Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Case Overview & Background

The parties and the technology. This Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1742) is the tail end of a seven-year patent war over Apple Pay and Apple Wallet. The appellant/patent owner, Mozido, Inc., is a small Texas fintech founded in 2010 that operated a mobile-cloud-commerce platform; in December 2014 it acquired CorFire, a mobile-wallet unit of South Korea's SK C&C, along with a portfolio of mobile-payment patents, and after the SEC sued founder Michael Liberty for investor fraud in 2018 the company re-branded as Fintiv, Inc. — the record uses the names interchangeably (the PTAB/CAFC captions say "Mozido, Inc."; Fintiv is the real party in interest and was the plaintiff in the underlying infringement suit) (Daily Caller; Fox Business; Shamos expert page, CMU). Apple Inc., the appellee, is the accused infringer through its Apple Pay and Apple Wallet services on iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac — the products at issue in the underlying district litigation. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,189,785, "Debit network routing selection using a scannable code" (filed Aug. 23, 2013 as App. 13/974,375; granted Nov. 17, 2015; assigned to Mozido, inventors "Liberty et al."): a mobile computer system generates a QR/scannable code embedding a debit-network routing selection — a user-preferred network, a provider-preferred network, and a selected network, plus user debit-account data and rewards identification — and sends the code to a payment-processing system (cloud-based or at the point of sale) (Golden wiki summary of '785; Houh expert declaration, Ex. 1003).

Procedural posture and the path to the Federal Circuit. Although the case metadata frames this as infringement litigation, 24-1742 is formally Mozido's appeal from a PTAB inter partes review, not from a district judgment. Apple petitioned for IPR2022-01150 on June 16, 2022, challenging all claims 1–21 of the '785 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Easterly (U.S. 2011/0208659) in view of Luz (U.S. 2013/0346291) (DocketAlarm IPR2022-01150 docket). The Board (APJs Kristen L. Droesch [author], Michael R. Zecher, and Paul J. Korniczky) instituted review on Jan. 4, 2023, heard argument Nov. 17, 2023, and on Jan. 2, 2024 issued a Final Written Decision finding most challenged claims unpatentable while holding claims 5, 12, and 19 patentable; Director Vidal denied Mozido's Director Review request on Feb. 22, 2024 (Patexia summary; Shamos expert page). Mozido appealed, and on Feb. 11, 2026 the Federal Circuit (per curiam: Circuit Judges Lourie and Hughes and Chief District Judge Kleeh of the N.D.W. Va., sitting by designation) entered a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment summarily affirming — after oral argument on Feb. 6, 2026 — with no substantive opinion (Justia, 24-1742 judgment; CAFC Rule 36 judgment). The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction over this PTAB appeal is exclusive under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319, which is why the appeal landed there rather than in a regional circuit. The IPR was one of a pair: the parallel IPR2022-01149 invalidated the related '692 patent, and Mozido's parallel appeal (No. 24-1741) was likewise Rule 36-affirmed on Dec. 8, 2025 (Justia, 24-1741 judgment).

