Untitled case

CardWare Inc. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC in the Western District of Texas, Case No. 7:24-cv-00278, filed on November 4, 2024. The plaintiff, CardWare Inc., appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), as it has "rebooted its sole litigation campaign" previously seen against Samsung in 2022, now expanding to include Google and Apple in separate suits. CardWare claims to be a Texas entity. The defendant, Google LLC, is a major operating technology company. Google is accused of infringing CardWare's patents through its smartphones and smartwatches that incorporate Google Pay and Google Wallet functionalities.

The litigation asserts US Patent No. 11,620,634, among others, which generally relates to systems and methods for secure wireless transactions using Near Field Communication (NFC) technology, specifically associated with "SmartTokenization™ technology that enables payment cards with security and usage features". The case is being heard in the Western District of Texas by Judge David Counts, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland presiding over certain aspects, including claim construction. The Western District of Texas has been a prominent venue for patent litigation due to its historical reputation for expedient dockets; however, an order from July 25, 2022, now mandates random assignment of patent cases filed in the Waco Division to one of the district's 12 judges, rather than automatic assignment to Judge Alan Albright.

This case is notable as part of CardWare Inc.'s targeted litigation campaign against major mobile payment providers. The validity of CardWare's patent portfolio is being simultaneously challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, with Google and Apple filing petitions against related patents. The district court has seen activity including Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which Magistrate Judge Gilliland recommended denying in August 2025. Furthermore, claim construction remains a contested issue, with Google having filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gilliland's claim construction memorandum and order in October 2025.

The patent infringement litigation, CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00278, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 4, 2024. The case involves U.S. Patent 11,620,634. The presiding judge is David Counts, with Derek Tod Gilliland as the referred judge.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-11-04: Plaintiff CardWare Inc. filed the patent infringement complaint against Google LLC.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Circa 2025-08-15: Defendant Google LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss (Document 32), arguing that the asserted technology was not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• 2025-08-15: A Report and Recommendations (Document 97) was issued, recommending denial of Google's motion to dismiss. The recommendation noted a dispute over the representativeness of Claim 19 and Google's failure to specifically address other claims.
• 2025-09-03: The Court adopted the Report and Recommendations, thereby denying Google's motion to dismiss.
• Circa 2025-08-07: Arguments related to a motion to transfer were made, discussing CardWare Inc.'s and Google's presence in various judicial districts and the purpose of CardWare's relocation to the Western District of Texas. This document (Document 95) also mentioned a "fake LinkedIn profile" issue related to a prior artist.
• 2026-05-19: A Joint Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Motions for Summary Judgment (Document 176) was filed.
• 2026-05-20: The Court granted the motion (Document 176), extending page limits for summary judgment motions, responses, and replies, indicating the case is actively proceeding through the summary judgment phase.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2025-10-02: The Court issued a "Claim Construction Memorandum and Order" (Document 105), which addressed arguments made at a Markman hearing. The order noted that there were arguments made regarding the claim construction and that the order itself allegedly contained errors in its construction.

Discovery Milestones:

• While specific discovery milestones are not detailed in the available public records, the progression of the case through a motion to dismiss, claim construction, and now into the summary judgment phase implies that discovery has largely been completed or is substantially underway.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case has not yet reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions. It is currently in the summary judgment phase.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

• The case is active and has not reached a final disposition. It is currently in the summary judgment stage.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• The search results indicate that Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01149) against CardWare Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 on June 24, 2025. However, this IPR does not concern patent 11620634, which is at issue in this district court case.
• A document (Exhibit 2012 of Document 95) references "GOOGLE v. CARDWARE IPR2025-01513," suggesting that Google has initiated an IPR against CardWare. The specific patent challenged in this IPR (IPR2025-01513) is not explicitly confirmed to be 11620634 in the available snippets.
• Discussions within PTAB documents related to other CardWare cases (e.g., CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc., 1:25-cv-00446-ADA) highlight arguments against staying district court proceedings pending IPRs, citing Fintiv factors and the unlikelihood of a final written decision issuing before district court trials. This suggests that requests for stays based on IPRs have been resisted, and potentially denied, in related litigations involving CardWare Inc.

