Apple Inc. v. CardWare Inc.

CardWare Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 4, 2024 (Case No. 7:24-cv-00279), subsequently transferred to the Austin Division (Case No. 1:25-cv-00446) while retaining Chief Judge Alan D. Albright's jurisdiction. Apple Inc. is a globally recognized operating company specializing in consumer electronics, software, and online services. CardWare Inc. is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), described as an unfunded company that provides security solutions for payment cards and has previously asserted patents against other major technology companies like Samsung and Google.

The core of the dispute revolves around CardWare's assertion that Apple's commercially significant products and services infringe its patents. The accused technologies encompass Apple's Near-Field Communication (NFC) payment ecosystem, including products such as the iPhone, Apple Watch, Apple Card, Apple Pay, and Apple Wallet, with potential implications for the Apple Vision Pro. The IPR in question, IPR2025-01150, specifically targets US Patent 11176538. This patent is part of a portfolio of six patents asserted by CardWare against Apple, generally relating to using NFC technology for wireless transactions and secure payment and identity methods, including "SmartTokenization™ technology" for fraud prevention.

The procedural posture includes the aforementioned district court litigation and the inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), IPR2025-01150. This IPR, filed by Apple against CardWare for US patent 11176538, was notably "Not Instituted". The PTAB venue is crucial as it offers a faster and often less expensive alternative for challenging patent validity compared to district court litigation. The decision not to institute the IPR, particularly for "procedural reasons" as stated in the case metadata, is significant, suggesting a potential discretionary denial by the PTAB, possibly influenced by factors like parallel district court proceedings or Fintiv considerations. This case is notable due to CardWare's pattern of asserting NFC payment patents against leading tech companies, highlighting ongoing patent assertion trends in the contactless payment industry. Apple's multiple IPR challenges against CardWare's patent family underscore the strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB proceedings in patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc. Litigation

The patent infringement litigation between CardWare Inc. and Apple Inc. began with a complaint filed by CardWare in November 2024. A parallel inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Apple against one of the asserted patents was ultimately not instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) due to discretionary reasons. The district court litigation remains ongoing in the Western District of Texas.

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-11-04 – Filing of Complaint: CardWare Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, Case No. 7:24-cv-00279. CardWare asserted six U.S. patents related to Near-Field Communication (NFC) payment technology, including US Patent 11176538. Apple's products, such as iPhone, Apple Watch, Apple Card, Apple Pay, and Apple Vision Pro, were accused of infringement.

• 2025-02-13 – Apple's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: Apple Inc. served preliminary invalidity contentions, asserting grounds of anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112.

• 2025-03-25 – Venue Transfer: The case was transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, pursuant to a joint motion and stipulation by both parties. Chief Judge Alan D. Albright retained jurisdiction over the case.

• 2025-06-24 – IPR Filing: Apple Inc. filed an inter partes review petition, IPR2025-01150, challenging US Patent 11176538, one of the patents asserted by CardWare Inc. in the district court litigation.

• 2025-08-28 – Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing: A Markman hearing was held in the district court case to address the construction of disputed claim terms.

• 2025-11-20 – IPR Not Instituted: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of IPR2025-01150. The status of the IPR was designated as "Discretionary Denial." While the specific opinion for IPR2025-01150 is not publicly detailed, contemporaneous PTAB policies from late 2025 indicated a strong propensity for discretionary denials based on factors such as the proximity of a district court trial date, the overlap of issues with ongoing district court litigation, and the investment already made in the district court proceedings (Fintiv factors). Given that a Markman hearing had already occurred in the district court case by August 2025, it is highly probable the IPR was denied institution based on these discretionary considerations to avoid duplication of efforts and promote efficiency.

• Current Posture: The district court litigation, CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc. (7:24-cv-00279), remains active in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright. Further proceedings are expected to continue without the parallel IPR challenge for US Patent 11176538.

Counsel of Record for Apple Inc. in IPR2025-01150

Apple Inc. is represented in IPR2025-01150 by counsel from Erise IP. The primary identified attorney is:

• Name: Adam Seitz
• Role: Lead Counsel (Petitioner Counsel)
• Firm: Erise IP, with offices including Overland Park, Kansas, and Denver, Colorado.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Adam Seitz is a founding member of Erise IP and an established trial lawyer with extensive experience in district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the International Trade Commission. He has served as lead counsel on over 187 IPRs and 26 Federal Circuit appeals, and is consistently ranked among the most active and best-performing attorneys for petitioners at the PTAB.. His work for Apple at the PTAB includes successfully invalidating patent claims in other proceedings.