Why the case matters. This appeal is a defensive-IPR footnote to a landmark NPE-style campaign. The underlying suit — Fintiv v. Apple, filed December 2018 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright (originally 6:18-cv-00372-ADA, later transferred to the Austin Division as 1:21-cv-00896-ADA) — asserted three patents against Apple Pay/Wallet: the '785, the '692, and U.S. 8,843,125 (mobile wallet credential management). The PTAB invalidations of the '785 (Jan. 2024) and '692 (Dec. 2023) knocked two of the three patents out of the case, leaving only the '125 (ipfray). The W.D. Tex. litigation is also the namesake of the PTAB's controversial "Fintiv factors" doctrine on discretionary denial of IPR in view of parallel district litigation (Apple v. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019), and Apple's unsuccessful bid to escape Judge Albright's court produced the Federal Circuit's mandamus decision in In re Apple, No. 2020-104 (Dec. 20, 2019) — emblematic of the venue battles that made W.D. Tex. a patent-litigation hotspot (Law360 case page; In re Apple opinion). Ultimately the campaign collapsed: after the Federal Circuit in May 2025 reversed Albright's summary judgment on the '125 patent, Albright again cleared Apple in August 2025, Fintiv dismissed its remaining claims with prejudice, final judgment for Apple entered Aug. 7, 2025, and Apple then moved for attorney fees (PatSnap case summary; 9to5Mac). The Rule 36 affirmance here thus leaves the PTAB's Easterly + Luz obviousness analysis undisturbed without precedential guidance, cementing the invalidation of the '785 patent. One caveat: characterizations of Mozido/Fintiv differ — Unified Patents lists Mozido as an "operating company," while Apple-oriented press has called it a "patent troll" — and I found no independent reporting (Law360, IPWatchdog, etc.) specifically analyzing the 24-1742 Rule 36 affirmance, so details beyond the docket entries and the sources cited above (including the exact split of claims invalidated, which comes from Dr. Shamos's public expert-page listing and DocketAlarm) should be treated as record-based rather than press-corroborated.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Fintiv/Mozido v. Apple (the '785 Patent Campaign and Its Underlying Infringement Litigation)

Scope note. Although the metadata frames "Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 24-1742" as the case, that docket is formally the Federal Circuit appeal of the PTAB's IPR2022-01150 final written decision on the '785 patent. The "patent infringement litigation" itself is Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., W.D. Tex. (originally 6:18-cv-00372-ADA, Waco Div.; finally 1:21-cv-00896-ADA, Austin Div.), which ran from December 2018 to final judgment on 2025-08-07. The two are intimately linked: the IPR invalidations of the '785 and '692 patents stripped two of the three asserted patents out of the district case, leaving only the '125 patent for the merits disposition. Timeline below; items I could not confirm from public sources are flagged.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2018–2020)

