PTAB

IPR2025-01513

Google LLC v. CardWare Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Storing and Generating Payment Information in an Electronic Device
  • Brief Description: The ’520 patent describes electronic or smart card devices capable of generating a "limited-duration number" for use in a payment transaction. The device can use device-specific and user-specific information to generate a dynamic, one-time use number to enhance security.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Claims 10-13 are obvious over Law in view of Gomez

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Law (Application # 2015/0134540) and Gomez (Patent 9,600,808).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Law discloses a method for facilitating a payment transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, which generates dynamic data for security. Gomez discloses a mobile payment system that utilizes a static tokenized number (an "EPIC" number) in combination with a dynamically generated, time-limited "authentication cryptogram" for each transaction. The combination of these references, Petitioner asserted, teaches all limitations of claims 10-13, including receiving a static account number and using it with a dynamically generated one-time number for a transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gomez's teachings with Law's mobile payment system to improve transaction security. Augmenting Law’s dynamic data with Gomez’s static tokenized number provides an additional layer of security, as the static number helps a processing authority identify the user's actual account while the dynamic cryptogram secures the individual transaction. Petitioner contended this combination was a predictable application of known security techniques to improve a known system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a known security method (Gomez's token + cryptogram) to a similar system (Law's mobile payment platform) to achieve the predictable result of enhanced security.

Ground 1B: Claims 14-17 are obvious over Law, Gomez, and Spodak

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Law (Application # 2015/0134540), Gomez (Patent 9,600,808), and Spodak (Application # 2012/0123937).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Law-Gomez combination, which Petitioner argued discloses a mobile device that displays selectable payment cards. The dependent claims require rendering payment methods with images, logos, and alphanumeric characters. Spodak was introduced because it explicitly teaches a "universal card" with a display capable of showing an account number, expiration date, and a card issuer logo.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Spodak's user interface features into the Law-Gomez system to provide an intuitive and convenient user experience. Displaying visual depictions of payment cards, as taught by Spodak, would allow a user to more readily select the desired payment method from a list, which is a common design choice for improving usability.

Ground 2A: Claims 18-24 are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gill (Patent 9,098,846), Smith (Application # 2013/0232083), Kay (Application # 2013/0124410), and Gomez (Patent 9,600,808).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This combination addresses claims directed to facilitating and authorizing an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) transaction with a mobile device. Petitioner asserted Gill teaches contactless ATM transactions but lacks detail on the specific data exchanged. Smith was introduced for its teaching of using secure payment credentials, including a tokenized "mobile cloud account" (MCA) number and a dynamic payment cryptogram. Kay was added for its disclosure of a specific graphical user interface (GUI) for selecting ATM transaction types (e.g., withdraw, deposit) on a mobile device. Finally, Gomez was added to provide a known method for generating the dynamic cryptogram using a "temporal signal" that changes with each transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create a secure, user-friendly mobile ATM transaction system. Smith's tokenization and cryptogram would be used to improve the security of Gill's basic contactless ATM system. Kay's well-developed GUI would be incorporated to enhance Gill's usability by providing a clear interface for selecting transaction types and amounts. Gomez's method for generating a dynamic cryptogram would provide a concrete implementation for the cryptogram generally described in Smith, ensuring each transaction is unique and secure.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the combination would yield predictable results. Integrating established security credentials (Smith), a known GUI design (Kay), and a standard cryptogram generation method (Gomez) into a contactless ATM system (Gill) represents an obvious application of known techniques to improve a similar system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner stated its intent to substantively address any potential discretionary denial issues during the dedicated discretionary denial briefing phase, in accordance with the Patent Office's interim process.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 10-24 of the ’520 patent as unpatentable.