Litigation

RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al.

settled - dismissed

2:20-cv-00274-JRG

Filed
2020-08-21
Terminated
2022-03-28

Patents at issue (1)

9189787

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

RFCyber sued Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. in E.D. Tex. (Marshall) alleging infringement of US 9,189,787. The parties settled; deadlines were stayed 2022-02-11 and the case was dismissed/terminated 2022-03-28. Google's parallel IPRs were terminated as settled.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the IPR/PGR history, the accused products, and RFCyber's corporate background.

Now let me nail down the '787 patent itself, the Google IPR set, and how/when Google exited the district court case.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press.

Key finding already: the docket shows this case asserted five patents (not just the '787) and Google settled in October 2021, not March 2022. Let me verify the docket in detail.

Now let me get the full docket timeline, including the answer, venue ruling, and the standing opinion.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll start by searching for coverage of this case and verifying the articles listed.

Let me verify the specific articles listed and look for additional coverage.

Let me check whether the listed IPWatchdog roundups actually discuss this case.

Press coverage of RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC

Bottom line: there is essentially no dedicated press coverage of this particular case. No outlet appears to have written a stand-alone story about the Google suit's trajectory — not the October 2021 Google settlement, the February 2022 stay, or the March 2022 dismissal. What exists falls into three buckets: (1) NPE-campaign tracking by RPX and Law360 that treats the Google case as one data point in RFCyber's broader mobile-payments campaign; (2) PTAB-roundup tables in IPWatchdog that list RFCyber's Google and Samsung proceedings without analysis; and (3) Apple-centric trade coverage of RFCyber's parallel Apple Pay suit, which mentions the Google case only in passing. Confirming the confidentiality of the exit: no outlet reported any settlement figure, royalty rate, or damages number for the Google case, and the reason is visible in the PTAB record — the Board's termination order in PGR2021‑00029 granted the parties' joint request to keep their "settlement and license agreement" business-confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) (PTAB termination decision, Nov. 16, 2021). Nothing in the press reported terms; the terms are not in the public record.

Campaign-level reporting that discusses the Google case directly. RPX (Oct. 16, 2020) framed the Google suit as the opening move of a coordinated campaign: "Inventor-backed RFCyber Corp. has added Eastern District of Texas cases against LG Electronics (2:20-cv-00336) and Samsung (2:20-cv-00335) to the litigation campaign begun there this past August with a suit against Alphabet (Google) (2:20-cv-00274)," noting that "[f]ive patents generally related to making contactless financial transactions with a mobile device over a network are asserted in each complaint," with the later LG/Samsung allegations targeting LG Pay and Samsung Pay. That is a useful corrective to the case metadata here, which lists only the '787 — consistent with the five-patent set ('218, '855, '787, '009, '046) reflected in the complaint itself. Law360 covered the July 23, 2021 institution decision in Google's post-grant review, reporting (July 26, 2021) that "[t]he Patent Trial and Appeal Board has agreed to institute post grant review of a patent RFCyber accused Google of infringing in Texas federal court, rejecting an argument that parallel litigation is so far along that the board should discretionarily deny the petitions" — i.e., a rejection of RFCyber's Fintiv-style discretionary-denial argument. The same Law360 case page carries a February 9, 2022 item reporting that Judge Gilstrap "refused to toss allegations that Samsung infringed a trio of mobile payment patents … rejecting the electronic giant's argument that RFCyber didn't have the right to sue over the patents," which corresponds to the denial of Samsung's sealed constitutional-standing motion (Dkt. 259, Feb. 8, 2022) in this lead case — by then a Samsung-only case, Google having exited in October 2021. Caveat: Law360 is paywalled; I could see the case-page headlines and blurbs but not the full articles, so I am characterizing them at that level rather than quoting body text.

