Untitled case

This patent infringement suit, CardWare, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., case number 7:24-cv-00279, was filed in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, CardWare, Inc., is asserting patent infringement against the defendant, Apple, Inc., a major operating technology company that develops and sells consumer electronics, software, and online services. CardWare, Inc. appears to be a patent assertion entity, given its role in this and other patent litigation.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple's Near-Field Communication (NFC) payment ecosystem infringes CardWare's patents. The accused products and services include a broad range of Apple's offerings, such as iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple Mac, Apple Vision Pro, Apple Card, Apple Cash, Apple Wallet, and the Apple Pay platforms and devices that support Apple Pay. The case involves six asserted U.S. patents covering NFC payment technology, with U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520 (the patent explicitly listed in the case metadata) being one of them. While general patent searches for 10,339,520 sometimes describe it as a urinalysis reagent, its assertion in this case contextually places its relevance within NFC payment systems as claimed by the plaintiff.

The case was initially filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs. However, in March 2025, the case was transferred to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas via a joint stipulation, with Chief Judge Alan D. Albright retaining jurisdiction. The Western District of Texas, particularly under Judge Albright, has been a prominent forum for patent litigation due to its fast-paced schedules and plaintiff-friendly practices, though recent changes aimed at randomizing judicial assignment have impacted filing trends. This case is notable for targeting a core aspect of Apple's commercial ecosystem—its contactless payment technology—and for the strategic procedural maneuver of transferring venue while maintaining the same presiding judge.

The patent infringement lawsuit, CardWare, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00279, was filed in the Western District of Texas. The case involves Near-Field Communication (NFC) payment technology, with patent 10339520 being one of six patents asserted by CardWare against Apple's products and platforms, including iPhone, Apple Watch, Apple Card, and Apple Pay.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and current posture:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-11-04: CardWare, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Inc. in the Western District of Texas.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-03-25: The case was transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas via a joint stipulation and motion to transfer venue. Chief Judge Alan D. Albright retained jurisdiction over the case despite the transfer.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of March 25, 2025, no claim construction hearing had occurred. However, an expert has been retained by Apple to provide a declaration in support of claim construction as of May 2025.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• As of May 2025, an expert has been retained to assist with claim construction, which typically involves reviewing declarations and preparing for depositions.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• No trial has occurred as of the latest information available. The case resolved its initial posture through a procedural transfer rather than a merits-based adjudication within a notably short 141-day window.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case's initial disposition was a procedural transfer of venue on 2025-03-25. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted or denied at that stage. The case remains active and ongoing in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, with Chief Judge Alan D. Albright retaining jurisdiction.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings:

• Google LLC has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01344, against CardWare Inc. related to the '634 patent, which is one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation. This IPR was instituted, and it has been argued that there are no remaining claim construction disputes that would create differences between the IPR and district court proceedings. The '520 patent, one of the patents at issue in the district court case, was also mentioned in the context of prosecution history in the IPR documents. It appears that the patent owner, CardWare, previously filed a Request for Continued Examination with new Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) for the '520 patent in January (specific year not provided but implied to be in the timeframe of 2023 or later given the patent issuance in 2019-2023).

The plaintiff in case 7:24-cv-00279, CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc., is CardWare Inc.. The following attorneys represent CardWare Inc.:

• Khue V. Hoang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, likely out of their Silicon Valley or New York offices, as is common for patent litigation.
  • Experience Note: Khue Hoang is a partner at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, focusing on high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies.

• Matthew G. Berkowitz

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, likely out of their Silicon Valley or New York offices.
  • Experience Note: Matthew Berkowitz is a principal at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, specializing in intellectual property litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants.

• Yue (Joy) Wang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, likely out of their Silicon Valley or New York offices.
  • Experience Note: Joy Wang is an associate at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, with experience in patent litigation.

• Caroline M. Walters

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, likely out of their Silicon Valley or New York offices.
  • Experience Note: Caroline Walters is a partner at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, handling complex patent and intellectual property disputes.

• Patrick R. Colsher

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, likely out of their Silicon Valley or New York offices.
  • Experience Note: Patrick Colsher is an associate at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, focusing on patent litigation.

• Navid Cyrus Bayar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, likely out of their Silicon Valley or New York offices.
  • Experience Note: Navid Bayar is an associate at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, involved in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

• Eric H. Findlay

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C., located in Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Eric Findlay is a founding shareholder of Findlay Craft, P.C., and is a highly experienced trial lawyer often serving as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

The defendant in CardWare, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00279, is Apple Inc. Based on available information, Apple is represented by counsel from DLA Piper LLP and likely includes in-house counsel.

Here's the breakdown of defendant's counsel:

• Nandan Padmanabhan
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP. A specific office location is not identified in the search results but DLA Piper has a global presence.
  • Experience Note: Nandan Padmanabhan is listed as the contact for DLA Piper LLP, representing Apple in this case for a declaration in support of claim construction and deposition. He has represented Apple in previous patent matters involving multimedia streams in home entertainment networks.

While not specifically identified as "local counsel" in the search results for this case, large patent litigation often involves local representation. Furthermore, Apple frequently utilizes in-house patent litigation counsel to drive strategy and manage complex patent disputes. These in-house counsel often work with major law firms. Previous cases show Apple working with firms such as WilmerHale, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Ropes & Gray, and Morrison & Foerster LLP for patent litigation matters. However, for this specific case, DLA Piper LLP and Nandan Padmanabhan are explicitly mentioned as representing Apple.