• 2018-12 (exact day not confirmed): Fintiv, Inc. sued Apple in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:18-cv-00372-ADA) accusing Apple Pay and Apple Wallet on iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 ("mobile wallet and credential management"). (Fed. Cir. 23-2208 opinion; IPWatchdog; Vitallaw summary)
• 2019-04-09: Fintiv filed its First Amended Complaint (Doc. 28), identifying the '125 patent and Apple Pay/Wallet as the accused functionality (CourtListener/Unified Patents docket, 1:19-cv-01238). Apple answered with a jury demand and defenses; its First Amended Answer was entered 2020-01-30 (CourtListener docket). I found no evidence in the public record of affirmative counterclaims (e.g., DJ invalidity) — Apple's pleadings appear to have been defenses plus a jury demand; flag as unconfirmed.
• 2020: Fintiv further amended (Second Amended Complaint, 2020; a motion to file a Third Amended Complaint was pending in 2020) (CourtListener docket). By mid-2022 the operative pleadings also asserted the '692 and '785 patents — the trigger for Apple's June 2022 IPR petitions on those two patents (see § 7).
• 2019-12-19 (per docket entry): The original 2018 case was renumbered/docketed in the Austin Division as 1:19-cv-01238-ADA after Albright's intra-district transfer (Doc. 73, signed 2019-09-13; Fed. Cir. order re In re Apple entered 2019-12-30 on that docket) (In re Apple opinion below, Doc. 73; CourtListener entry 89). The operative docket for the final phase (2021–2025) became 1:21-cv-00896-ADA (Austin Div.). I could not confirm from public sources the exact mechanism (NDCA round-trip vs. re-docketing) by which 1:21-cv-00896-ADA came to be the active docket; the Fed. Cir.'s 23-2208 opinion treats W.D. Tex. as the trial court throughout.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Transfer (2019–2021): Albright granted Apple's motion in part on 2019-09-13, transferring Waco → Austin but denying the N.D. Cal. transfer (Doc. 73). On 2019-12-20, the Federal Circuit granted Apple's mandamus petition in In re Apple, No. 2020-104, 979 F.3d 1332, holding Albright clearly abused his discretion and directing transfer to the Northern District of California (In re Apple opinion). By 2021 the case was again pending before Albright in Austin (1:21-cv-00896-ADA). In September 2021 Albright ordered an intra-district re-transfer Austin → Waco (citing COVID trial suspensions); on 2021-10-01 the Federal Circuit again granted Apple mandamus, vacating that re-transfer (IPWatchdog, Oct. 2021).
• Motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)): Apple moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 2020-02-13 (ECF 93 in 1:19-cv-01238); Fintiv opposed on 2020-03-02 (CourtListener docket). Outcome not confirmed in public sources.
• Stays: No stay pending IPR is documented in my sources. The first IPR on the '125 (IPR2020-00019) was denied institution in May 2020 (see § 7), and the later IPRs on the '692/'785 (2022–2024) ran parallel to, rather than stayed, the district case.
• Summary judgment (the recurring battleground):
  • Apple moved for SJ of noninfringement on four independent grounds (ECF 270); Albright initially denied the motion without reasoning (circa 2021) (Fed. Cir. 23-2208 opinion).
  • On reargument, Albright granted SJ of noninfringement on 2023-06-21 — Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-CV-896, 2023 WL 4237356 — holding that Fintiv and expert Dr. Michael Shamos failed to identify any actual "widget" in Apple's accused products (Fed. Cir. 23-2208 opinion; CourtListener opinion).
  • 2025-05-16: Federal Circuit reversed and remanded (No. 23-2208, nonprecedential). The panel held that under the district court's own broad "widget" construction, Fintiv's circumstantial evidence — Dr. Shamos's testimony about user-facing functionality (card art, card selection, transactions) — was enough for a jury to find the widget limitation, even without pinpoint source code (Fed. Cir. opinion; Kasowitz press release).
  • 2025-08-04 / 08-07: On remand, Albright again granted-in-part Apple's SJ of noninfringement — this time as to claims 18, 20, 23, 24, and 25 of the '125 — and denied-in-part as to the rest (ECF 540, 544). The unsealed August 7 memorandum opinion held that Apple's servers were not "widget management components" and Wallet/Apple Pay were not "mobile wallet applications configured to store a widget" (Patently-O, Aug. 2025; 9to5Mac, Aug. 19, 2025; Final Judgment, ECF 546).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2019-11-07: Markman hearing and tutorials held before Judge Albright (Unified Patents docket, 1:19-cv-01238). Disputed terms included "wallet management applet (WMA)" (reply claim construction brief filed 2019-10-17, Doc. 77) (DocketAlarm/PTAB exhibit).
• The court construed "widget" as its plain-and-ordinary meaning: "software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface" (J.A. 66–67). Neither party challenged that construction on appeal; the Federal Circuit noted it "appears unduly broad without specifying that the widget perform any particular functionality" (Fed. Cir. 23-2208 opinion; Lexology/Fed. Cir. IP Blog preview). Exact date of the written claim construction order not confirmed in my sources.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2020-02: Source-code discovery disputes erupted (letter briefs re source code; telephonic discovery hearing 2020-02-24) (CourtListener docket).
• 2022-06-13: Fintiv filed a discovery-driven motion (Doc. 435) seeking leave to amend its complaint and to compel discovery concerning 2011–2012 CorFire–Apple meetings (CorFire being Fintiv's predecessor), tied to copying, indirect infringement, willfulness, and credibility (Fintiv mandamus petition exhibit, PatentlyO). Apple's response and the district court's resolution were contested into 2025.
• 2025-07-29 → 08-01: Days before trial, Fintiv petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus (In re Fintiv, Inc., No. 25-142) to halt the 2025-08-04 trial over the unresolved CorFire-meeting discovery (depositions of three witnesses, including a former CorFire employee who became Apple's Director of Apple Pay & Wallet Product Management). The Federal Circuit ordered Apple to respond (2025-07-29) but denied the writ on 2025-08-01, refusing to move the trial date (Patently-O; Law360, Aug. 1, 2025).

