Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Case Overview — RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:23-cv-00708 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

A docket-identification caveat up front. Public docket aggregators list 6:23-cv-00708 as RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright, but every field on that docket page (filed 6/28/2022, terminated 2/5/2024, flags "CLOSED, PATENT, STAYED") is identical to the parent case, RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA. That is consistent with 6:23-cv-00708 being the severed companion docket created when Judge Albright severed and stayed the '009-patent claims on October 13, 2023 (Dkt. 48), with all prior docket entries carried over — which is how the '787 shows up in this docket's patent data. I could not reach PACER directly, so I flag this mapping as highly likely rather than confirmed; the substantive '787 assertion against Visa was litigated in the parent case. (Docket Alarm, No. 6:23-cv-00708; Docket Alarm, No. 6:22-cv-00697)

The parties. RFCyber Corp. is a small mobile-payments company originally based in Fremont, California (4160 Technology Drive), which in the mid-2000s sold an NFC/e-purse product suite — a Trusted Service Management (TSM) platform, micro-payment ticketing, and PBOC 2.0-based e-purse software — with deployments in the Netherlands (Breda social-care e-vouchers) and Taiwan (Chunghwa Telecom/China Trust/Visa smart-poster pilot). It has since reincorporated in Texas and, as the court itself found, maintains an office at 600 Columbus Avenue, Suite 106, in Waco — a fact Judge Albright judicially noticed in the parallel Apple litigation. In litigation posture RFCyber functions as a non-practicing patent assertion entity: its own product literature is historical, and its enforcement is run through Alfred R. Fabricant's Fabricant LLP (Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Richard M. Cowell, Vincent J. Rubino III) with Raymond W. Mort III of The Mort Law Firm as local/Texas counsel. Commentators (AppleInsider/MacTech) routinely label it a "patent troll." Defendant Visa U.S.A. Inc. is the domestic Visa operating entity (Delaware corporation, registered agent in Austin), and was represented here by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (James C. Yoon). ([RFCyber product literature](https://

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the case number and patent.

Let me dig into the specific docket.

Let me verify the identity of the 6:23-cv-00708 docket directly.

Bottom line

The docket numbered 6:23-cv-00708 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright) is, on the available record, the *severed companion docket carved out of RFCyber's Visa suit, RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA*. It was created by Judge Albright's 2023-10-13 severance-and-stay order, carried over the parent docket's 2022-06-28 filing date, and was closed on 2024-02-05 by an order granting a joint motion to dismiss — i.e., the case ended in settlement/dismissal, never reaching Markman, summary judgment, or trial. The '787 patent that the case metadata associates with this docket was one of four patents asserted in the parent Visa case and was the patent on which RFCyber defeated Apple's IPR challenge at the PTAB on 2023-07-18.

Important sourcing caveat (please read before relying on the docket mapping): Docket Alarm's page for "RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 6:23-cv-00708" reports a filing date of 2022-06-28 and termination date of 2024-02-05 — the identical dates as No. 6:22-cv-00697 — and the case flags are "CLOSED, PATENT, STAYED." That pattern is exactly what one expects from the 2023-10-13 severance order directing the Clerk to open a new case containing "all docket entries that existed on the original case" and to stay the severed claims. I could not open a full PACER docket sheet for 6:23-cv-00708 (the Docket Alarm page is expressly labeled "The docket is incomplete"), and the public excerpts I could reach are keyed to 6:22-cv-00697. Two consequences follow: (1) the substance below is documented from the parent docket and the PTAB/Federal Circuit records, which is where the litigated events actually appear; and (2) there is a residual possibility that 6:23-cv-00708 is instead a mis-mapped duplicate of the Visa case in third-party litigation databases, in which case the substantive history is still the same. I flag

I'll research this docket and the plaintiff's counsel of record.

Bottom line

I could confirm the identity of the case and the plaintiff's litigation team, but with one important caveat about the docket itself (below). Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. is represented by a two-tier team led by Fabricant LLP (Rye, New York) as national trial/IPR counsel, with The Mort Law Firm, PLLC (Austin, Texas) as local counsel.

