PTAB Invalidates Method Claims of Two Patents Covering Secure Credit Card Transactions Based on 102(e) Prior Art Presented During Inter Partes Review

Sep 2, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The petitioner, Mastercard International, Inc. (Mastercard) had previously petitioned for CBM review of claims from these same patents based on inter alia, the Cohen reference. See, e.g., CBM2013­00057. In its CBM petitions Mastercard contended that Cohen was 102(e) prior art to D’Agostino’s claims. The Board declined to institute CBM review, concluding that Cohen had not been published before the D’Agostino patents’ earliest effective filing dates. Cohen was, therefore, not prior art under § 18(a)(1)(C) of the AIA. Three weeks later Mastercard filed the IPR petitions that led to the PTAB’s August 31 decision. In the IPRs the Board held that, because an IPR petitioner may challenge claims “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” Cohen was prior art in the IPR proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Thus, the very same reference that could not be used as prior art in a CBM review was available as prior art in an IPR. The PTAB then found that Mastercard had proved that Cohen anticipated, or, along with another reference, had rendered obvious, all claims challenged in the IPRs.

Mastercard Int’l, Inc. v. D’Agostino, IPR2014­00543, IPR2014­00544 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2015); see also Mastercard Int’l, Inc. v. D’Agostino, CBM2013­00057 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.