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

• Trial settings: A trial was set for October 2021 but did not proceed (COVID-era postponements and the transfer skirmishes) (IPWatchdog, Oct. 2021). A later trial was set for 2025-08-04; jury selection had begun when Albright acted (9to5Mac, Aug. 8, 2025).
• 2025-08-04: With the partial SJ grant (claims 18, 20, 23–25) and the jury empaneled, Fintiv filed a Notice of Dismissal of the remaining claims (11, 13, 14) (ECF 541); Albright granted Apple's Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice (ECF 542/543), cancelled the trial, and reserved Apple's right to seek costs and fees (Dismissal order, CCH; Law360, Aug. 4, 2025). No verdict was ever reached — after 2,421 days, the case ended on SJ/dismissal without a jury decision (PatSnap).
• 2025-08-07: Albright entered Final Judgment (ECF 546): judgment for Apple, "Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action," all other motions denied as moot, case closed administratively, jurisdiction retained for post-judgment orders (Final Judgment; Patently-O). The accompanying memorandum opinion (ECF 544) was later unsealed (reported 2025-08-18/19), explaining that Fintiv still could not identify any "widget" in Apple Pay/Wallet (9to5Mac).
• Post-trial fees: On 2025-08-29 Apple moved for attorneys' fees under § 285, arguing Fintiv unreasonably tried to delay/avoid its own trial, seeking fees for work since June 2022 (Law360, Sept. 2, 2025). Status of that fee motion as of 2026-08-30 is not confirmed in my sources.

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — final disposition & present posture

• Final disposition (district): Final judgment for Apple, 2025-08-07 (above). Fintiv stated it would appeal again (Patently-O); as of late October 2025 press reported Fintiv's appeal of Albright's August 2025 dismissal was pending at the Federal Circuit (LegalEra, Oct. 28, 2025). The new appeal's docket number is not confirmed in my sources.
• New collateral litigation: Less than a week after abandoning the Texas trial, Fintiv filed a trade-secret misappropriation and RICO suit against Apple in the Northern District of Georgia (August 2025), based on the same CorFire narrative; Apple moved to dismiss or, alternatively, transfer to Judge Albright's court (October 2025) (9to5Mac, Aug. 8, 2025; MacObserver; LegalEra). N.D. Ga. case number not confirmed; posture as of 2026-08-30 unknown.
• Settlement: None — the case ended in a defendant judgment, not a settlement (the earlier Fox Business report of possible 2022 settlement talks notwithstanding).

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on the litigation

• IPR2020-00019 (Apple v. Fintiv — '125 patent): Apple petitioned in January 2020; the Board denied institution on 2020-05-13, 2020 WL 2486683, exercising discretionary denial under NHK Spring based on the parallel W.D. Tex. trial date. This is the decision that created the "Fintiv factors" doctrine on IPR discretionary denial (Intel v. VLSI cert. petition, Supreme Court docket; Kasowitz release). Effect: the '125 survived IPR and carried the district case to its 2025 conclusion.
• IPR2022-01150 (Apple v. Fintiv/Mozido — '785 patent, U.S. 9,189,785): Petition filed 2022-06-16; institution granted 2023-01-04; oral hearing 2023-11-17; Final Written Decision 2024-01-02 finding claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, 20–21 unpatentable as obvious over Easterly + Luz (claims 5, 12, 19 not shown); Director Vidal denied Director Review 2024-02-22 (DocketAlarm IPR docket; Shamos expert page, CMU). Effect: the '785 was knocked out of the district case.
• Federal Circuit appeal No. 24-1742 (the metadata "case"): Mozido appealed; oral argument 2026-02-06; Rule 36 summary affirmance 2026-02-11 (per curiam, Judges Lourie and Hughes, Judge Kleeh by designation) — upholding the PTAB without opinion (Justia judgment; CAFC Rule 36 judgment).
• IPR2022-01149 ('692 patent): Parallel petition (June 2022); Final Written Decision December 2023 invalidating the '692; Mozido's parallel appeal No. 24-1741 was Rule 36-affirmed 2025-12-08 (Justia, 24-1741). Effect: the '692 was also removed from the district case.
• Net effect on the litigation: By early 2024 the PTAB had eliminated the '692 and '785 patents, leaving only the '125. The district case then proceeded solely on the '125 — ending in Apple's favor on 2025-08-07 — and the '785 appeal ended with the Rule 36 affirmance on 2026-02-11.

