Untitled case

CardWare Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas on November 4, 2024, asserting six U.S. patents related to Near-Field Communication (NFC) payment technology. CardWare Inc. is the plaintiff, and based on the nature of the lawsuit asserting a patent portfolio against a major technology company's core products, it appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The defendant, Apple Inc., is a well-known operating company that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. The accused products and services include a broad range of Apple's ecosystem, specifically iPhone smartphones, iPad tablets, Apple Watch smartwatches, Apple Mac computers, Apple Vision Pro, Apple Card, Apple Cash, and the Apple Wallet and Apple Pay platforms, as well as other Apple-branded electronic devices supporting Apple Pay.

The asserted patents are US11328286, US11176538B2, US10339520B2, US11620634B2, US10628820B2, and US10810579B2, all generally covering NFC payment technology. For instance, U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286 generally relates to systems and methods for secure transactions, potentially involving dynamic magnetic strips for mobile payments. The procedural posture of the case is in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially filed in the Waco Division, the case was transferred to the Austin Division via a joint stipulation between the parties, with Chief Judge Alan D. Albright retaining jurisdiction. The Western District of Texas has been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to Judge Albright's extensive patent litigation experience, his proactive management of patent dockets, and his historical reluctance to grant transfer motions. The joint stipulation to transfer to Austin while keeping Judge Albright assigned reflects strategic maneuvering by the parties to maintain the benefits of his judicial oversight.

This case is notable for several reasons, particularly its targeting of Apple's expansive and commercially significant NFC payment ecosystem, including Apple Pay, with a portfolio of six NFC payment technology patents. The relatively short duration of 141 days before the case's initial "closure" via transfer highlights early-stage procedural strategies rather than a merits-based resolution. The retention of Judge Albright post-transfer ensures continuity and predictability in scheduling and judicial familiarity with the technical and legal aspects of the dispute. Furthermore, Apple has filed multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs) against the asserted patents, including IPR2025-01151 challenging all claims of US11328286, indicating a multi-pronged defense strategy that links the district court litigation with parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings.

The patent infringement case, CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00279, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division) on November 4, 2024. CardWare Inc. accused Apple Inc. of infringing six U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,176,538, 10,339,520, 11,620,634, 10,628,820, and 10,810,579. The accused products and services included a broad range of Apple's ecosystem, such as iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple Mac, Apple Vision Pro, Apple Card, Apple Cash, Apple Wallet, and Apple Pay platforms and devices supporting Apple Pay.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-11-04): CardWare Inc. filed its complaint for patent infringement against Apple Inc. on November 4, 2024. Details regarding Apple's answer or specific counterclaims are not explicitly detailed in the public records found, though typical patent litigation involves such filings.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: No motions to dismiss or for summary judgment were adjudicated on the merits. The parties engaged in a significant procedural maneuver involving venue transfer.
• Case Transferred (2025-03-25): The case was closed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas on March 25, 2025, via a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the Austin Division of the same court. Chief Judge Alan D. Albright granted the joint motion, ensuring the case remained on his docket despite the divisional transfer. This transfer was procedural and not a merits-based resolution.
• Claim Construction (Markman) (prior to 2026-02-24): A Markman hearing occurred in the district court, resulting in "one opinion on claim construction." An expert was retained by Apple to provide a declaration in support of claim construction. It was noted in PTAB filings that there were "no remaining claim-construction disputes that would create any differences between how the claims will be interpreted in this proceeding and the district court," implying that the Markman order clarified the claim terms.
• Discovery Milestones: Fact discovery was scheduled to close on February 24, 2026.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions: The case did not proceed to trial.
• Final Disposition/Present Posture: The case is currently active in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas under Judge Albright, having been procedurally transferred rather than dismissed, settled on the merits, or reaching a judgment. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted or denied at the time of the transfer. The asserted patents remain in dispute.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: Apple Inc. filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against CardWare Inc.'s patents asserted in the litigation.
  • IPR2025-01151: This IPR specifically challenges "all claims" of U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286, which is one of the patents at issue in the district court case. The current status of this IPR (institution or final written decision) is not provided in the available search results.
  • IPR2025-01150: This IPR challenged all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution on November 6, 2025, and the Director's discretionary review also resulted in a denial on November 20, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01152: This IPR challenged all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,634. The PTAB denied institution on November 19, 2025.
  • Apple had indicated that if its IPRs were instituted, it planned to request a stay of the district court litigation. Given the denials of institution for at least two of the related IPRs, a stay based on those proceedings would likely not have occurred.

CardWare Inc. is represented by attorneys from two firms: Findlay Craft PC and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for CardWare Inc.:

Findlay Craft PC

• Eric H. Findlay (Lead Counsel) - Findlay Craft PC
  • Findlay Craft PC is based in Tyler, Texas. Mr. Findlay is known for his extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

• Caroline M. Walters (Lead Counsel) - Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
• Khue V. Hoang (Lead Counsel) - Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
• Matthew G. Berkowitz (Lead Counsel) - Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
• Navid Cyrus Bayar (Lead Counsel) - Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Mr. Bayar was granted to practice pro hac vice in this case.
• Patrick R. Colsher (Lead Counsel) - Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
• Yue (Joy) Wang (Lead Counsel) - Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP is a national trial firm, and its attorneys have experience in high-stakes patent disputes. Their presence, alongside local counsel, is typical in patent infringement cases in Texas.

Apple Inc. is represented by a team of twelve attorneys from DLA Piper US LLP, led by Sean C. Cunningham, Erin P. Gibson, and John Michael Guaragna. Nandan Padmanabhan from DLA Piper LLP has also been noted as counsel for Apple in this case. While specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) are not detailed for each attorney in the available search results, the mention of "led by" for Cunningham, Gibson, and Guaragna suggests they are acting as lead counsel..

Apple also has in-house IP litigation counsel, such as Jeff Myers (Chief IP Counsel) and other senior legal counsel, who are responsible for driving litigation strategy and managing patent disputes, working closely with outside counsel. However, the publicly available information primarily identifies the external law firm representing Apple in the district court proceedings.

No specific note on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases for each individual attorney representing Apple in this case was immediately available in the search results beyond their general roles within DLA Piper.