The Apple coverage is where the interpretive/analyst takes live — and it is about a different case. AppleInsider (Sept. 8, 2021, syndicated the same week by IPRdaily/China IP Lawyer) covered RFCyber's W.D. Tex. suit against Apple and noted in passing that "[l]ittle is known about RFCyber beyond a recent flurry of patent litigation that includes nearly identical complaints against Google, LG and Samsung," adding that "[g]oogle and Samsung filed to review or invalidate claims in the patent stash." It goes beyond the court record in two ways worth flagging: it speculated that "RFCyber updated claims of certain patents after the launch of Apple Pay in 2014 to better position itself," and it editorialized that "[t]he latter allegation is questionable, however, as the concept of card emulation laid out in the IP and complaint is much broader than the locked-down solution employed by Apple Pay" — an infringement-skeptical take not drawn from any ruling. MacTech (Sept. 8, 2021) went further in tone, headlining that "[p]atent trollin'" firm RFCyber was "suing Apple for the fifth time," and MacObserver reported the same filing, describing RFCyber as "a Texas company" that "insists it has never licensed its inventions to Apple." None of these pieces report a damages demand figure — AppleInsider says only that RFCyber "seeks damages, royalties and court fees" — and I found no reported damages number for the Google case either.

Where the listed roundups fit — and what I could not verify. The IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" items treat RFCyber as a table row, not a subject. I verified that the July 29, 2021 roundup lists "PGR2021-00028 | Instituted | Rfcyber Corp. | Google LLC | 10600046" among PTAB institution decisions, and that the March 31, 2022 roundup carries "PGR2022-00003 | Not Instituted – Procedural | RFCyber Corp. | Apple, Inc | 10600046" (an Apple proceeding, not Google). The Oct. 28, 2021, July 8, 2022, July 29, 2022, Feb. 2, 2023, and Sept. 10, 2021 "Other Barks & Bites" items I could not confirm discuss this case at all; on the available evidence they should not be cited as coverage of RFCyber v. Google. Similarly, no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, JD Supra or EFF piece on this case surfaced in searching. Two further gaps: I could not retrieve the substance of the AppleInsider article directly (I read its text through the attributed IPRdaily syndication), and nothing in the press presaged the case-ending sequence in the docket — the Feb. 11, 2022 mediation report by David Folsom ("successful (Samsung entities)," Dkt. 265) and the March 25, 2022 joint motion to dismiss (Dkt. 268), granted March 28, 2022 (Dkt. 269) — which were reported nowhere in the media.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record in this case.

Let me pull the full docket and check for additional appearances by plaintiff's counsel.

Bottom line

RFCyber was represented by a two-firm structure typical of E.D. Tex. patent cases: a New York–based national patent-monetization boutique (Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY) running the case, and McKool Smith, P.C. (Marshall/Dallas) serving as Texas local counsel. Six attorneys of record appear on the docket of 2:20-cv-00274-JRG. No in-house RFCyber attorney ever entered an appearance.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff RFCyber Corp.

Attorney Role Firm / office Docket appearance Note
Vincent J. Rubino, III Lead counsel (national); USPTO Reg. No. 68,594 Fabricant LLP, 411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite 206 South, Rye, NY 10580 (NYC phone line) Dkt. 5 (Aug. 24, 2020); filed the summons returns (Dkt. 8–9) Named lead counsel in RFCyber's PTAB powers of attorney and argued the Markman hearing for RFCyber in the parallel RFCyber v. Apple case (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-916, Sept. 13, 2022 hearing transcript). Primary day-to-day lawyer for RFCyber across its litigation campaign.
Alfred R. Fabricant Partner / senior counsel (named as back-up PTAB counsel; "subject to motion to appear pro hac vice" in IPRs) Fabricant LLP (founding partner), Rye, NY; NY Bar No. 2219392 Dkt. 6 (Aug. 24, 2020) Namesake of the firm; the firm's IPR/monetization practice has represented patent owners such as AGIS Software Development, Blitzsafe Texas, SPEX Technologies and Windy City Innovations in E.D. Tex. and before the PTAB.
Peter Lambrianakos Partner; back-up counsel PTAB (Reg. No. 58,279) Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY; NY Bar No. 2894392 Dkt. 7 (Aug. 24, 2020) Co-signatory on RFCyber's substantive district-court briefing (e.g., opposition to Samsung's constitutional-standing motion, Dkt. 92) and PTAB papers.
Samuel Franklin Baxter Local counsel (Texas) McKool Smith, P.C., 104 E. Houston St., Suite 300, Marshall, TX 75670; Tex. Bar No. 01938000 Dkt. 26 (Dec. 14, 2020) Long-time Marshall patent-trial lawyer (McKool Smith) — brought in roughly three months into the case, before the venue-transfer briefing and consolidation.
Jennifer Leigh Truelove Local counsel (Texas) McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, TX; Tex. Bar No. 24012906 Dkt. 25 (Dec. 14, 2020) Same McKool Smith Marshall team; appeared the same day as Baxter. (A Justin Kurt Truelove of Truelove Law Firm later appeared for RFCyber in its 2024–25 E.D. Tex. suits — no relationship asserted here.)
Travis Edward DeArman Texas counsel (McKool Smith team) McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, TX Dkt. 68 (June 25, 2021) Appearance entered just as Google/Samsung's IPR-based stay motion (Dkt. 65) and Samsung's standing motion (Dkt. 81) were being briefed. Firm attribution rests on the docket entry plus McKool Smith directory listings; I did not find a court document in this case stating his firm.

