Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.

Parties and dispute. This matter is not a district-court infringement suit but an inter partes review (IPR) — an AIA post-grant validity proceeding — at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), captioned Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. (formerly Apple Inc. v. Mozido, Inc.), IPR2022-01150. Petitioner Apple Inc. is a large operating company whose mobile-payments ecosystem (Apple Pay, Apple Wallet, iPhone, Apple Watch) was the target of Fintiv's infringement assertions. Patent owner is Fintiv, Inc. (real party in interest; the record identifies Mozido, Inc. as the named owner and Fintiv's predecessor), an Austin, Texas–based company founded in 2018 that acquires and asserts mobile-payment and loyalty patents; it is widely characterized as an NPE/PAE (Unified Patents' PTAB portal lists Apple as "Large Operating Company" and the owner as Mozido with Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP as patent-owner counsel). Fintiv's portfolio, including the patent at issue here, is the same family it has asserted against Apple in the Western District of Texas over Apple Pay — per contemporaneous coverage, Fintiv's December 2018 suit accused iPhones (6 through XS Max), Apple Watch Series 1–4, and the Apple Wallet app (PingWest/TechWeb, Dec. 27, 2018).

Patent, accused technology, and procedural posture. The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,189,785 B2, "Debit Network Routing Selection Using a Scannable Code" (issued Nov. 17, 2015). In one line: it claims generating a QR/scannable code that embeds a debit-network selection — user-preferred, provider-preferred, and selected networks — together with portions of the user's debit-account data and rewards identification, so a payment-processing system can route a debit transaction over the chosen network (abstract; Apple's demonstratives, Ex. 1011, IPR2022-01150). The allegedly infringing technology sits in QR-code-driven mobile-payment and point-of-sale debit routing; the precise Apple product mapped to the '785 claims is not separately confirmed in my sources, but the petition frames it as part of the Apple Pay dispute. Procedurally: Apple filed the petition on June 16, 2022, challenging all claims 1–21 on a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Easterly (U.S. Pub. 2011/0208659) in view of Luz (U.S. Pub. 2013/0346291); the Board (APJs Kristen L. Droesch, author, Michael R. Zecher, and Paul J. Korniczky) instituted on all challenged claims on January 4, 2023 (Patexia; DocketAlarm docket); issued its Final Written Decision on January 2, 2024, finding most claims unpatentable (per patent-owner expert Michael I. Shamos's CV, claims 5, 12, and 19 survived — a secondary source, flagged as such); denied Director Review on February 22, 2024 (Doc. 27); and the appeal — Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2024-1742 (Fed. Cir.) — was affirmed in a nonprecedential Rule 36 per curiam judgment entered February 11, 2026 (Lourie, Hughes, and Chief District Judge Kleeh; Justia). Law360 reported the affirmance ("Apple Gets Fed. Circ. To OK Axed Mobile Wallet Patent," Dec. 8, 2025). Because this is the PTAB, "venue" means the USPTO's administrative forum rather than a district; the Board's decision to institute despite parallel W.D. Tex. litigation (and Apple's brief arguing discretionary denial under the "Fintiv factors" was inappropriate) is itself significant.

Why the case matters. The case sits at the center of one of the most consequential PTAB doctrines in the AIA era: the discretionary-denial framework known as the NHK-Fintiv factors, which originated in an earlier Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. IPR (IPR2020-00019) involving Fintiv's '125 mobile-wallet patent, where the Board declined to institute because parallel district-court litigation was scheduled to resolve the same validity questions. Here, by contrast, the Board instituted and ultimately invalidated 18 of 21 claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed — validating Apple's strategy of using IPRs as a counterweight to Fintiv's Texas assertions. The broader dispute is also notable for its NPE-assertion pattern: Fintiv, a recently formed, thinly staffed Texas entity asserting acquired (in part Korean-origin) mobile-payment patents against Apple, is a paradigm of the PAE activity the AIA's IPR regime was designed to police. The parallel district-court track has also trended in Apple's favor: in Fintiv v. Apple, No. 1:21-cv-00896-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), the court entered final judgment for Apple on August 7, 2025 (summary judgment of noninfringement and dismissal with prejudice; PatSnap/PACER), and Apple has separately challenged the USPTO's "Fintiv instructions" governing discretionary denials. For the mobile-payments industry, the affirmance removes a QR-code debit-routing patent from the assertion landscape and reinforces that broad, functional mobile-payment claims will face rigorous obviousness scrutiny when prior art like Easterly and Luz is available.

Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Scope note on the two proceedings

The case metadata you provided (IPR2022-01150) is a PTAB inter partes review — Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2022-01150 (P.T.A.B.), directed to U.S. Patent No. 9,189,785 ("'785 patent," owned by Mozido, Inc./Fintiv). The underlying patent infringement litigation it is parallel to is Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00896-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), which asserted a different Fintiv/Mozido mobile-wallet patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (the "'125 patent," System and Method for Managing Mobile Wallet and Its Related Credentials) — the Apple Pay/Apple Wallet case. Both are part of the same Fintiv-vs.-Apple mobile-payments campaign, and both are covered below. Where a fact could not be verified from available sources, that is flagged.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2018-12-21 — Complaint filed. Fintiv sued Apple in the Western District of Texas accusing Apple Pay and Apple Wallet (on iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac) of infringing the '125 patent. The original complaint (Doc. 1) is dated 12/21/2018; the operative W.D. Tex. docket (Austin Division, Judge Albright) is 1:21-cv-00896-ADA, with the case flagged for appeal and patent handling (CourtListener docket; PatSnap PACER summary; Law360 case file). Venue was premised on Apple's Austin offices and stores (Doc. 1, Jurisdiction and Venue).
• Answer and counterclaims. Apple answered and the docket reflects jury demands by both sides, but the precise answer/counterclaim filing date and any declaratory-judgment counterclaims are not verified in the sources available to me; I would confirm the exact pleading dates on PACER before relying on them.

---

2. Parallel PTAB proceedings (and their effect on the litigation)

These IPRs are the most significant "legal developments" surrounding this litigation because one of them created governing PTAB precedent and the other is the IPR in your metadata:

• IPR2020-00019 — the origin of the "Fintiv factors" (on the asserted '125 patent). Apple petitioned for IPR of the '125 patent. On 2020-03-20 the PTAB denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), declining to institute because of the advanced, fast-moving parallel district court litigation (the W.D. Tex. case). Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020). The Board articulated six factors for discretionary denial — stay likelihood, trial-date proximity to the FWD deadline, investment in the parallel case, issue overlap, party identity, and other circumstances including merits — which became the famous "Fintiv factors" (later designated "informative" in Paper 15, May 13, 2020; see Mondaq, July 23, 2020; IPWatchdog, June 4, 2020). Effect on litigation: Apple lost its IPR avenue on the asserted patent and had to litigate validity (if at all) in district court; the case continued on Albright's fast schedule. This decision later spawned collateral APA litigation (Apple v. Iancu, N.D. Cal.) over the lawfulness of the Fintiv standard, and the PTO's 2022 Vidal guidance memo and its 2025 rescission both referenced this decision (Proskauer, Feb. 28, 2025).
• IPR2022-01150 — the '785 patent IPR in your metadata.
  • 2022-06-16 — Apple filed the petition challenging claims 1–21 of the '785 patent (DocketAlarm; Patexia; Unified Patents PTAB data).
  • 2022-10-07 — Patent owner's preliminary response (Paper 6), supported by a Shamos declaration (Ex. 2001).
  • 2023-01-04 — The Board (Judges Droesch, Zecher, Korniczky) instituted review on all challenged claims 1–21 (Patexia; DocketAlarm).
  • 2023-03-30 — Patent owner response (Paper 9); Dr. Shamos's deposition transcript was filed as an exhibit in July 2023 (Ex. 1010).
  • 2024-01-02 — Final Written Decision (Paper 24): "Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable" under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (DocketAlarm; Patexia).
  • 2024-02-22 — Director Review denied (Paper 27) (DocketAlarm).
  • Appeal pending. The FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit; Patexia lists Appeal No. 24-1742 (status: FWD appealed). Current status on that appeal is not verified beyond that listing.
  • Effect on litigation: This IPR ran against a different Fintiv patent than the one asserted in the W.D. Tex. case, so it did not directly dispose of the district court claims; it was part of Apple's broader invalidity campaign against Fintiv's mobile-wallet portfolio.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay. The docket and press coverage indicate venue and scheduling were heavily contested in the W.D. Tex. case, but I do not have verified docket numbers or rulings for Apple's motion-to-transfer or any stay-pending-IPR motion. (The PTAB's 2020 Fintiv denial was premised on the parallel case moving quickly in W.D. Tex., and Apple's later IPR practice cited a pending transfer motion in a different Fintiv-family case.) Flag: verify the transfer/stay motion sequence on PACER if those specifics matter to you.
• Apple's summary judgment of non-infringement (first round). Apple moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims of the '125 patent (ECF No. 270) on multiple grounds, including that Fintiv could not identify any software in the accused products meeting the construed "widget" limitation. The court initially denied the motion without reasoning (per the Federal Circuit's 2025 opinion). Almost two years later, about a month before trial, Apple asked to reargue it (CAFC Op., Fintiv v. Apple, No. 23-2208, slip op. at 4–5).
• 2023-06-14 — Summary judgment granted (second round). On reargument, Judge Albright granted Apple's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, holding Fintiv and its expert, Dr. Michael Shamos, had "failed to identify the claimed widget in the accused products," and cancelled the July 2023 jury trial (Law360, June 14, 2023; memorandum opinion at ECF No. 468, filed 2023-06-28, reported at 2023 WL 4237356; Justia). The court reasoned the record was "devoid of evidence" on the "widget" limitation because Dr. Shamos conceded under oath that no cited source code was "the widget" (ECF 468).
• 2023-06-29 — Albright issued the explanatory opinion (Law360, June 29, 2023), concluding Fintiv pointed to "no facts at all" showing the accused products performed the asserted limitation.

---

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• The court construed "widget" to have its plain and ordinary meaning: "software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface" (Claim Construction Order, ECF No. 86, cited in ECF 468 at 17, 34; CAFC Op. at 4). The court further ruled that a POSITA "would not understand that a widget is a stand-alone application, but rather as code, e.g., a 'plug-in,' that runs within an application" (ECF 468 at 2).
• Neither party challenged this construction on appeal, although the Federal Circuit remarked in a footnote that it "appears unduly broad without specifying that the widget perform any particular functionality" (CAFC Op. at 5 n.2).
• The construction proved dispositive: Apple's winning SJ argument was that, even under that broad construction, Fintiv identified no software constituting a "widget."

---

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2022-06-07 — On the eve of trial (set for late June 2022), Judge Albright postponed the trial, citing the "seriousness of the allegations" in Fintiv's sealed emergency motion accusing Apple of discovery misconduct/evidence-hiding (Law360, June 7, 2022).
• 2022-06-14 — Fintiv publicly accused Apple of withholding key information in "blatant violation" of discovery duties (Law360, June 14, 2022).
• 2022-07-06 — Albright denied Fintiv's sanctions motion against Apple over the alleged evidence hiding (Law360, July 6, 2022). This was a strategic loss for Fintiv; the case then proceeded toward the 2023 SJ disposition.
• 2025 (on remand, pre-trial discovery fight). After the Federal Circuit reversal, Fintiv sought discovery about pre-launch meetings between Apple and Fintiv's predecessor CorFire (2011–2012), including depositions of three individuals (one of whom later became Apple's Director of Apple Pay & Wallet Product Management). Apple resisted; Fintiv moved for sanctions/compulsion and then sought mandamus. The Federal Circuit, in an unusual interlocutory move, ordered Apple to respond to Fintiv's mandamus petition on 2025-07-29 (In re Fintiv, Inc., No. 25-142) (Patently-O, July 29, 2025). On 2025-08-01, the Federal Circuit denied Fintiv's request to delay the August 4 trial (Law360, Aug. 1, 2025).