---

Bottom line

Caveats: (1) The case-name duality — "Mozido" (CAFC/PTAB captions) vs. "Fintiv" (district litigation and real party in interest) — is pervasive in the record. (2) I could not confirm: the exact December 2018 complaint day, whether Apple ever pled affirmative counterclaims, the outcome of Apple's Feb. 2020 12(b)(6) motion, the written claim construction order date, the mechanism by which the case returned to W.D. Tex. Austin as 1:21-cv-00896-ADA, the docket number of Fintiv's post-judgment appeal, the status of Apple's fee motion, or the N.D. Ga. case number/posture. (3) The 24-1742 Rule 36 affirmance itself is a nonprecedential, no-opinion disposition; independent press analysis of it is sparse, so the PTAB-affirmance narrative rests primarily on the docket and IPR record.

Press and analysis coverage of the Mozido/Fintiv v. Apple litigation

What the press says happened. Because 24-1742 itself is a PTAB-appeal footnote, the published coverage concentrates on the underlying seven-year district-court campaign and its aftermath. Law360 tracked the W.D. Tex. case through every twist: the June 2022 emergency motion that delayed trial and the ensuing evidence-hiding/sanctions fight ("Albright Won't Sanction Apple Over Evidence-Hiding Claims," July 6, 2022), Albright's June 2023 summary judgment clearing Apple ("Albright Clears Apple Of Infringing Fintiv Wallet App Patent," June 14, 2023), the August 2025 collapse ("Trial Called Off After Judge Partly Clears Apple In Fintiv Row," Aug. 4, 2025; "Albright Explains Why He Cleared Apple Again In Fintiv Case," Aug. 18, 2025), and Apple's fee motion alleging Fintiv "tried to 'avoid' its own IP trial" ("Apple Seeks Fees, Says Fintiv Tried To 'Avoid' Its Own IP Trial," Sept. 2, 2025). Vitallaw/IP Law Daily detailed the Federal Circuit's May 16, 2025 reversal of Albright's "widget"-based non-infringement ruling (No. 23-2208), while ipfray and IPWatchdog covered the April 30, 2025 CAFC decisions handing wins to Apple and PayPal on Fintiv's payment-handler/indefiniteness claims. Patently-O (Dennis Crouch, July 29, 2025) reported the Federal Circuit's unusual order in Fintiv's mandamus bid over CorFire-meeting discovery days before the August 4 trial date, and Reuters (Jonathan Stempel, Oct. 29, 2025) covered Apple's motion to dismiss Fintiv's follow-on Georgia racketeering/trade-secret suit, quoting Apple's line that the court "should reject Fintiv's attempt to revive its failed patent case in a new district with no connection to the facts."

