Untitled case

RFCyber Corp. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, case number 6:21-cv-00916, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, RFCyber Corp., is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds numerous patents related to mobile payment-related services, including near field communication (NFC) technology. The defendant in this specific case is [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.). The accused products are Apple's mobile payment services, specifically Apple Wallet, Apple Pay, and/or Apple Cash, and their underlying infrastructure. These services are alleged to infringe on patents covering secure element-based contactless payment, NFC emulation, and related mobile commerce technologies.

The primary patent at issue in this case, US Patent 11018724, is one of several patents asserted by RFCyber Corp. in its litigation against Apple. The patents generally describe methods by which payments are initiated on a mobile device and accepted by a point-of-sale terminal using wireless communication, such as NFC and RFID, and also cover internet sales. A one-line technical sketch of US Patent 11018724, based on the broader portfolio descriptions, would be a patent related to systems and methods for mobile commerce transactions, potentially involving secure elements and NFC/RFID communication. Other patents asserted in this case, and related cases, include US Patents 8118218, 8448855, 9189787, 9240009, and 10600046, all falling within the domain of NFC and smart card emulation technology for payment and transaction processing.

The case is proceeding in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's efforts to establish the district as a prominent forum for such cases, including his reputation for setting aggressive schedules and his reluctance to stay litigation pending related PTAB proceedings. The Western District of Texas, and particularly Judge Albright's court, became a popular destination for patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, because of its patentee-friendly rules and the ability to largely ensure assignment to Judge Albright. The case is also notable due to parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed against RFCyber's patents by other defendants like Google and Samsung, highlighting a common strategy by accused infringers to challenge patent validity at the PTAB. For instance, Google LLC filed IPR2021-00954 against an RFCyber patent, and Samsung Electronics filed IPR2021-00980. RFCyber has a history of patent enforcement in mobile payment technologies, having filed similar lawsuits against LG Electronics, Google, and Samsung, and even recently concluded a case against Apple involving another patent from their portfolio.

RFCyber Corp. v. Apple, Inc. (6:21-cv-00916) is a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Texas. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,018,724, among others.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: RFCyber Corp. filed its complaint for patent infringement against Apple Inc. on September 7, 2021. The complaint alleged infringement of five patents related to mobile payment technologies, including U.S. Patent No. 11,018,724. It sought damages and injunctive relief, asserting willful infringement by Apple.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR2021-00954: Google LLC filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2021-00954, against RFCyber Corp. on May 18, 2021. This IPR challenges the validity of a patent owned by RFCyber Corp., though the specific patent number is not explicitly stated as 11,018,724 in the provided snippets for this particular IPR. However, other sources indicate that Apple has also initiated IPRs against RFCyber patents, and IPR2022-00081 was filed against U.S. Patent 10,600,046, another patent asserted in the initial complaint. The effect of these IPRs on the litigation would typically be a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the PTAB review, although no such motion's outcome is detailed in the provided information for this specific case.

3. Current Posture:

• The case remains active in the Western District of Texas. While there's no public record of a trial verdict, settlement, or final judgment in the provided snippets, the case was still active as of January 31, 2023.

The provided information does not detail specific developments regarding:

• Answer and counterclaims by Apple.
• Pre-trial motions of substance (motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR outcomes, aside from the existence of IPRs).
• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes.
• Discovery milestones.
• Trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

RFCyber Corp, the plaintiff in case 6:21-cv-00916, is represented by the following counsel:

• Zachary R. Gates (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
  • Office: Waco, TX (likely, given the firm's location and the Western District of Texas venue).
  • Experience: The Mort Law Firm is listed among the top law firms representing plaintiffs in patent cases before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.

• J. Robert "Bobby" Mort (Of Counsel/Local Counsel)

  • Firm: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
  • Office: Waco, TX
  • Experience: As the principal of The Mort Law Firm, he is likely involved in numerous patent litigation cases in the Western District of Texas.

• Scott M. Ramey (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP (likely, based on the firm name "Ramey" appearing in search results for top plaintiff's firms)
  • Office: Houston, TX (Ramey & Schwaller is based in Houston).
  • Experience: Ramey is listed among the top law firms representing plaintiffs in patent cases before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.

• William R. Taylor (Of Counsel/Local Counsel)

  • Firm: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC (likely, as attorneys often work in teams from the same firm)
  • Office: Waco, TX (likely)
  • Experience: Supports patent litigation efforts.

Note on sources: The specific roles (lead, of counsel, local) for each attorney are inferred based on common practice in patent litigation and general firm structures, as explicit roles beyond "Attorneys for Plaintiff" are not consistently detailed in publicly available docket snippets. The firms listed are those most frequently associated with plaintiff representation in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas.

The defendant, Apple Inc., is represented by a team of attorneys, though specific lead and local counsel information for this ongoing case can sometimes fluctuate or be subject to protective orders. Based on general practice and information from similar litigation involving Apple in the Western District of Texas, the following firms and individuals are likely involved in their defense:

Fish & Richardson P.C. is a prominent intellectual property law firm frequently representing large technology companies in patent litigation. They have a history of representing Apple in various patent disputes.

• Juanita Brooks (Lead Counsel, frequently for Apple in patent cases)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office: San Diego, CA
  • Note: Known for her extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation, including numerous cases for technology giants.

• W. Karl Renner (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Experienced in patent litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Latham & Watkins LLP is another major firm with a robust intellectual property litigation practice and a history of representing Apple.

• Richard G. Frenkel (Lead Counsel or significant role)

  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP
  • Office: Washington D.C. or Silicon Valley
  • Note: Frequently involved in complex patent litigation for major tech companies, including representing Apple in various matters.

• Gabriel K. Bell (Counsel)

  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP
  • Office: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation and appellate matters, including those before the Federal Circuit.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP has also been identified as representing Apple in significant litigation, including antitrust suits, demonstrating their role as a top-tier firm for Apple's legal defense. While not directly confirmed for this specific patent case, their involvement in Apple's broader litigation strategy is notable.

In-House Counsel for Apple Inc.: While specific names are not always publicly listed as counsel of record on every docket entry, Apple's legal department plays a significant role in managing and directing its litigation strategy.

It is important to note that the patent at issue, US Patent 11018724, is one of several patents RFCyber Corp. has asserted against Apple, and other related cases involving different patents from RFCyber's portfolio have seen different outcomes, including dismissals and affirmances of unpatentability. The case 6:21-cv-00916 itself saw a resolution of claims by January 29, 2024, with a dismissal with prejudice, suggesting a confidential settlement. However, the query is about identifying the counsel of record in this case, and the firms listed above generally represent Apple in such patent disputes.