---

6. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• No trial has ever occurred. The case was disposed of on summary judgment twice — once in Apple's favor (2023, reversed on appeal) and once in Apple's favor again on remand (2025, before trial).
• 2025-08-04 — A jury trial was scheduled to begin before Judge Albright, with jury selection before Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower (Scheduling Order, ECF filed 2025-07-01). The trial was called off after Albright partly cleared Apple and Fintiv elected not to try the remaining claims (Law360, Aug. 4, 2025).
• 2025-08-07 — Final judgment (ECF No. 546). Albright granted-in-part and denied-in-part Apple's renewed summary-judgment motion (Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 544; Order, ECF No. 540), then granted Apple's motion to dismiss with prejudice (ECF No. 543), and entered Final Judgment for Apple: "Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action," all remaining motions denied as moot, case closed administratively (PatSnap, quoting ECF 546; CourtListener docket).
• 2025-08-18 — Albright's memorandum opinion was unsealed, explaining that Fintiv still could not identify a "widget" in Apple Pay/Wallet; his conclusion that Apple's servers were not "widget management components" and that Wallet/Apple Pay were not "mobile wallet applications configured to store a widget" left Fintiv's remaining claims with no evidentiary basis (Law360, Aug. 18, 2025; 9to5Mac, Aug. 19, 2025).
• 2025-08-29 — Apple's fee motion (pending). Apple moved for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing Fintiv engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct by trying to delay its own trial, seeking fees for work dating back to June 2022 (Law360, Sept. 2, 2025: "Apple Seeks Fees, Says Fintiv Tried To 'Avoid' Its Own IP Trial"). Status of that motion: pending as of this writing; not verified as decided.

---

7. Appeal and final disposition / present posture

• 2023-07-21 — Fintiv appealed the 2023 SJ to the Federal Circuit (Notice of Appeal; case No. 23-2208) (CourtListener docket entries; Law360).
• 2025-03-06 — Oral argument before Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stark (CourtListener 23-2208 docket).
• 2025-05-16 — Federal Circuit REVERSED and remanded (nonprecedential opinion by Judge Dyk). The court held that, under the district court's broad "widget" construction, Fintiv proffered sufficient circumstantial evidence — Dr. Shamos's expert testimony on observed user-facing functionality (selecting card art, viewing card details, making transactions) — to create a genuine issue of material fact, and that a patentee need not produce source code to survive SJ (Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2208 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2025); IPWatchdog; Bloomberg Law; Vitallaw; Kasowitz press release; AddyHart release).
• 2025-06-23 — Mandate issued to the W.D. Tex. (CourtListener 23-2208 docket, entry 69).
• On remand (2025-07 through 2025-08): The court set an expedited schedule (FPTC 7/30/2025; jury selection 7/31/2025; trial 8/4/2025). Apple filed a supplemental SJ brief under the mandate (sealed, 2025-07-02). Fintiv filed an emergency motion to continue or compel (sealed, 2025-07-14/15) and a mandamus petition at the Federal Circuit (No. 25-142), which was denied on 2025-08-01.
• Final disposition: Judgment for Apple entered 2025-08-07 — Fintiv takes nothing; remaining claims dismissed with prejudice; case closed (ECF 546). Present posture: (1) Apple's § 285 fee motion pending in W.D. Tex. (filed 2025-08-29); and (2) the parallel IPR2022-01150 FWD appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1742) remains pending. Collaterally, on 2025-08-06 Fintiv filed a new trade-secret and RICO suit against Apple in the Northern District of Georgia arising from the same CorFire/Apple Pay technology allegations (Law360/finanzen.at coverage, Aug. 2025; 9to5Mac, Aug. 19, 2025), which Apple has characterized as an end-run after its Texas loss.