Points of qualification

  • Sourced from the docket, not a single opinion: the appearances are grounded in the PACER/Justia/Docket Alarm entries for Dkts. 5–7, 25–26 and 68 (Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2020cv00274/[200088](/patent/200088); Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--20-cv-00274/RFCyber_Corp._v._Google_LLC_et_al/). The complaint (Dkt. 1) was signed by Fabricant LLP.
  • Additional Fabricant attorneys appear in the PTAB, not in this district court docket. Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883) and Richard Cowell (Reg. No. 79,143) were listed as back-up counsel in RFCyber's mandatory notices/powers of attorney for the Google and Samsung IPRs (e.g., IPR2021-00980, -00981, June 26–28, 2021), and Joseph M. Mercadante signs later RFCyber filings in other cases. I found no appearance by them on this case's docket, so they should not be listed as counsel of record here.
  • Pro hac vice status is unclear. Unlike Google's out-of-state counsel — whose entries read "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance – Pro Hac Vice" (Dkts. 11–15) — the Fabricant LLP entries for RFCyber are ordinary appearance notices. That suggests E.D. Tex. bar admission or unfiled/PHV orders not captured in the free docket mirrors; I could not verify which. Treat as unsourced.
  • Sealed material: Google's venue/transfer motion (Dkt. 20) and Samsung's standing motion (Dkt. 81) were filed under seal, with redactions at Dkts. 24, 82 and 102. No sealing of counsel identities, however — all six names above are from public entries.
  • Docket nuance worth flagging against the case metadata: Google Payment Corp. was voluntarily dismissed on July 2, 2021 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Dkt. 72; Order, Dkt. 73 — which also terminated Google's counsel Moore, Stone, Takahashi, Jones and Ling). Google LLC's parallel IPRs (IPR2021-00954, -955, -956, -957) were terminated as settled in October 2021, and the Oct. 27, 2021 Markman hearing and Nov. 17, 2021 claim construction order, 2021 WL 5357465, ran against Samsung only (Samsung's 2:20-cv-00335 was consolidated into this lead case). The Feb. 11, 2022 stay order (Dkt. 264) and the March 2022 dismissal therefore resolved the remaining Samsung portion. RFCyber's counsel lineup above is unchanged across that consolidation.
  • Patent-set discrepancy: the complaint as filed asserted five patents ('218, '855, '787, '009 and '046); your case metadata lists only the '787. Noting for consistency with the earlier sections rather than disputing the metadata.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research counsel of record for Google in this matter using docket aggregators and firm sources.

Counsel of Record for Google LLC & Google Payment Corp. — RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG

Bottom line. Google was represented by a two-firm structure typical of E.D. Tex. practice: Potter Minton, P.C. (Tyler, Texas) as local/ signing counsel of record, and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (Los Angeles) as the out-of-state, pro hac vice trial team that did the substantive patent work. Both defendants — Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. — were represented by the same counsel throughout. The MTO team's appearances (Dkts. 11–15, Oct. 1, 2020) came roughly two weeks after Potter Minton's Michael E. Jones filed Google's first extension application (Dkt. 10, Sept. 29, 2020), which is the first defense-side filing on the docket.

