CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC

CardWare Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against Google LLC in the Western District of Texas, case number 7:24-cv-00278. The plaintiff, CardWare Inc., presents itself as an Austin, Texas-based operating company focused on "SmartTokenization™" and "OpenToken™" technologies for secure NFC payment solutions, with products like "Card+ Pay" and "Card+ Cash." However, the company has also been identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) by Unified Patents in prior litigation, and it maintains an active campaign of patent suits against major technology companies. Google LLC, the defendant, is a global technology leader, and the accused products are Google-branded electronic devices that incorporate Google Pay and Google Wallet functionalities, such as Google Pixel smartphones and smartwatches, which utilize NFC payment technology.

The core patent asserted in this case, as specifically requested, is U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538, with CardWare Inc. alleging infringement of claims 1-30. This patent is part of a larger portfolio asserted by CardWare, which also includes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,339,520, 10,810,579, and 11,620,634, all generally relating to "SmartTokenization™ technology" for enabling payment cards with enhanced security and usage features for in-store and online mobile device transactions. The case was filed on November 4, 2024, in the Midland/Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas and is presided over by Judge David Counts. The venue itself is notable, as Google's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California was denied, a decision influenced by CardWare's argument of a strong local presence and evidence in Texas. A jury trial is currently scheduled for May 28, 2026.

This litigation is notable for its industry impact, as it targets fundamental NFC payment technologies critical to mobile commerce, affecting how major players like Google implement and offer their digital payment services. The ambiguous nature of CardWare Inc., operating with characteristics of both a product company and a PAE, is also a key feature of the case. Furthermore, the asserted patents, including the '538 patent, are subject to significant validity challenges through multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) at the PTAB. For instance, [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) has filed IPRs specifically challenging the '538 patent, while Google LLC has also initiated an IPR against another patent in the asserted family, indicating a robust legal battle over patent validity.

The patent infringement litigation of CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC (Case No. 7:24-cv-00278, W.D. Tex.) involves US Patent No. 11,176,538, related to NFC payment technology. The case is currently active, with a jury trial scheduled for May 28, 2026.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

• Complaint Filing (2024-11-04): CardWare Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
• Motion to Transfer Venue: Google LLC filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California, which was denied by the court. The specific date of this denial is not publicly available through general web searches, but the denial confirms the case remained in the Western District of Texas.
• Claim Construction (Markman) (August 29, 2025): While a direct Markman order for CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC (7:24-cv-00278) could not be definitively found through general web searches, a Claim Construction Order addressing US Patent No. 11,176,538, among other patents, was issued on August 29, 2025, in a related case, CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc. (1:25-cv-00446-ADA). This order followed a claim construction hearing held on August 28, 2025, with preliminary constructions provided on August 27, 2025. It is common for parties in parallel litigation to adopt or refer to constructions from related cases.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (IPR2023-00219): Before the Google litigation, [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition (IPR2023-00219) against US Patent No. 11,176,538 on November 27, 2022. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of this IPR on June 12, 2023, meaning the PTAB did not proceed with a full review of the patent's validity.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (IPR2025-01150): Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition (IPR2025-01150) challenging claims 19-30 of US Patent No. 11,176,538 on June 24, 2025. Institution of this IPR was discretionarily denied by the Director of the USPTO on November 20, 2025. This denial prevents the PTAB from reviewing the patent's validity based on Apple's petition.
• Parallel USPTO Re-examination Proceeding (Application #90/016,123): US Patent No. 11,176,538 is also undergoing a re-examination, with application #90/016,123 filed on April 2, 2026. As of April 10, 2026, the status was "Reexam Preprocessing Completed -- Released to Assigned GAU." It is not clear whether a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of this re-examination has been filed or ruled upon.
• Discovery Milestones: No specific strategic discovery milestones are publicly available through general web searches.
• Trial Schedule: A jury trial in the Western District of Texas is scheduled to commence on May 28, 2026. Given the current date of May 26, 2026, the trial has not yet begun, and no verdict has been reached.
• Present Posture: The case remains active with trial pending. There is no information available regarding settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal at this stage.

Specific dates for Google's answer and counterclaims in the district court case, as well as the exact date of the motion to transfer venue denial, were not readily available through public web searches.

Despite the scheduling of a jury trial for May 28, 2026, and the case's targeting of fundamental NFC payment technologies, traditional news and analysis coverage specifically focused on CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC (7:24-cv-00278) remains limited. Most available information comes from legal intelligence platforms and court filings themselves, rather than in-depth reporting from major media or specialized intellectual property outlets that typically cover significant patent litigation outcomes. As of July 8, 2026, there is no readily available press coverage detailing the outcome of the scheduled trial, any verdict, or a settlement in this specific case.