---

Bottom line

Fintiv's seven-year Texas infringement case against Apple over mobile-wallet/Apple Pay technology ended in a complete defense win for Apple: two grants of summary judgment of non-infringement (2023 and 2025), one Federal Circuit reversal and remand (2025), and a final with-prejudice judgment of "take nothing" on 2025-08-07, with Apple now seeking fees. The litigation's enduring legacy, however, is procedural: the parallel IPR on the '125 patent produced IPR2020-00019 — the PTAB's "Fintiv factors" decision that governed discretionary denial of IPR institution for years. Your metadata case, IPR2022-01150 (the '785 patent), proceeded independently: instituted on all 21 claims (2023-01-04), FWD finding some claims unpatentable (2024-01-02), Director Review denied (2024-02-22), and now on appeal at the Federal Circuit (No. 24-1742).

Caveats: Answer/counterclaim dates, any motion-to-transfer/stay rulings, and the current status of the Federal Circuit appeal in No. 24-1742 and of Apple's § 285 fee motion were not verifiable from the sources retrieved; those specifics should be confirmed against PACER (case 1:21-cv-00896-ADA), the CAFC dockets (23-2208, 24-1742, 25-142), and the PTAB's PTACTS portal before relying on them in a filing.

Important framing note

Before listing counsel: this matter is not a district court patent infringement case. Per the case metadata, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2022-01150 is an inter partes review before the PTAB (petition filed June 16, 2022; Final Written Decision Jan. 2, 2024; Director Review denied Feb. 22, 2024). The "plaintiff" analogue in an IPR is the petitioner, Apple Inc. (real party in interest), and the "defendant" analogue is the patent owner, Mozido, Inc. (now Fintiv, Inc.). The counsel of record below is therefore Apple's PTAB petitioner-side counsel. There is no district-court infringement docket in the case metadata, so no local-counsel/infringement-appearance breakdown applies.

Counsel of record for Petitioner Apple Inc. (PTAB, IPR2022-01150)

The Board's Order Denying Director Review (Paper 27, Feb. 22, 2024) lists the following as counsel for petitioner:

Lead counsel

• Andrew S. Ehmke — Lead Counsel for Petitioner (USPTO Reg. No. 50,271)
  • Firm/office: Haynes and Boone, LLP — 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219 (per Paper 19, Sept. 20, 2023; the Oct. 3, 2023 hearing transcript lists the firm at 2801 N. Harwood Street, Suite 2300, Dallas, TX 75201).
  • Note: Haynes Boone IP partner; identified himself as "lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple" at the October 3, 2023 oral hearing and signed the petition-stage filings; also led Apple's related Fintiv/Mozido IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-01149; IPR2023-00398/399).

Backup counsel (per Paper 27, and the certificate of service in Patent Owner's Paper 10 and the Feb. 1, 2024 Director Review email chain):

• Eugene Goryunov — Backup Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm/office: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (hearing transcript address: 2801 N. Harwood St., Suite 2300).
  • Note: PTAB-focused litigator; prepared and presented Apple's petitioner demonstratives in this IPR (Ex. 1011).
• Calmann J. Clements — Backup Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm/office: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Appeared for Apple at the Oct. 3, 2023 oral hearing; IP litigation associate/partner in Haynes Boone's patent group.
• Jonathan Bowser — Backup Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm/office: Haynes and Boone, LLP — Washington, DC office (800 17th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006, per the Paper 10 service list; the hearing transcript caption lists the Dallas address).
  • Note: Appeared for Apple at oral argument; routinely handles PTAB/IPR matters for Haynes Boone.
• Michael S. Parsons — Backup Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm/office: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (email michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com).
  • Note: Named backup counsel in the service certificates throughout the proceeding; Haynes Boone IP/PTAB practitioner.
• Angela Oliver — Backup Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm/office: Haynes and Boone, LLP (email angela.oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com on the service list and Director Review email).
  • Note: Backup counsel of record on the service lists; Haynes Boone IP practitioner.

In-house (signatory, not counsel of record)

• Jeffrey L. Myers — Chief IP Counsel, Apple Inc.
  • Firm/office: Apple Inc. (in-house, Cupertino, CA).
  • Note: Executed Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 1, dated March 22, 2022) appointing the Haynes Boone practitioners associated with Customer No. 27683; not himself an attorney of record before the Board.