What the docket shows

Docket Alarm indexes 6:23-cv-00708, RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. (W.D. Tex., Waco Division, Judge Alan D. Albright; Nature of Suit 830, patent; flags CLOSED / PATENT / STAYED; terminated Feb. 5, 2024). The metadata (filed 6/28/2022) appears to be carried over from the parent case 6:22-cv-00697-ADA, which is consistent with Judge Albright's October 13, 2023 order severing and staying the '009-patent claims in 6:22-cv-00697, in which he directed the Clerk to "include all docket entries that existed on the original case" in the severed case. The 6:22-cv-00697 docket closed on February 5, 2024 via an order granting the parties' joint motion to dismiss (Dkt. 54).

⚠️ Flag: I could not access PACER directly, and Docket Alarm's page for 6:23-cv-00708 is marked "The docket is incomplete" and appears to duplicate the 6:22-cv-00697 record. So the counsel list below is drawn from the filings in the parent/related RFCyber–Visa action and the PTAB record, which the severance order carried into the new case number. I did not find any separate appearance notice filed only under 6:23-cv-00708.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — RFCyber Corp.

Attorneys likely also on the engagement team (not confirmed as appearing in 6:23-cv-00708)

In RFCyber's closely related and later-filed matters, the same Fabricant LLP team appears with additional lawyers. These names show up in RFCyber's 2024 E.D. Tex. complaints and third-party litigation databases, but I found no document tying them specifically to 6:23-cv-00708, so treat as unconfirmed: Vincent J. Rubino III, Peter Lambrianakos, Jacob D. Ostling (Fabricant LLP), and Justin K. Truelove (Truelove Law Firm, Texas — an additional local-counsel relationship used in the 2024 E.D. Tex. cases).

No in-house counsel identified

RFCyber is a small patent-holding company (Waco, Texas address of record: 600 Columbus Avenue, Suite 106); no in-house counsel appearance appears in the record. All filings are made through outside counsel.

For context — opposing counsel

Visa U.S.A. Inc. was represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. (James C. Yoon, CA Bar No. 177155; Lucy Yen, a WSGR partner in New York, who executed the declaration supporting Visa's motion to stay). WSGR does not bear on your question but confirms the adversarial pairing.

---

Sourcing and confidence

• High confidence: Fabricant, Cowell, and Mort as RFCyber's counsel team in the RFCyber–Visa W.D. Tex. matter, based on the plaintiff's signature blocks in the Case Readiness Status Report (Dkt. 16, dated May 1, 2023) and the unopposed motion to stay/notice of settlement (Dkt. 52, dated January 3, 2024) — both available via Docket Alarm's 6:22-cv-00697 file (docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-00697/).
• High confidence: Cowell's PTAB argument role — Record of Oral Hearing, IPR2022-00412/-00413 (April 21, 2023), listing "Richard Cowell, Fabricant, LLP, 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, New York 10580."
• High confidence: the severance/stay order of Oct. 13, 2023 (6:22-cv-00697, Dkt. 48) and the Feb. 5, 2024 dismissal order (Dkt. 54).
• Lower confidence / unsourced: docket-alarm's filed-date and termination metadata for 6:23-cv-00708 itself; whether additional Fabricant LLP attorneys entered appearances in the severed case; and any biographical detail about Mr. Fabricant's pre-Fabricant LLP career (I have not verified his prior firm, so I have omitted it).

If you need the appearances verified line-by-line, the next step is a PACER pull of the 6:23-cv-00708 docket sheet (W.D. Tex.) and the Notices of Attorney Appearance/PHV motions filed there — I was unable to retrieve those directly.

I'll research this docket and identify the defendant and their counsel.

The docket aggregator result looks suspicious (it shows a 2022 filing date but a 2023 case number). Let me verify the actual case.

Docket Alarm's entry appears to mirror the 2022 Visa case. Let me check independent docket sources to confirm what 6:23-cv-00708 actually is.