In the patent infringement case CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC, filed in the Texas Western District Court under case number 7:24-cv-00278 on November 4, 2024, the plaintiff, CardWare Inc., is represented by attorneys from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Findlay Craft, P.C.. Caroline Walters, previously counsel for the plaintiff, withdrew from the case on May 18, 2026.

The following counsel are of record for the plaintiff, CardWare Inc.:

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

• Patrick R. Colsher (Counsel)
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the firm has offices in various locations including Silicon Valley, New York, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. (General firm knowledge; not directly cited in provided snippets)
  • Experience Note: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP is a trial boutique known for high-stakes patent litigation. (General firm knowledge; not directly cited in provided snippets)
• Yue (Joy) Wang (Counsel)
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided snippets.
• Navid Cyrus Bayar (Counsel)
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided snippets.
• Khue V. Hoang (Counsel)
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided snippets.
• Leaf Williams (Counsel)
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided snippets.
• Matthew G. Berkowitz (Counsel)
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided snippets.

Findlay Craft, P.C.

• Eric H. Findlay (Counsel)
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the firm is located in Tyler, Texas, and is frequently involved in patent cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. (General firm knowledge; not directly cited in provided snippets)
  • Experience Note: Often serves as local counsel in Texas patent litigation. (General firm knowledge; not directly cited in provided snippets)
• Brian Craft (Counsel)
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Often serves as local counsel in Texas patent litigation. (General firm knowledge; not directly cited in provided snippets)

It is noted that Caroline M. Walters of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP formally withdrew as counsel of record for the plaintiff on May 18, 2026.

Google LLC is represented by both in-house counsel and multiple outside law firms in the patent infringement case brought by CardWare Inc. in the Western District of Texas.

In-house Counsel for Google LLC:

• Mike Lee - Director, Head of Patents, Google LLC, Mountain View, CA. He leads a global team responsible for Google's patent matters, including portfolio development, counseling, operations, data science, licensing, transactions, and policy.
• Laura Sheridan - Head of Patent Policy, Google, Mountain View, CA. She focuses on advocating for an effective patent examination process and a fair patent litigation system. Her work is informed by prior experience in patent prosecution, litigation, due diligence, and post-grant practice.
• Fayiz Alasmar - Associate Patent Litigation Counsel, Google, Mountain View, CA. He is responsible for managing all aspects of intellectual property litigation and disputes for Google.

Outside Counsel for Google LLC:

• Paul Hastings LLP
  • Jason Mikus - Partner, Paul Hastings LLP.
  • James V. Razick - Partner, Paul Hastings LLP.
  • Robert W. Unikel - Partner, Paul Hastings LLP.
  • Robert R. Laurenzi - Partner, Paul Hastings LLP.
  • Elizabeth L. Brann - Partner, Paul Hastings, LLP.
  • Matthias Andreas Kamber - Partner, Paul Hastings LLP. Mr. Kamber's declaration in the case regarding a LinkedIn profile was noted in a court document.
  • Puja V. Patel - Partner, Paul Hastings LLP.
• Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Patrick R. Colsher - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Yue (Joy) Wang - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Caroline M. Walters - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Navid Cyrus Bayar - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Khue V. Hoang - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Leaf Williams - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Matthew G. Berkowitz - Partner, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
• Jackson Walker LLP (Local Counsel)
  • Katharine L. Carmona - Partner, Jackson Walker LLP.
  • Nathaniel St. Clair, II - Partner, Jackson Walker LLP.
  • Erica Benites Giese - Partner, Jackson Walker LLP.
• Findlay Craft, P.C. (Local Counsel)
  • Eric H. Findlay - Partner, Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Brian Craft - Partner, Findlay Craft, P.C.

While not listed on the immediate docket for this specific case, Michael J. Berta from Arnold & Porter (Silicon Valley office) has a history of representing Google in patent and trade secret litigation across various technologies. He has been recognized as a "Top IP Attorney" by the Daily Journal and an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property for his patent litigation work.