Federal Circuit appeal counsel (for completeness)

The Final Written Decision was appealed by Mozido/Fintiv; on appeal Apple is the appellee (not appellant). In Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2024-1742 (Fed. Cir.), Apple was represented by James Lawrence Davis, Jr. (argued; Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA), Fan Zhang (Sheppard Mullin, Washington, DC), James Richard Batchelder (Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA), Christopher M. Bonny (Ropes & Gray, Palo Alto, CA), Douglas Hallward-Driemeier (Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC), and Cassandra B. Roth (Ropes & Gray, New York, NY) — per the Federal Circuit's February 11, 2026 nonprecedential opinion (Justia). This is appellate counsel, distinct from the PTAB counsel of record above.

Sources and caveats

• Counsel lists grounded in: PTAB Paper 19 (Notice of Joint Stipulation, Sept. 20, 2023); Paper 27 (Order Denying Director Review, Feb. 22, 2024, "For PETITIONER" block); the Oct. 3, 2023 oral hearing transcript (Paper 23); Paper 1 (Power of Attorney); Paper 10 (service certificate); and the Fed. Cir. opinion in No. 2024-1742 (via Justia/Docket Alarm).
• I did not verify individual attorney bios beyond the record; the "one-line notes" are limited to roles actually documented in this and the sibling Fintiv IPRs (IPR2022-01149, IPR2023-00398, IPR2023-00399), which show the same Haynes Boone team handling Apple's campaign.
• If you actually intended a district-court infringement case involving these parties and the '785 patent (e.g., the parallel Mozido/Fintiv v. Apple district-court litigation), the metadata does not include such a case, and I did not find a matching docket for this exact caption; tell me the court and case number and I can pull that docket separately.

Counsel of Record — Fintiv, Inc. (Patent Owner / "Defendant")

A framing note on who the "defendant" is. This matter is an inter partes review, not a district-court infringement suit. Under the case metadata (Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2022-01150), Fintiv, Inc. is the defendant party; before the Board, Fintiv's predecessor/owner Mozido, Inc. is the patent owner (Fintiv is the real party in interest, and the record later captions the owner as Mozido, Inc.). In the parallel W.D. Tex. case (Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00896-ADA), the roles are inverted — Fintiv is plaintiff and Apple is defendant. The answer below covers Fintiv/Mozido's counsel of record in the IPR, the Director-Review phase, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the related district case.

1. PTAB counsel of record (IPR2022-01150)

The patent owner's appearances were made via Mandatory Notices (Paper 4, filed July 25, 2022), Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) (Paper 5, July 27, 2022), an Updated Mandatory Notice (June 2023), and an Updated Power of Attorney (Oct. 3, 2023) — the latter adding Volpe Koenig attorneys as backup counsel (DocketAlarm docket; Justia patent-file listings).

Lead counsel

• Jonathan K. Waldrop (USPTO Reg. No. 50,334) — Lead counsel for patent owner. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200, Redwood Shores, CA 94065. Waldrop is the recurring lead IPR and district-court counsel for Fintiv across the Apple–Fintiv wave of proceedings (including sister IPRs such as IPR2022-01149 and the W.D. Tex. litigation); he signed the Patent Owner's Response and Sur-Reply and is listed as patent-owner counsel on the Board's Order Denying Director Review (Paper 27, Feb. 22, 2024). He also appeared on the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2024-1742).

Backup counsel of record

• John W. Downing (Reg. No. 60,326) — Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA. Appeared on the patent-owner filings, the joint stipulation service list (Paper 19), and the CAFC appeal.
• Marcus A. Barber — Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA. Backup counsel in the IPR; also Fintiv's designated contact in related matters and on the CAFC appeal.
• Heather S. Kim — Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA (also W.D. Tex. and CAFC).
• Thuc Minh Nguyen — Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA (also W.D. Tex. and CAFC).
• Jeeaca An — Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY (also listed as "Kasowitz LLP" on the appeal). She transmitted the Patent Owner's Request for Director Review by email dated Feb. 1, 2024 (Ex. 3100, Paper 25).
• Brandon R. Theiss (Reg. No. 70,507) — Volpe Koenig, 30 S. 17th Street, Suite 1800, Philadelphia, PA. Added as backup counsel in 2023; served on patent-owner filings per Paper 19 (Sept. 20, 2023) and reflected on Paper 27.
• Daniel H. Golub (Reg. No. 33,701) — Volpe Koenig, Philadelphia, PA. Added as backup counsel alongside Theiss.

