Untitled case

Patent Infringement Litigation Overview: Cortex MCP Inc. v. Visa, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit was initiated by Cortex MCP Inc., a developer of mobile wallet and payment platform technology, against financial services giant Visa, Inc. Cortex MCP, founded in 2012, developed a platform focused on secure mobile payments using tokenization and was acquired by digital money platform Uphold in 2018. Following the acquisition, Cortex MCP appears to be operating as a patent-holding entity, asserting intellectual property developed prior to the merger. Visa is a global payments technology company, and the lawsuit targets its widely used Visa Token Service (VTS), which facilitates secure mobile payments by replacing sensitive cardholder information with a unique digital identifier or "token."

The lawsuit, originally filed on January 26, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, initially asserted four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,749,859. The '859 patent, titled "File format and platform for storage and verification of credentials," generally covers methods for securely generating, storing, and verifying electronic credentials on a mobile device for transactions. Cortex alleges that Visa's tokenization technology, a cornerstone of modern digital payments like Apple Pay and Google Pay, infringes on its patented technology. The case is notable as it represents a significant challenge to a core technology used by a major player in the financial services and fintech industry.

The procedural history of the case is particularly noteworthy. Cortex initially chose the Western District of Texas, a venue famously popular with patent plaintiffs due to its speedy timelines and judge-specific rules that were seen as favorable to patent holders, particularly under Judge Alan Albright. However, the case was assigned to Judge Fred Biery. Visa successfully moved to transfer the case, and on November 3, 2023, the litigation was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:23-cv-05720) and assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila. This venue change is a significant strategic development, moving the case from a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction to one often preferred by large technology defendants. Further complicating the litigation, Visa has filed five Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of all asserted patent claims. Subsequently, the district court case in California was stayed in July 2024 pending the PTAB's decisions on whether to institute the reviews, a common tactic that can halt expensive district court litigation while the validity of the patents is scrutinized by the patent office.

Key Legal Developments in Cortex MCP Inc. v. Visa, Inc.

This summary outlines the key legal proceedings and their outcomes in the patent infringement litigation between Cortex MCP Inc. and Visa, Inc., tracking the case from its origin in the Western District of Texas to its current status in the Northern District of California and parallel administrative challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

District Court Litigation Chronology

• 2023-01-26: Initial Complaint Filed
  Cortex MCP Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Visa, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), case number 6:23-cv-00048. The original complaint asserted four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,251,531, 9,954,854, 10,749,859, and 11,329,973, alleging that Visa's tokenization services infringed on Cortex's technology for secure mobile transactions. The case was assigned to Judge Fred Biery.

• 2023-04-20: Motions to Dismiss and Transfer Venue
  Following an amended complaint by Cortex, Visa filed motions to dismiss the case and to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA).

• 2023-11-03: Case Transferred to the Northern District of California
  Judge Biery in the WDTX granted Visa's motion to transfer the case. The case was then docketed in the NDCA as case number 5:23-cv-05720 and assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila. The pending motion to dismiss was denied as moot, with the expectation it would be refiled in the new venue.

• 2023-12-07: Renewed Motion to Dismiss
  After the transfer, Visa filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the NDCA.

• 2024-07-22: Case Stayed Pending Inter Partes Review (IPR)
  Judge Davila granted Visa's motion to stay the entire district court case pending the PTAB's decisions on whether to institute IPR proceedings for the patents-in-suit. As a result of the stay, the court terminated Visa's pending motion to dismiss and vacated the scheduled claim construction (Markman) hearing. The court ordered the parties to file a joint status report after the PTAB's institution decisions.

Parallel PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings

In a strategic move to challenge the validity of Cortex's patents, Visa filed five IPR petitions with the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, targeting all asserted claims of the four patents.

• 2024-01-25 & 2024-01-26: IPR Petitions Filed
  Visa filed petitions for inter partes review against all four asserted patents. The specific proceeding for the '859 patent is IPR2024-00489.

• 2024-08-02: PTAB Institutes Trial on IPRs
  The PTAB issued decisions to institute trial for the IPRs against the patents, including those for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,251,531 and 10,749,859, finding a reasonable likelihood that Visa would prevail in its invalidity challenges.

