Defendant
1 case as defendant.
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., commonly known as PNC, is a publicly traded financial services corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Traded under the ticker NYSE: PNC, it is one of the largest diversified financial services institutions in the United States. The company's origins trace back to the Pittsburgh Trust and Savings Company, founded in 1845. As of early 2026, PNC had approximately 58,000 employees and reported assets of $603 billion.
PNC operates as a major operating company with a wide range of financial products and services. Its primary subsidiary, PNC Bank, provides retail and business banking to consumers and small businesses, including checking, savings, credit cards, mortgage loans, and auto loans. For larger clients, its Corporate & Institutional Banking division offers treasury management, asset-based lending, real estate finance, and capital markets services. The company also has a significant Asset Management Group, providing wealth management, private banking, and institutional investment services.
From a patent litigation perspective, PNC is an operating company that has been a defendant in patent suits. The provided data shows PNC as a defendant in one case, Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., filed in the District of Delaware in 2014. This defensive posture is typical for a large technology-implementing operating company that is targeted by patent assertion entities. The case aligns with a common pattern where financial services companies are sued over technologies they use in their operations, such as mobile banking or data processing.
The single tracked case against PNC was filed by Cyberfone Systems, LLC. Cyberfone has been characterized by industry sources as a non-practicing entity (NPE) that has filed numerous lawsuits against companies across various sectors, often asserting patents related to mobile and data transaction technologies. The case against PNC is consistent with this broader assertion campaign. The litigation was filed in the District of Delaware, a common venue for patent disputes.