While the public record indicates "Seitz, Adam et al." as petitioner counsel, indicating the involvement of other attorneys, specific names for these additional individuals beyond Adam Seitz are not explicitly detailed in the readily available public information for this particular IPR. Apple Inc. also maintains a robust in-house IP litigation team that typically manages and oversees such proceedings.

CardWare Inc. was represented by counsel from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Findlay Craft PC in IPR2025-01150 and related patent litigation. Although the IPR was not instituted, the following attorneys were identified as representing CardWare Inc. in the IPR proceeding and related matters concerning the asserted patents:

• Matthew G. Berkowitz
  • Role: Respondent Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (specific office location not detailed in search results, but the firm has offices in various locations including Washington D.C., New York, and Silicon Valley).
  • Note on experience: Berkowitz is listed as "Respondent Counsel" for CardWare Inc. in IPR2025-01150 and is also listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the district court case against Apple Inc. (7:24-cv-00279) and against Google LLC (7:24-cv-00278).

Other attorneys associated with CardWare Inc.'s patent enforcement efforts across the related patent family, and likely involved in defending against the IPR petitions, include:

• Caroline M. Walters

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (specific office location not detailed in search results).
  • Note on experience: Walters is listed as counsel for CardWare in the district court cases against Apple and Google, which involve the same family of patents at issue in the IPR.

• Eric H. Findlay

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft PC (specific office location not detailed in search results).
  • Note on experience: Findlay represents CardWare Inc. in the related district court litigation against Apple, which asserts patents from the same family as IPR2025-01150.

• Khue V. Hoang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (specific office location not detailed in search results).
  • Note on experience: Hoang is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the district court cases related to the patent family.

• Navid Cyrus Bayar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (specific office location not detailed in search results).
  • Note on experience: Bayar is listed as counsel for CardWare in the district court cases against Apple and Google, concerning the same patent family. An order granting pro hac vice for Attorney Navid Bayar for CardWare Inc. was issued in the CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc. district court case.

• Patrick R. Colsher

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (specific office location not detailed in search results).
  • Note on experience: Colsher is listed as counsel for CardWare in the district court cases against Apple and Google, concerning the same patent family.

• Yue (Joy) Wang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (specific office location not detailed in search results).
  • Note on experience: Wang is listed as counsel for CardWare in the district court cases against Apple and Google, concerning the same patent family.

The IPR was discretionarily denied, meaning it did not proceed to the institution phase. Therefore, the involvement of CardWare's counsel would primarily have been in responding to Apple's petition for inter partes review.CardWare Inc. was represented by counsel from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Findlay Craft PC in IPR2025-01150 and related patent infringement matters. The following attorneys are identified as having represented CardWare Inc. in the IPR and/or in district court litigation involving the same patent family.

Here is the counsel of record representing CardWare Inc.:

• Matthew G. Berkowitz
  • Role: Respondent Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note on experience: Berkowitz is explicitly listed as Respondent Counsel for CardWare Inc. in IPR2025-01150. He also represents CardWare Inc. in the related district court patent infringement cases against Apple Inc. and Google LLC, which involve the same family of patents related to NFC payment technology.

Additional attorneys from these firms who have represented CardWare Inc. in related district court patent infringement cases concerning the same patent family as US patent 11176538 include:

• Caroline M. Walters

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note on experience: Walters is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the patent infringement lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Google LLC.

• Eric H. Findlay

  • Role: Counsel
    Firm: Findlay Craft PC
  • Note on experience: Findlay is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the patent infringement lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Google LLC.

• Khue V. Hoang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note on experience: Hoang is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the patent infringement lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Google LLC.

• Navid Cyrus Bayar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note on experience: Bayar is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the patent infringement lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Google LLC. An order for pro hac vice appearance was granted for Attorney Navid Bayar in the CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc. district court case.

• Patrick R. Colsher

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note on experience: Colsher is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the patent infringement lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Google LLC.

• Yue (Joy) Wang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note on experience: Wang is listed as representing CardWare Inc. in the patent infringement lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Google LLC.

Since the IPR was not instituted, CardWare's counsel's primary role in this specific IPR would have been in responding to Apple's petition for inter partes review.