PTAB

IPR2025-00640

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. iCashe Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Contactless Smartcard Device Implementation
  • Brief Description: The ’722 patent describes a system for incorporating contactless smartcard functionality into mobile devices. It purports to solve the problem of limited communication range in conventional passive RFID systems by adding an active, battery-powered transmit circuit to a standard smartcard controller, which generates a new, more powerful signal that mimics the original signal to communicate with a reader.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are anticipated by or obvious over Finkenzeller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Finkenzeller (Application # 2009/0040022).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Finkenzeller discloses every element of the challenged claims. Finkenzeller teaches a mobile terminal with an "active transponder unit" designed to extend the communication range of a conventional "RFID chip CL" (a smartcard controller). This smartcard controller uses standard load modulation to create frequency sidebands for half-duplex communication at 13.56 MHz. Finkenzeller's active circuit is coupled between the smartcard controller and the antenna and is powered by the mobile device's battery. This active circuit includes a receive branch with an amplifier to boost the signal to the smartcard controller. Crucially, it also includes a transmit branch with a demodulation circuit that extracts the sideband data from the smartcard controller's load-modulated signal, and then uses a modulator and an oscillator to create a new, more powerful signal that mimics the original frequency sidebands. This new signal is amplified and drives the antenna, achieving the same objective as the ’722 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent any minor differences exist, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement Finkenzeller's teachings. For example, Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have understood Finkenzeller's "RFID chip CL" to be a smartcard controller, consistent with the prosecution history of the ’722 patent where similar ISO 14443-compliant chips were accepted as meeting the limitation. Finkenzeller explicitly addresses the problem of limited range in passive systems and provides an active, battery-powered solution nearly identical to that claimed.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as Finkenzeller provides a detailed schematic and explanation for combining a conventional smartcard chip with an active transponder unit using standard electronic components.

Ground 2: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Finkenzeller in view of Kerdraon.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Finkenzeller (Application # 2009/0040022) and Kerdraon (Application # 2009/0215489).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that if Finkenzeller's "RFID chip CL" were not considered a "smartcard controller" with sufficient functionality, Kerdraon explicitly discloses such a controller. Kerdraon teaches a "Smart MX card component" for a mobile terminal that functions as a smartcard controller, implements the ISO 14443 standard, and supports applications like payment services. The argument is that Kerdraon supplies the detailed teaching of a modern smartcard controller that can be used in Finkenzeller's system.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to provide robust, application-specific smartcard functionality (from Kerdraon) within a mobile device that benefits from the extended communication range provided by Finkenzeller's active circuitry. This combination would satisfy the known market demand for integrating secure transaction capabilities directly into mobile phones, eliminating the need for separate physical cards and improving user convenience.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would involve integrating a known type of smartcard controller into a system designed for that purpose, presenting only predictable design choices with a high likelihood of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Finkenzeller with Koh (Application # 2008/0073426) for similar reasons to the Kerdraon combination. Further grounds were asserted for claim 8 specifically, combining the primary references with Bangs (Application # 2010/0112941) to the extent claim 8 is interpreted to require a more traditional load modulation circuit that modulates an interrogating field rather than generating a new signal.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially the Same Art/Arguments): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary reference, Finkenzeller, and the other cited art were never presented to or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’722 patent. Petitioner contended that Finkenzeller teaches the very concept the Examiner found missing from the prior art of record—a transmit circuit separate from the smartcard controller's inherent load modulation circuitry.
  • §314(a) (Parallel Litigation / Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. The parallel district court case is in its infancy, with a trial date far in the future (April 2026) and a claim construction hearing not scheduled until late 2025. Petitioner stated its intent to seek a stay of the litigation pending the outcome of the inter partes review (IPR). Furthermore, Petitioner offered a Sotera-style stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the district court any invalidity ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the IPR if review is instituted. Petitioner asserted that these factors, combined with the strong merits of the petition, weigh heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’722 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and/or 103.