Why outlets consider it significant, and reported numbers. Law360's June 14, 2023 article flagged that this very litigation "was the impetus for a controversial Patent Trial and Appeal Board precedent" — the Fintiv factors doctrine on discretionary IPR denial — which Patent Progress and Law360 guest analyses (Armond Wilson; Finnegan) traced through the 2022–2024 guidance wars and the tech industry's notice-and-comment challenge. Reuters pegged the market stakes in device terms — Apple Pay "is used in hundreds of millions of iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches and MacBooks" — and the Georgia complaint, as quoted by Electronic Payments International via Yahoo Finance, alleged Apple "repeated and compounded its theft" across "hundreds of millions" of devices. Notably, no outlet reported any damages figure, settlement amount, or license number; the only money reported was Apple's post-judgment attorneys'-fee motion (Law360, Sept. 2, 2025), with no dollar amount disclosed. 9to5Mac and PatSnap added consumer-tech and IP-analytics takes on the Aug. 2025 "shall take nothing" final judgment, PatSnap warning that the '125 patent "remains in force" and could be asserted against smaller targets.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the record. The reporting is mostly consistent on the district-court arc, but there are frictions. ipfray's April 30, 2025 recap says the CAFC "threw out Fintiv's appeal in the Apple case ... as moot," which could be misread against Vitallaw's report of the separate May 16, 2025 reversal of the non-infringement summary judgment — those are different appeals in the same case, and ipfray's compressed account doesn't say so. ipfray also states that PayPal's '386 patent "was the same patent at the heart of Apple and Fintiv's PTAB proceedings," which is loose relative to the PTAB record (Apple's IPRs challenged the '785 and '692 patents). Reuters and 9to5Mac refer to an "August 4 dismissal," while PatSnap quotes the separate Aug. 7, 2025 final judgment — minor dating variants. 9to5Mac editorializes beyond the record ("Fintiv spent seven years chasing a widget it could never find") and quotes Apple's claim that "the court has repeatedly rejected Fintiv's claims," and EPI's coverage of the Georgia suit mixes in allegations (e.g., a Visa/Mastercard "cash bribe") that originated in a separate antitrust case.

Coverage of the '785 IPR appeal itself is essentially nil. I found no article analyzing the PTAB's Jan. 2, 2024 Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01150 or the Federal Circuit's Feb. 11, 2026 Rule 36 affirmance in 24-1742; those events appear only in docket and aggregator sources (Justia, CAFC, DocketAlarm, Patexia). The nearest piece is Law360's May 29, 2024 "Apple Can't Wipe Out 2 Fintiv Mobile Wallet Patents At PTAB," but that article (accessible only through a newsletter archive snippet) appears to concern a different pair of Fintiv IPRs and does not name the '785. In short, the trade and consumer press treated the '785 invalidation as a silent backdrop to the district-court drama, the Fintiv-factors doctrine, and Fintiv's Georgia reincarnation — not as a standalone story.

Sources

• 2024-1742: Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Oral Argument for Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc. – CourtListener.com - 📣 The Wait is Over
• Apple Federal Appellate Court Decisions
• Parties for Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24-1742 - CourtListener.com - Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (24-1742)
• Mozido, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24-1742 - CourtListener.com
• Listen to Oral Arguments - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Search court records on party:(Apple), page 2
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Fintiv v. Apple: Mobile Wallet Patent Infringement Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• 保定市海外知识产权保护预警平台
• Apple seeks to end Apple Pay trade secrets lawsuit - Apple seeks to end Apple Pay trade secrets lawsuit
• Apple urges US District Court to dismiss Fintiv’s trade secret lawsuit over Apple Pay

Counsel of Record — Appellant/Plaintiff-side Party (Mozido, Inc., No. 24-1742)

A threshold framing note: although the case metadata labels this a "patent infringement case," 24-1742 is Mozido's appeal from the PTAB's IPR2022-01150 final written decision (the underlying infringement plaintiff was Fintiv, Inc., the real party in interest / successor to Mozido). The "plaintiff-side" counsel of record on this appeal is therefore appellant Mozido, Inc.'s appellate team, as reflected in the Federal Circuit docket (entries 5 and 12) and the February 11, 2026 Rule 36 judgment. Sources: Justia opinion/judgment; CourtListener docket/parties; Patexia docket documents.