Initial reports from legal analytics platforms, such as RPX Empower on November 8, 2024, confirmed that CardWare Inc. initiated its NFC payments campaign against Google, alongside a separate suit against Apple, in the Western District of Texas. These reports highlighted that CardWare accused Google's smartphones and smartwatches, particularly those supporting Google Pay and Google Wallet, of infringing patents related to Near Field Communication (NFC) technology for wireless transactions. The lawsuit specifically alleged willful infringement and sought damages and a reasonable royalty for Google's use of the patented technology, according to the complaint filed on November 4, 2024. Court documents further indicate that CardWare put Google on notice of the alleged infringement around October 10, 2023.

A significant procedural development noted in court records, rather than press reports, was a Report and Recommendation issued on August 15, 2025, recommending the denial of Google LLC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In this motion, Google contended that certain claims, including claim 19 of a related patent ('579, also asserted in the case), were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing they were directed to an abstract idea. The court, however, recommended denying the motion, deeming it inappropriate to decide such factual disputes at the pleading stage. While specific details regarding damages sought were not widely reported beyond the initial complaint's request for damages and a reasonable royalty, the lawsuit targets core mobile payment functionalities that are critical to Google's ecosystem. The limited public reporting on the case, especially concerning its progression past the scheduled trial date, suggests that it may have either concluded without public fanfare, been stayed, or is still ongoing with little external media attention.

Sources

• rpxcorp.com
• uspto.gov
• govinfo.gov

CardWare Inc. is represented by attorneys from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Findlay Craft, P.C. in CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC (7:24-cv-00278).

The counsel of record for CardWare Inc. includes:

• Matthew G. Berkowitz (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Berkowitz is involved in high-stakes intellectual property litigation and has represented CardWare Inc. as respondent counsel in related PTAB proceedings.

• Patrick R. Colsher (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Colsher is listed as counsel for CardWare Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Yue (Joy) Wang (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Silicon Valley, CA (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Wang is listed as counsel for CardWare Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Caroline M. Walters (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Walters is listed as counsel for CardWare Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Navid Cyrus Bayar (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Bayar is listed as counsel for CardWare Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Khue V. Hoang (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Hoang is listed as counsel for CardWare Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Leaf Williams (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (based on firm website experience, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Williams is listed as counsel for CardWare Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Eric H. Findlay (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Experience Note: Findlay Craft, P.C. is a Texas-based firm with extensive experience in intellectual property disputes in the Eastern District of Texas and other Texas courts, often serving as local or trial counsel.

• Brian Craft (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Experience Note: Craft is a trial lawyer with Findlay Craft, P.C., a firm known for its litigation and trial representation in intellectual property and commercial matters in Texas.

The defendant, Google LLC, is represented by a team of attorneys from multiple law firms, including Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and K&L Gates. While a comprehensive list of every attorney of record requires direct PACER access, the following counsel have appeared in filings or are routinely involved in Google's patent litigation in the Western District of Texas:

Counsel of Record for Google LLC:

• Robert Stone (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Silicon Valley, CA, and Austin, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Robert Stone is a well-established patent litigator in Silicon Valley and has first-chaired numerous patent disputes. His firm, Quinn Emanuel, has a strong IP litigation practice, with over 80% of its IP cases involving patents, and frequently represents leading technology companies like Google. The firm has a local presence in Texas, including an Austin office.

• Landon A. Smith (Associate Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Landon Smith focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He has experience counseling clients at all stages of patent prosecution and in technology-focused transactions, and has worked on disputes involving a wide range of technologies.

• Evan Pearson (Associate Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Evan Pearson's practice includes intellectual property litigation. Notably, he previously clerked for Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, where he assisted with numerous hearings and trials in patent cases across various industries. He is also a member of Judge Albright's Working Group, which provides input on rules for patent proceedings before the judge.

• Artoush Varshosaz (Local Counsel / Of Counsel)

  • Firm: K&L Gates
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: K&L Gates has a well-regarded commercial litigation and IP litigation department in Dallas and is active in district courts, including the Western District of Texas, and the PTAB. Artoush Varshosaz is a Practice Area Leader for Litigation in Dallas.

• Erica Benites Giese (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP
  • Office Location: San Antonio, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Jackson Walker is a prominent Texas firm often serving as local counsel in patent cases in the Western District of Texas. Erica Benites Giese is listed on dockets as counsel for Google in other WDTX cases.

Google also utilizes in-house counsel for intellectual property litigation. While specific names for this case were not readily available in public search results, Google often has "Associate Patent Litigation Counsel" who manage all aspects of IP litigation, define strategy, review filings, and partner with outside counsel.

It's important to note that specific roles like "lead counsel" or "of counsel" are often fluid and may not be explicitly stated in every public docket entry, but are inferred based on firm prominence, attorney experience, and typical practice in WDTX. The listed attorneys and firms are consistently associated with Google's patent defense efforts, particularly in the Western District of Texas.