Bottom line first: a case-identity caveat you need before relying on any counsel list

I could not confirm that 6:23-cv-00708 exists as an independent lawsuit with its own complaint, summons, and answer. What the public record shows instead:

• The only docket record attached to that number is Docket Alarm's entry RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 6:23-cv-00708 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), Judge Alan D. Albright — but with a filed date of June 28, 2022, terminated Feb. 5, 2024, and flags CLOSED / PATENT / STAYED, with the notation "the docket is incomplete." (docketalarm.com)
• Those attributes are identical to RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA, filed 6/28/2022 before Judge Albright and dismissed 2/5/2024 (Dkt. 53 joint motion; Dkt. 54 order; AO 120 form recording the 2/5/2024 judgment). (Docket Alarm – 6:22-cv-00697 Dkt. 16)
• The most probable explanation is that 6:23-cv-00708 is the severed companion case the Waco clerk opened after Judge Albright's Oct. 13, 2023 order severing RFCyber's U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 claims against Visa and staying them pending appeal — an order that expressly directed the clerk to "include all docket entries that existed on the original case" in the severed case, which explains a 2022 filing date carried onto a 2023 case number. (Order, 6:22-cv-00697 Dkt. 48)
• A secondary possibility is a pure aggregator numbering artifact duplicating 6:22-cv-00697. RFCyber's public litigation history shows no other 2023 W.D. Tex. case; its 2024 retailer/automaker wave (Costco, Walmart, Starbucks, Kroger, Volkswagen, Shell/Electrify America) was filed in the E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap, not Waco.

Either way, the defendant is Visa U.S.A. Inc., and the defense team is the same.

Defendant's counsel of record

Everything else I can say about the defense side is inference, and I am flagging it as such:

• I found no Texas local counsel on any Visa filing I could access. Both the Case Readiness Status Report (Dkt. 16) and the Joint Stipulation (Dkt. 42) carry only the WSGR signature block for Visa — no in-state co-counsel. (W.D. Tex. practice does not require local counsel, but Judge Albright's standing orders do impose admission requirements.)
• Additional WSGR attorneys almost certainly appeared for Visa on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (D.I. 10, filed 11/11/2022, denied 4/26/2023) and the Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Dkt. 22, filed 6/8/2023; reply at Dkt. 33). I could not retrieve the signature blocks on those filings and will not guess at names. To enumerate every attorney of record you need the CM/ECF docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00697 (or the severed case) plus the appearance notices — PACER, or the CourtListener RECAP docket, will show them.
• No in-house counsel appears on the public filings, and nothing I found is sealed; the case ended by joint dismissal on Feb. 5, 2024, with the parties bearing their own costs.

Plaintiff's side (for completeness/context)

RFCyber is represented by Fabricant LLP (Alfred R. Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, Richard M. Cowell) with Raymond W. Mort III of The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, Austin, Texas as local counsel — the same team that later filed RFCyber's 2024 E.D. Tex. campaign against Costco, Walmart, Starbucks, Kroger, VW and Shell. (RFCyber v. Costco counsel table, PatSnap)

Why the '787 matters to this posture

The '787 patent (and the '009 patent) were among the four patents RFCyber asserted against Visa. Apple's IPR2022-00412 on the '787 was instituted in July 2022, and on July 18, 2023 the PTAB held Apple had not shown the '787 claims unpatentable (while finding all '009 claims unpatentable) — the trigger for the parties' joint stay and Judge Albright's severance. (Order, Dkt. 48)

Confidence and sourcing limits

• High confidence: defendant is Visa U.S.A. Inc.; James C. Yoon of Wilson Sonsini is lead counsel of record (verified signature block, Dkt. 42).
• Medium confidence: 6:23-cv-00708 = severed '009 companion to 6:22-cv-00697 (strong circumstantial match on judge, division, dates, and "STAYED" flag; not confirmed on a primary docket).
• Not verified: any additional WSGR appearances, any local counsel, and any sealed or unfiled material. I did not obtain direct PACER access; all findings come from Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia and secondary litigation databases. If exact docket-entry-level counsel lists are needed for a filing, pull the docket sheet in 6:22-cv-00697 and the severed case directly.