Appellate lead counsel

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP team (Mozido/Fintiv's PTAB-tested trial/IPR counsel; entered appearance May 9, 2024, docket entry 5)

Not on the CAFC appeal, but part of the IPR record (for context)

The PTAB Director Review order lists Brandon R. Theiss and Daniel H. Golub of Volpe Koenig (Philadelphia) as patent-owner counsel in IPR2022-01150 alongside Waldrop and Downing, but they did not enter appearances in Federal Circuit No. 24-1742 (Director Review order, Paper 27).

Sourcing caveats

• Counsel of record here are appellate counsel only. The district-court trial team that litigated Fintiv v. Apple (W.D. Tex., Nos. 6:18-cv-00372 / 1:21-cv-00896) is a separate roster and is not the counsel of record in this appeal.
• The CAFC judgment's "San Francisco, CA" grouping for the Kasowitz attorneys is a caption simplification; the CM/ECF party records show Waldrop in Atlanta, Barber/Downing/Nguyen/Jones in Redwood Shores (Silicon Valley), and An/Kim in New York. I have used the CourtListener party-record offices as authoritative.
• No sealed filings or un-appeared counsel were identified; the docket shows two appellant appearances (entry 5 on May 9, 2024 and entry 12 on June 17, 2024), and all names above derive from those entries and the judgment caption.

I found the Federal Circuit appearance entries. Let me now dig into the individual attorneys' profiles and the underlying district-court/PTAB representation to build out roles and experience.

I have the Federal Circuit appearance records. Now let me verify Apple's counsel in the underlying W.D. Tex. infringement case and the PTAB IPR, to identify lead/local counsel roles.

Counsel of Record for Apple Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)

Scope note: Although the case metadata frames 24-1742 as an infringement action, this Federal Circuit appeal is formally Mozido's appeal from the PTAB's IPR2022-01150 final written decision — Apple appears as Appellee (Defendant/Appellee on the Justia docket). The authoritative record of Apple's appellate counsel is the Corrected Entry of Appearance (Doc. 11, filed May 17, 2024) and the Rule 36 Judgment (Doc. 67, filed Feb. 11, 2026), both of which list the same six attorneys (CourtListener docket #11; Justia judgment). Nothing is sealed; these appearances are public.

Apple's counsel of record in 24-1742

Docket trail: Apple's initial Entry of Appearance (Doc. 2, May 9, 2024) was struck as non-compliant (Doc. 9), and the corrected appearance (Doc. 11) was filed May 17, 2024 — same six attorneys (CourtListener docket feed; Patexia documents). No in-house Apple attorney appears on the CAFC docket for this appeal.

For completeness: Apple's counsel in the underlying infringement suit and IPR

If "the defendant" is read as Apple in the underlying W.D. Tex. infringement case (Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 6:18-cv-00372-ADA → 1:21-cv-00896-ADA, Judge Albright), the district-court record shows a different team, led by DLA Piper LLP (US): John M. Guaragna (Austin — Texas local/lead), Zachary Loney (Austin), Mark D. Fowler (East Palo Alto), Sean C. Cunningham and Erin Gibson (San Diego), plus Travis Jensen (appearance moved pro hac vice by Claudia Wilson Frost, Houston) (Joint Status Report, Doc. 442, Aug. 8, 2022; W.D. Tex. docket excerpt, Jan. 2019). In the PTAB IPR2022-01150 (the decision under appeal), Apple's petition was filed by Ropes & Gray (Batchelder, Hallward-Driemeier, et al.), consistent with Apple's IPR practice — though I could not pull the specific IPR mandatory-notice filing in this session, so the exact IPR lead/back-up designation should be verified against the Board docket if needed.

Bottom line: For the case at issue (24-1742), Apple's counsel of record are James L. Davis, Jr. (argued; Sheppard Mullin, Menlo Park) and James R. Batchelder, Christopher M. Bonny, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Fan Zhang, and Cassandra B. Roth (Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto/Palo Alto, Washington DC, and New York).