RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc.

RFCyber Corp. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) was a patent infringement litigation involving a patent assertion entity (PAE) and a major technology operating company over mobile payment technologies. The plaintiff, RFCyber Corp., identified as a patent assertion entity, initiated litigation to enforce its intellectual property rights. The defendant, Apple Inc., is a prominent technology company and the world's largest mobile hardware and services provider. RFCyber Corp. alleged that Apple's mobile payment system, Apple Pay, along with devices such as various iPhone models, Apple smartwatches, and certain laptops employing Touch ID, infringed its patents. The asserted patent in this specific Federal Circuit appeal was U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046, which generally covers a "method and apparatus for mobile payments," particularly involving Near Field Communication (NFC) or contactless payment technology.

The procedural posture of this specific case (24-1612) traces back to an underlying patentability challenge. While RFCyber initially filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on September 7, 2021, asserting multiple patents, including US10600046, that district court case (before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright) eventually settled for those specific infringement claims. The Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 24-1612) stemmed from a "lower tribunal's unpatentability finding," consistent with a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) or a similar invalidity proceeding, where Apple successfully challenged the patentability of US10600046. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the exclusive appellate court for patent cases, ultimately affirmed this unpatentability finding on December 3, 2025, through a Rule 36 judgment, meaning it was a summary affirmance without a written opinion.

This case is notable for several reasons. It highlights the continued efforts of patent assertion entities like RFCyber Corp. to target established technology companies like Apple in the lucrative mobile payments sector. The Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability for US10600046 effectively extinguishes the patent's enforceability, preventing RFCyber from asserting it against Apple or other parties in the future. This successful patentability challenge by Apple provides a "replicable defence template" for other companies facing assertions from PAEs in the mobile payments industry, underscoring the importance of post-grant review strategies in patent litigation. The case also forms part of a broader pattern of litigation between RFCyber and Apple concerning various NFC and mobile payment patents, with other related appeals also reaching the Federal Circuit with similar outcomes regarding patentability.

RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. (CAFC Case No. 24-1612) was an appeal that originated from a lower tribunal's finding that US Patent 10,600,046 was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed this unpatentability finding via a Rule 36 judgment.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Underlying Proceedings (Likely PTAB IPR): The Federal Circuit's affirmation of an "unpatentability finding" via a Rule 36 judgment strongly indicates that the appeal stemmed from an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. Patent 10,600,046 B2 is directed to a method and apparatus for mobile payments. (Specific PTAB IPR details, such as petition date, institution date, and final written decision date, are not readily available in the provided search results but would precede the CAFC filing.)
• Federal Circuit Appeal Filed (2024-03-28): RFCyber Corp. filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower tribunal's decision that its patent claims were unpatentable. The case was docketed as 24-1612.
• Federal Circuit Judgment (2025-12-03): The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment, affirming the lower tribunal's unpatentability finding. A Rule 36 affirmance is a summary judgment without an opinion, indicating the appellate panel found no reversible error in the lower tribunal's reasoning.
• Case Terminated/Closed (2025-12-03): The case concluded with the Federal Circuit's judgment, terminating the proceedings and definitively ruling the patent unpatentable. This outcome extinguished the patent's enforceability.

Outcome: The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower tribunal's finding of unpatentability for US Patent 10,600,046 via a Rule 36 judgment, effectively ending RFCyber Corp.'s ability to enforce the patent against Apple Inc.

News and analysis coverage of RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. primarily focuses on RFCyber's broader patent enforcement campaign against major tech companies, the initial infringement lawsuit in Texas, and the subsequent Federal Circuit appeals concerning patentability. Several outlets characterize RFCyber as a "patent assertion entity" or "patent troll."

Intellect-Partners reported in September 2021 that Apple was hit with a patent infringement suit by RFCyber involving five patents, including US10600046, related to mobile payments and Apple Pay. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, sought damages, royalties, and court fees. Apple World Today also noted this as the "fifth time" RFCyber had sued Apple, highlighting the perception of RFCyber as a "patent troll" that acquires patents for licensing or litigation rather than product development. PatSnap Insights further detailed that the initial Western District of Texas case, asserting six NFC and mobile payment patents against Apple Pay, was "quietly resolved" through a confidential settlement and dismissed with prejudice on January 29, 2024, with each side bearing its own attorneys' fees. This type of dismissal strongly suggests a negotiated resolution without a public disclosure of financial terms.

Regarding the specific Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 24-1612) for patent 10,600,046, PatSnap Insights published an analysis in June 2026, confirming that the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower tribunal's unpatentability finding via a Rule 36 judgment in December 2025. This outcome, which extinguished the patent's enforceability, was achieved after 615 days of appellate proceedings. PatSnap emphasized that a Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error without issuing a written opinion, effectively cancelling the patent and preventing its enforcement against Apple or any other party. IPWatchdog, in July 2022 and February 2023, mentioned the inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB concerning US10600046, noting Apple Inc. as a petitioner in at least one such challenge. Another IPWatchdog article from April 2022 detailed a PTAB decision where Apple's motion for joinder in a PGR (Post-Grant Review) for US10600046 was denied due to being filed outside the one-month window, citing concerns about impacting the trial schedule. These reports collectively illustrate Apple's strategy of challenging the validity of RFCyber's patents through PTAB proceedings, which ultimately led to the unpatentability finding affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

This case is part of a broader pattern of patent litigation between RFCyber and Apple, and other tech companies like Samsung and Google, over mobile payment technologies. PatSnap Insights also reported on a separate Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 23-2418) where RFCyber's US9240009B2 patent, also related to mobile commerce, was similarly affirmed as unpatentable by a Rule 36 judgment in August 2025, further underscoring Apple's successful defense strategy against RFCyber's patent portfolio.

Sources

• intellect-partners.com
• appleworld.today
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• ptablitigationblog.com
• constantinecannon.com
• patsnap.com

RFCyber Corp., the appellant in RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. (CAFC Case 24-1612), was represented by the following counsel:

• Name: Vincent J. Rubino III
  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm: Information regarding Mr. Rubino III's firm and office location is not readily available in the provided search results.
  • Relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases: The provided search results indicate Mr. Rubino III represented RFCyber Corp. in this patent appeal concerning US patent 10600046, related to mobile payments. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding via a Rule 36 judgment. RFCyber Corp. is described as a patent assertion entity.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing defendant Apple Inc. in RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 24-1612, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit includes:

• Name: Adam P. Seitz

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from common practice for listed attorneys on dockets and his role in related matters)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Seitz is a founding member of Erise IP and an established trial lawyer specializing in high-technology, patent litigation, and post-grant reviews, with extensive experience in district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the Federal Circuit. He is consistently ranked among the most active and best-performing attorneys at the PTAB for both petitioners and patent owners. He has represented Apple Inc. in other patent-related proceedings before the PTAB.

• Name: Jennifer C. Bailey

  • Role: Counsel (inferred from her role in related matters for Apple)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Bailey maintains an active practice in intellectual property, regularly advising clients on patent prosecution, trademark infringement analysis, and litigation proceedings. She has been listed as counsel for Apple Inc. in patent proceedings before the PTAB.

Note on Case Number: While the provided case number is 24-1612, a Justia Dockets entry for RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 24-1614, explicitly lists Adam Prescott Seitz as counsel for Apple Inc. as the defendant/appellee. Given the identical parties and roles, it is highly probable that this reflects counsel for the matter at hand, with a minor discrepancy in the last digits of the case number, or indicating a closely related or consolidated appeal.