2018), available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/technology/uber-grab-southeast-
`asia.html?searchResultPosition=1
`1027 Digital Debit, November 15, 2017, 10:33 PM,
`https://twitter.com/digitaldebit/status/931047488148201472?cxt=HHw
`WgIC_gb6w3-sZAAAA
`1028 Digital Debit®, https://twitter.com/digitaldebit
`1029 Digital Debit,
`https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCInQ0ewd4eMcRmsDqU8LMC
`w
`1030 Reserved.
`1031 Qondado, “About Us” (Mar. 25, 2017), available at
`https://qondado.com/about-us/
`1032 Reserved.
`1033 Declaration of Kathleen R. Geyer
`1034 Curriculum Vitae of Gonzalo Arce
`1035 U.S. Patent No. 5,726,435
`1036 QR code.com – “Answers to your questions about the QR Code,”
`available at https://www.qrcode.com/en/
`1037 QR code.com – “History of QR Code,” available at
`https://www.qrcode.com/en/history/
`1038 QRStuff.com – “qr-code-versions,” available at
`https://blog.qrstuff.com/2011/01/18/what-size-should-a-qr-code-be/qr-
`code-versions
`1039 Thonky – “QR Code Tutorial; Introduction,” available at
`https://www.thonky.com/qr-code-tutorial/introduction
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`

`

`1041
`
`1042
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1040 BarCode Graphics – “QR Code Overview Tutorial,” available at
`https://www.barcode.graphics/qr-code-overview-tutorial/
`S. Tiwari, “An Introduction to QR Code Technology,” 2016
`International Conference on Information Technology, December 2016
`ISO/IEC 18004. “Information Technology-Automatic identification
`and data capture techniques- Bar Code symbology- QR Code,” Third
`Edition, 2015.
`1043 QR code statistics 2022: Latest numbers and use-cases on global usage
`https://www.qrcode-tiger.com/qr-code-statistics
`1044 QR Code Statistics 2022: Up-To-Date Numbers on Global QR Code
`Usage, https://scanova.io/blog/qr-code-statistics/
`1045 US Patent Pub. No. 2015/0220905 to Dessert
`1046 The History of U.S. Currency, https://www.uscurrency.gov/history
`1047 US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0066089 to Miryala et al.
`1048
`Screenshots of YouTube video Entitled, “QR Payments with Visa,”
`uploaded by Visabrand AP. Retrieved from the Internet at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djNDc7m9YoI
`1049 Assignment of Design Patent Application 29/534,109
`1050 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01061
`(N.D. Ill.), Complaint.
`1051 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01061
`(N.D. Ill.), Complaint, Exhibit 2.
`1052 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00223 (W.D.
`Tex.), Complaint.
`1053 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00223 (W.D.
`Tex.), Complaint, Exhibit 3.
`1054 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 1:2022-cv-
`00105 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint.
`1055 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 1:2022-cv-
`00105 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint, Exhibit 2.
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1056 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:22-
`cv-00103 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint.
`1057 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:22-
`cv-00103 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint, Exhibit 2.
`1058 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation, 1:22-cv-
`01064 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint.
`1059 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation, 1:22-cv-
`01064 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint, Exhibit 2.
`1060 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PayPal, Inc., 6:21-cv-01094 (W.D.
`Tex.), Complaint.
`1061 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PayPal, Inc., 6:21-cv-01094 (W.D.
`Tex.), Complaint, Exhibit 3.
`1062 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., 1:21-cv-05052
`(N.D. Ill.), Complaint.
`1063 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., 1:21-cv-05052
`(N.D. Ill.), Complaint, Exhibit 2.
`1064 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:21-cv-01095 (W.D. Tex.), Complaint.
`1065 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:21-cv-01095 (W.D. Tex.), Complaint, Exhibit 3.
`1066 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 6:22-cv-00224 (W.D.
`Tex.), Complaint.
`1067 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 6:22-cv-00224 (W.D.
`Tex.), Complaint, Exhibit 3.
`1068 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1:2022-cv-
`01062 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint.
`1069 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1:2022-cv-
`01062 (N.D. Ill.), Complaint, Exhibit 2.
`1070 Assignment of Design Patent Applications 29/746,346,
`29/749,134,29/749, 507, 29/749,131, 29/749,735, and 29/750,318.
`1071 U.S. Appl. No. 29/614,488.