• 2025-07-29: Final Written Decision for '859 Patent (IPR2024-00489)
  The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding a majority of the challenged claims of the '859 patent unpatentable. Specifically, the board determined that claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20 were proven to be unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. However, claims 2, 10, 19, and 21 were not found to be unpatentable.

• 2025-11-07: PTAB Director Denies Rehearing
  The Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge, on behalf of the USPTO Director, denied a request for rehearing of the Final Written Decisions for IPRs related to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,251,531, 10,749,859, and 11,329,973, affirming the board's findings.

• 2026-04-23: Appeal Filed with the Federal Circuit
  An appeal related to the PTAB's decisions has been docketed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, indicating that the dispute over the patentability of the claims will continue. The case is docketed as Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc., No. 26-1733.

Current Status & Outcome

As of May 2026, the district court case remains stayed in the Northern District of California. The primary focus of the dispute has shifted to the PTAB and the subsequent appeal at the Federal Circuit. The PTAB's final decisions have invalidated numerous claims asserted by Cortex, significantly weakening its infringement case. The litigation will likely remain on hold until the Federal Circuit resolves the appeals from the PTAB's IPR rulings. The ultimate outcome of the district court case will heavily depend on which, if any, of Cortex's patent claims survive the appeal process.

Counsel for Plaintiff Cortex MCP Inc.

Cortex MCP Inc. is represented by attorneys from the intellectual property law firm Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C. (MHKKG), an Austin-based patent law firm. The specific attorneys who have appeared on the docket are detailed below.

Attorney Name	Role	Firm	Office Location	Notable Experience & Notes
Eric B. Meyertons	Lead Counsel	Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C.	Austin, TX	Meyertons is a founding principal of MHKKG and has extensive experience in patent prosecution and litigation, representing clients in district courts and before the PTAB.
William C. "Bo" McFerrin	Counsel	Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C.	Austin, TX	McFerrin's practice focuses on patent and trademark litigation in federal courts across the country, including significant experience in the Western District of Texas.
Kent M. Goforth	Counsel	Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C.	Austin, TX	Goforth is a principal at the firm with a practice concentrating on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.

These attorneys were listed on the original complaint filed in the Western District of Texas (Case 6:23-cv-00048, Dkt. 1, filed Jan 26, 2023) and have continued to represent the plaintiff following the case's transfer to the Northern District of California.

Counsel for Defendant Visa, Inc.

Defendant Visa, Inc. is represented by attorneys from the international law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, widely known as WilmerHale. The firm is recognized for its top-tier intellectual property litigation practice, frequently representing major technology and financial services companies in high-stakes patent disputes. Attorneys from the firm's Boston, Denver, and Palo Alto offices have appeared in this case.

Attorney Name	Role	Firm	Office Location	Notable Experience & Notes
Joseph J. Mueller	Lead Counsel	WilmerHale	Boston, MA	Co-chair of WilmerHale's Trial Practice, Mueller is a nationally recognized trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes intellectual property cases and is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Mindy V. Sooter	Counsel	WilmerHale	Denver, CO	Sooter is the partner-in-charge of the firm's Denver office and a trial lawyer in the IP litigation group with a background in electrical engineering and telecommunications. She has litigated patent cases for major technology clients, including Intel and Apple.
Thomas G. Sprankling	Counsel	WilmerHale	Palo Alto, CA	A partner in the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice, Sprankling focuses on complex IP matters and has clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Jason H. Liss	Counsel	WilmerHale	Boston, MA	Liss's practice focuses on IP litigation across trial and appellate levels, with experience in cases involving computer hardware, software, and semiconductor technology.
Amy Kreiger Wigmore	Counsel	WilmerHale	Washington, D.C.	A first-chair trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience, Wigmore focuses on technology disputes and has extensive experience representing clients in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries.
Laura E. Powell	Counsel	WilmerHale	Washington, D.C.	Powell's practice focuses on appellate litigation, and she has significant experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit, having previously clerked for the Honorable Evan J. Wallach.
Daniel P. Schenck	Counsel	WilmerHale	Boston, MA	Publicly available information on Daniel Schenck of WilmerHale is limited, though he is listed on court filings for Visa. Other attorneys with similar names practice in unrelated fields.

Initial appearances in the Western District of Texas also included local counsel from the San Antonio firm Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP, a common practice for out-of-state firms. However, the primary defense is managed by the WilmerHale team, who took the lead on the successful motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.