Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.

I'll research this case across the docket, district court record, and Federal Circuit materials.

Let me dig into the district court docket, RFCyber's corporate background, and the outcome of the Waco case.

Now let me check what happened after the Waco case was transferred to N.D. Cal., and whether the parties settled.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. The Federal Circuit caption reverses the district-court alignment: the underlying suit was RFCyber Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), and it was Apple that appealed the PTAB's loss to 2023-2396. RFCyber Corp. is a small, non-practicing patent holder — a Texas corporation that listed its place of business as 600 Columbus Avenue, Suite 106, Waco, Texas, in the operative complaint (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 18, filed Dec. 2, 2021), despite the portfolio's Silicon Valley/Shenzhen lineage. The asserted family names Liang Seng Koh, Hsin Pan, Xiangzhen Xie, Futong Cho and Fuliang Cho as inventors, and several patents were co-assigned at issue to Rich House Global Technology Ltd. (Shenzhen) and RFCyber Corp. (Fremont, CA); the '218 and '855 patents later show up in USPTO records as assigned to Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management LLP. RFCyber markets itself as "a pioneer in mobile and electronic payment technology" (Plaintiff's Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 1, ECF No. 54, May 10, 2022), but its conduct — no products, a Waco storefront address, and a licensing/litigation program run through Fabricant LLP — is that of a classic patent assertion entity. Apple Inc. is the accused operating company, and the accused functionality is its consumer payments platform.

Accused technology. RFCyber targeted Apple Pay, launched October 2014, and the broader Apple Wallet stack: "at least all iPhones and Apple watches running or containing Apple Wallet, [and] Apple servers providing functionality related thereto," with infringement charts built around NFC/MST contactless card emulation in a secure element (Appendix C, Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787, ECF No. 94-2). The complaint alleged direct infringement under § 271(a) plus induced and contributory infringement based on Apple's user manuals, tutorials and marketing, and sought willfulness based on a 2016 LogicPatents broker outreach that Apple declined (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15–24). Six patents were asserted in the district court: the '218 patent (8,118,218, "Providing Electronic Purse") — a phone with a smart card pre-loaded with an emulator plus an e-purse applet, personalized over a two-layer secure channel to an external security authentication module (SAM);

I'll research this case thoroughly across district court docket, PTAB, and Federal Circuit sources.

Let me dig into the district court docket for the underlying case, RFCyber v. Apple, No. 6:21-cv-00916 (W.D. Tex.).

Now let me trace what happened after the W.D. Tex. transfer order and whether the district case settled.

RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. — Litigation Chronology (underlying district court) and Fed. Cir. No. 2023-2396

Important framing note. The Federal Circuit case in your metadata (23-2396) is not an appeal from the infringement trial court. It is a PTAB appeal — "Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-00412" (the '787 IPR). The infringement action itself is RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright). The chronology below tracks both, in order.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Note: the complaint followed RFCyber's August 2020 campaign against Google (2:20-cv-00274), then Samsung and LG (2

I'll research the docket and counsel for this appeal.

Let me pull the Federal Circuit docket sheet and confirm the appearances.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff/Appellant — Apple Inc., No. 2023-2396

Alignment caveat up front: Despite the caption, Apple is not a district-court plaintiff in this matter. No. 2023-2396 is Apple's appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp., IPR2022-00412 (the '787 patent), where the Board found Apple had not met its burden — i.e., Apple was the losing petitioner. Apple is therefore the Appellant below (and the "plaintiff" side in the case metadata provided). RFCyber, the patent owner, appeared as Appellee.

Docket basis

Apple's only appearance in the appeal is a single Entry of Appearance:

• Doc. 6 (Oct. 2, 2023; ECF No. 953818) — "Entry of Appearance for James L. Davis, Jr.; Douglas Hallward-Driemeier; James R. Batchelder; Christopher M. Bonny; Brian P. Lebow as counsel for Appellant Apple Inc." (Patexia docket listing; mirror of the Federal Circuit docket)
• All substantive Apple filings were signed by James Davis — the motion to extend (Doc. 17, Jan. 12, 2024), the FRAP 42(b) voluntary dismissal motion (Doc. 20, Feb. 2, 2024), and the second extension motion (Doc. 21, Feb. 13, 2024).
• The appeal was dismissed and Apple withdrawn from the consolidated companion appeal by order of Feb. 21, 2024 (Doc. 23), Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp., No. 2023-2396 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 21, 2024) (Taranto, J., on motion) — CAFC order PDF. No merits brief was ever filed in 23-2396, so no brief caption or oral-argument line-up exists for Apple.

The attorneys

No in-house Apple attorney appears on the Federal Circuit docket for 23-2396, and the Federal Circuit does not use local counsel, so no local-counsel entry exists.

Related counsel context (defense side, for completeness)

RFCyber was represented by Fabricant LLP — Vincent J. Rubino, III; Alfred R. Fabricant; Peter Lambrianakos; Richard M. Cowell (Doc. 2, Oct. 2, 2023) — the same team that argued and won affirmance in the companion appeal RFCYber Corp. v. Stewart, No. 2023-2418 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2025) (nonprecedential, Chen, J.).

Sourcing limits / things I could not verify

• Lead-counsel designation: The Federal Circuit's EOA form lists counsel without expressly labeling "lead." I have inferred Davis as lead from his status as the sole signatory on Apple's motions and from his being the Ropes & Gray partner who argues Apple's Federal Circuit appeals. The EOA PDF itself (Doc. 6) is on PACER and I did not read the form's "lead counsel" box directly — treat the designation as inferred, not quoted.
• PTAB-side counsel: I did not independently confirm the appearance list in IPR2022-00412 (the decision under review). Ropes & Gray handled Apple's § 103 challenge in that IPR, but the PTAB EOA was not retrieved, so the exact PTAB roster (and whether additional firms such as Erise IP appeared there) is unconfirmed.
• Adam Prescott Seitz: Justia's docket page for 23-2396 displays "Adam Prescott Seitz" in a "Represented By" field with no clear party attribution. He does not appear on Apple's EOA (Doc. 6) or in the Patexia document list. I would treat that Justia field as a data artifact or defense-side/related-matter entry, not as Apple's counsel. Do not rely on it without pulling the PACER docket.
• No sealed material is at issue: no sealing orders appear in 23-2396; the record is thin because the appeal was dismissed ~5 months after docketing, before Apple's opening brief was due.

I'll research the docket and counsel for RFCyber Corp. in this appeal.