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`

`

`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1072 YouTube video entitled “SGQR – Singapore Quick Response Code,”
`uploaded by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“SGQR”).
`Retrieved from the Internet at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VmJm9imBp4
`1073 YouTube video entitled “GrabPay Standalone,” uploaded by DCS
`Synthesis (“GrabPay”). Retrieved from the Internet at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc84sn1xTRc
`1074 YouTube video entitled “Digital Debit App Preview,” uploaded by
`Digital Debit (“Digital Debit Video”). Retrieved from the Internet at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDqvQFJB8GA
`1075 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:21-cv-01095 (W.D. Tex.), Samsung Answer.
`1076 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`6:21-cv-01095 (W.D. Tex.), Wepay Answer.
`1077 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 6:2022-cv-
`00363 (WDTX), Complaint
`1078 Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 6:2022-cv-
`00363 (WDTX), Complaint, Exhibit 3
`
`xiii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) requests post-grant review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. D930,702 S (Ex. 1001, the “’702 Patent”) and cancellation of its
`
`sole claim as invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`This petition presents the same art, and relies on the same declarant, as co-
`
`pending PGR2022-00031 (filed April 5, 2022) filed by Early Warning Services,
`
`LLC. Petitioner expects an institution decision by October 14, 2022. If PGR2022-
`
`00031 is instituted, Petitioner will file a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) to join
`
`PGR2022-00031. If the petition in PGR2022-00031 is withdrawn prior to the
`
`Board’s institution decision (e.g., due to settling the dispute with the Patent Owner
`
`or for any other reason), Petitioner intends to rely on the instant petition as grounds
`
`for seeking post-grant review of the ’702 Patent. However, because the instant
`
`petition presents the same grounds and relies on the same declarant as the PGR2022-
`
`00031 petition, this petition does not present any additional complexity or require
`
`any additional effort by the Patent Owner or the Board.
`
`The ’702 Patent purports to claim an “ornamental design for a display screen
`
`portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Claim. The ’702 Patent includes five figures, showing two embodiments of the
`
`claimed graphical user interface (GUI) design. Ex. 1002, ¶15.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`As shown above, almost everything in the figures is shown in broken lines,
`
`which the ’702 Patent describes as “forming no part of the claimed design.” Ex.
`
`1001, Description (emphasis added). The only thing shown in solid lines and
`
`claimed in the figures is an arrangement of three solid squares, one in the upper left
`
`corner, one in the upper right corner, and one in the lower left corner (referred to in
`
`this Petition as the “Three Square Arrangement”) followed by the numerical value
`
`“$0.00.” As demonstrated in this Petition, the Three Square Arrangement is a
`
`standard component in conventional QR codes, and the $0.00 is the ubiquitous way
`
`of displaying a value of no dollars and no cents in U.S. currency. Ex. 1002, ¶16.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`This Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the ’702 Patent
`
`claim is unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208. There is nothing inventive about the
`
`alleged design claimed in the ’702 Patent. It is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`and § 103. As just one example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2018/0260806 to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004, “Reddy”), which published more than a
`
`year before the ’702 Patent’s filing date, discloses an animated GUI that has
`
`substantially the same overall appearance as the ’702 Patent including a Three
`
`Square Arrangement followed by $0.00.1 Ex. 1002, ¶17.
`
`
`1 Yellow highlighting and red lines have been added for emphasis to some figures
`
`contained herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`II.
`
`STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) that the ’702 Patent is
`
`available for post-grant review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting post-grant review of the ’702 Patent. This Petition is also filed within
`
`nine months of the September 14, 2021 issue date of the ’702 Patent.
`
`Petitioner files this petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.206(a) and
`
`concurrently files a Power of Attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). The
`
`required fee is paid via online Deposit Account payment.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE REVIEW
`A.
`Petitioner Timely Filed This Petition
`The Board should not deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §324(a) and NHK
`
`Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12,
`
`2018) (precedential). For the following reasons, the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv, Inc. favor institution. See No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20,
`
`2020) (precedential). The Fintiv factors include:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`
`Id. at 6.
`
`Patent Owner sued Petitioner alleging infringement of the ’702 Patent. Wepay
`
`Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:2021-cv-01095
`
`(W.D. Tex.) (the “Samsung Litigation”) (Exs. 1064-1065).