Caveat: The exact lead/backup designation in the original Papers 4–5 is behind DocketAlarm's paywall; the composition above is corroborated by the publicly visible service blocks on Paper 19 and Paper 27, the Justia listing of the Oct. 3, 2023 Updated Power of Attorney, and the CAFC brief/opinion counsel list. Patent owner's expert was Dr. Michael I. Shamos (not counsel; CMU expert-witness CV, entry 338).

2. Federal Circuit appeal counsel (Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2024-1742)

From the Federal Circuit's Feb. 11, 2026 Rule 36 affirmance (Justia):

• Meredith Leigh Martin Addy — AddyHart P.C., Atlanta, GA — argued for appellant Mozido; lead appellate counsel.
• Charles A. Pannell III — AddyHart P.C. (Atlanta).
• Benjamin Cappel — AddyHart P.C. (Chicago).
• Jeeaca An — Kasowitz LLP, New York, NY.
• Marcus Barber, John Downing, Heather Kim, Thuc Minh Nguyen, Jonathan K. Waldrop — Kasowitz (San Francisco/Redwood Shores, CA).

(For completeness: appellee Apple was argued by James Lawrence Davis, Jr., Sheppard Mullin, Menlo Park, with Fan Zhang (Sheppard Mullin, DC) and James R. Batchelder, Christopher M. Bonny, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, and Cassandra B. Roth (Ropes & Gray).)

3. Related W.D. Tex. litigation counsel (Fintiv v. Apple, No. 1:21-cv-00896-ADA)

The same Kasowitz team carried the Texas infringement suit, which ended in final judgment for Apple on Aug. 7, 2025. Per the W.D. Tex. docket (DocketAlarm Ex. 1021 in IPR2022-00285; CAFC briefs in No. 23-2208):

• Marc E. Kasowitz (pro hac vice; lead trial counsel), Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York, NY.
• Jonathan K. Waldrop, Darcy L. Jones, John W. Downing, Marcus A. Barber, Heather S. Kim, Jack Shaw, Thuc Minh Nguyen — Kasowitz, Redwood Shores, CA.
• Paul G. Williams — Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Atlanta, GA (local to the Georgia/regional market; admitted in the W.D. Tex.).
• Shelley Ivan, Trevor J. Welch — Kasowitz, New York.
• G. Blake Thompson — filed the initial appearance for Fintiv (Texas local counsel).

Notable experience highlights (well-sourced)

• Waldrop has been Fintiv's lead counsel in the broader Apple–Fintiv IPR campaign (Unified Patents PTAB portal lists Kasowitz as patent-owner counsel across the family, including IPR2022-01150; related IPRs IPR2023-00398/00399 and IPR2022-01149), placing him at the center of the NHK-Fintiv discretionary-denial jurisprudence that this very dispute lineage spawned.
• Marc Kasowitz is the founding partner of Kasowitz Benson Torres and took over as lead trial counsel in the Texas case (later filings reflect his August 2025 trial conflict, per the July 2025 PatentlyO-published petition).
• Addy is a well-known IP appellate/IPR practitioner who has argued numerous Federal Circuit appeals; she took the lead on Mozido's appeal in 2024-1742.
• Theiss and Golub (Volpe Koenig) are a Philadelphia IP boutique's litigators added to the IPR record in late 2023.

Bottom line: Fintiv/Mozido was represented in the IPR by Kasowitz Benson Torres (Waldrop leading, with Downing, Barber, Kim, Nguyen, and An), joined by Volpe Koenig (Theiss, Golub) as backup counsel; on appeal, AddyHart P.C. led with Kasowitz continuing. No filings relevant to counsel appear sealed, and no separate "local counsel" designation exists in the PTAB context (the USPTO registration requirement displaces it; Texas local counsel applied only in the district-court track).