United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IOENGINE, LLC, Appellant

v.

INGENICO INC., Appellee

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________

2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 ______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019- 00416, IPR2019-00879, IPR2019-00929. ______________________

Decided: May 3, 2024 ______________________

NOAH LEIBOWITZ, Dechert LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by GREGORY CHUEBON; ROBERT W. ASHBROOK, JR., DEREK J. BRADER, MICHAEL A. FISHER, Philadelphia, PA; MICHAEL JOSHI, Palo Alto, CA.

LAWRENCE M. GREEN, Sunstein LLP, Boston, MA, Case: 21-1227 Document: 109 Page: 2 Filed: 05/03/2024

2 IOENGINE, LLC v. INGENICO INC.

argued for appellee. Also represented by ROBERT M. ASHER, KEVIN R. MOSIER, SHARONA STERNBERG, KERRY L. TIMBERS; TIMOTHY MICHAEL MURPHY, Nutter McClennen & Fisher, LLP, Boston, MA.

MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. ______________________

Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Appellant IOENGINE, LLC (IOENGINE) appeals a se- ries of Final Written Decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding unpatentable certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,539,047 (’047 patent), 9,059,969 (’969 patent), and 9,774,703 (’703 patent) (collectively, the Challenged Pa- tents) during inter partes review (IPR). The Board deter- mined claims 1–21, 23–25, 27, and 28 of the ’047 patent, claims 1, 2, 4–8, 13–16, 19–21, 24, 25, and 27–29 of the ’969 patent, and claims 55, 57–63, 67–72, 74, 77, 78, 81–87, 89, 92–98, 100, 103, 104, 106–112, 116–121, 123, and 126–129 of the ’703 patent to be unpatentable. We reverse the Board’s unpatentability determinations as to claims 4 and 7 of the ’969 patent and claims 61–62 and 110–11 of the ’703 patent because the Board erred in its application of the printed matter doctrine. We affirm the Board’s unpatent- ability determinations as to all other claims. BACKGROUND The Challenged Patents share an ancestor, written de- scription, and title—“Apparatus, Method and System for a Tunneling Client Access Point.” The written description discloses a tunneling client access point (TCAP) that is a “highly secure, portable, power efficient storage and data Case: 21-1227 Document: 109 Page: 3 Filed: 05/03/2024

IOENGINE, LLC v. INGENICO INC. 3

processing device” (i.e., a “portable device” as recited in the claims). ’047 patent Abstract. 1 The TCAP, upon plugging in to an access terminal (e.g., any existing desktop or laptop computer) may make use of the terminal’s traditional user interface and input/output peripherals, while the TCAP it- self provides storage, execution, and/or processing re- sources. ’047 patent col. 2 ll. 39–46. The TCAP thereby “tunnels” data through the access terminal by allowing data to be provided through the access terminal’s in- put/output facilities for the user to observe without the data actually residing on the access terminal. ’047 patent col. 4 ll. 26–28. The TCAP may also tunnel data through an access terminal across a communications network to ac- cess remote servers without requi