`
`First, this Petition is filed less than eight months after the Complaint was filed
`
`in the Samsung Litigation. A stay motion has not yet been filed in the Samsung
`
`Litigation, but Petitioner intends to file one in the event of PGR institution. Ten
`
`additional suits, identified below, have been filed by Patent Owner alleging
`
`infringement of the ’702 Patent. (See Exs. 1050-1063; 1066-69). Two of those cases
`
`have been dismissed with prejudice. One of the eight additional pending suits was
`
`filed about a month prior to the Samsung Litigation; one was filed the same day and
`
`the others were filed thereafter. None of the suits filed by Patent Owner has
`
`progressed much, if at all, beyond the pleading stage or has a trial date set; only two
`
`have a scheduling order in place, but only through a claim construction hearing, one
`
`set for March 2023 and one set for May 2023. Although the granting of stays in these
`
`cases is uncertain at this early stage of the lawsuits, it is very possible that stays will
`
`be granted in some, if not all of the pending lawsuits. Thus, Fintiv Factor 1 is neutral
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`or favors institution. See Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`01359, Paper 15 at 11 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021) (“It would be improper to speculate, at
`
`this stage, what the [] court might do regarding a motion to stay, given the particular
`
`circumstances of this case. Accordingly, this factor is neutral to the exercise of our
`
`discretion.”); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Well Servs., LLC, No.
`
`IPR2021-01032, Paper 12 at 8 (PTAB Jan. 11, 2022) (“declin[ing] to speculate
`
`regarding whether the district court [in the Western District of Texas] will grant a
`
`stay if this proceeding is instituted” and finding the first Fintiv “factor is neutral”).
`
`Second, none of the Samsung Litigation or other pending cases has a trial date
`
`set or has otherwise begun in earnest. In the Samsung Litigation, Rule 12 pleadings
`
`have closed, but no scheduling order has issued, no contentions have been
`
`exchanged, and no discovery has occurred. A motion to dismiss was filed, but has
`
`not been ruled upon. The other pending cases also remain at a very preliminary
`
`stage, with only two scheduling orders having issued (only through the claim
`
`construction hearing) and only one having closed its Rule 12 pleadings. A final
`
`written decision, on the other hand, would issue around October 2023, at or before
`
`any expected trial date in the Samsung Litigation or any of the other suits. The
`
`challenged patent only recently issued in September 2021. Petitioner has thus acted
`
`with exceptional diligence in filing this Petition. Accordingly, the efficiency
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`concerns of Fintiv Factor 2 and NHK Spring (i.e., a trial date set before the FWD)
`
`do not exist here, thus favoring institution. See NHK Spring, Paper 8, at 19-20.
`
`Third, because the Samsung Litigation and other district court cases are at
`
`their nascent stages, the parties and court have not invested significant time and
`
`resources. As discussed above, only two partial scheduling orders have issued
`
`among all of the pending cases; aside from the Samsung Litigation, Rule 12
`
`pleadings have closed in only one case; very little, if any, discovery has occurred;
`
`and no trial dates have been set. See Apple, Paper 11, at 9-10. The Board has found
`
`that cases with significantly more activity have still favored institution. See, e.g.,
`
`Dish Network, IPR2020-01359, Paper 15 at 11 (finding factor strongly weighed in
`
`favor of institution even though preliminary contentions had been exchanged and
`
`the court had ruled on claim construction); Hallilburton, IPR2021-01032, Paper 12
`
`at 9-10 (finding the factor neutral when the “time period from the district court’s
`
`default trial date to our projected statutory deadline for a final written decision is
`
`approximately one month”). Thus, Fintiv Factor 3 favors institution.
`
`Fourth, very few substantive activities have occurred in the Samsung
`
`Litigation or any of the other cases. The overlapping issues are minimal because
`
`Petitioner has not served invalidity contentions (nor does it appear that any other
`
`defendant in the pending cases has done so), and in Petitioner’s Answer and
`
`Counterclaims, Petitioner identified seven prior art references, only two of which
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`are relied upon in this Petition. (Ex. 1075). Discovery has not commenced in the
`
`Samsung Litigation, and the parties do not even have a schedule yet. Thus, Fintiv
`
`Factor 4 favors institution.
`
`Fifth, Petitioner and Patent Owner are the same parties as in district court.
`
`However, “it is unclear on this record when the trial in the district court proceeding
`
`will occur and whether the trial will take place prior to a final written decision being
`
`issued in this proceedi