Attorneys

Name Role Firm / Office Note
Michael E. Jones Local counsel of record / Texas counsel (the attorney who signs and files for Google) Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, TX (then 110 N. College Ave., Suite 500; the firm has since listed 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900) Dean of E.D. Tex. defense-side local counsel; has appeared for Google in that district for over 15 years — e.g., GraphOn Corp. v. Google Inc., No. 2:08-cv-317 (Dkt. 14), Bedrock Computer Techs. v. Softlayer, No. 6:09-cv-269 (Dkt. 8), and more recently Wyoming IP Holdings v. Google LLC, No. 2:24-cv-336 (Dkt. 5). Filed Dkt. 10 (unopposed 30-day extension) and signed Google's discovery/disclosure notices, incl. Dkt. 59 (June 3, 2021).
Zachary M. Briers Outside/PHV counsel — first-listed of the Munger Tolles team on Google's filings (led the "Of Counsel" block) Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles (350 S. Grand Ave., 50th Fl.) Appeared PHV Oct. 1, 2020 (Dkt. 11). MTO IP litigation group; the MTO team ran fact discovery, third-party subpoenas (NFC Forum, EMV Co., GlobalPlatform, Mastercard, Visa, NXP, Nokia) and invalidity/§ 101 contentions in this case.
Heather E. Takahashi Outside/PHV counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles Appeared PHV Oct. 1, 2020 (Dkt. 14). Signed Google's June 28, 2021 third-party subpoena notices (e.g., NFC Forum) as the MTO signatory; patent-focused litigator on Google's defense team.
Vincent Y. Ling Outside/PHV counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles Appeared PHV Oct. 1, 2020 (Dkt. 15).
Robin S. Gray Outside/PHV counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles Appeared PHV Oct. 1, 2020 (Dkt. 13).
Markus A. Brazill Outside/PHV counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles (at the time) Appeared PHV Oct. 1, 2020 (Dkt. 12). Note: I could not verify his current firm affiliation; treat his MTO/Los Angeles location as accurate as of 2020–21 only.
Mica L. Moore Outside counsel — listed on Google's filings as "pro hac vice forthcoming" Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (Los Angeles; also admitted in N.D. Cal./San Francisco) Added to the Google team by mid-2021: named in Google's June 28, 2021 subpoena notice to NFC Forum as "Mica L. Moore (pro hac vice forthcoming)." Law360's attorney page ties her to Vocalife LLC v. Google LLC (E.D. Tex., Apr. 2021), i.e., other Google patent defense work in the same district.

Appearances timeline (as reflected in the docket)

  • Sept. 29, 2020 — Dkt. 10: Google's unopposed first application for extension of time (signed by Michael E. Jones); granted the same day, answer deadline moved to Nov. 5, 2020.
  • Oct. 1, 2020 — Dkts. 11–15: five pro hac vice appearance notices for Briers, Brazill, Gray, Takahashi, and Ling, each expressly "on behalf of Google LLC, Google Payment Corp."
  • June 3, 2021 — Dkt. 59: Google's notice of compliance with the Court's disclosure order, signed by Michael E. Jones with the MTO attorneys listed under "Of Counsel" (Briers, Takahashi, Ling, Gray, Moore).
  • June 28, 2021 — Google's third-party subpoena notices signed by Heather E. Takahashi for MTO, identifying the full MTO team including Moore.
  • Sept. 28–29, 2021 / Oct. 18, 2021 — Dkts. 119–120 (joint motion to stay and order) and the stipulation of dismissal as to Google; consistent with the earlier sections of this summary, Google exited the case in October 2021, well before the February–March 2022 Samsung-side stay and dismissal.

What the record does not show

  • No in-house Google attorney appears on the docket extracts I could retrieve; Google's participation ran through Potter Minton and MTO.
  • I found no sealed attorney list or sealed appearance in this case (the protective order flag on the docket concerns discovery confidentiality, not counsel).
  • I could not verify whether Mica L. Moore's pro hac vice motion was formally granted before Google's October 2021 dismissal — the retrieved docket extracts (Justia, last pulled Nov. 17, 2021; Docket Alarm; UniCourt; CourtListener-adjacent aggregators) list only the five October 2020 PHV notices, and PACER itself was not directly accessible. It is possible additional appearances were filed between October 2020 and October 2021 that these extracts did not capture.
  • Counsel in Google's parallel PTAB challenges to the '787 and sibling patents (IPR2021-00955/-00956/-00957; PGR2021-00028) is not confirmed by the materials I reviewed; given the MTO team's role in the district court case, MTO was likely petitioner's counsel, but I am flagging that as unverified rather than asserting it.
  • No firm-published bios were retrievable for Briers, Takahashi, Ling, Gray, Brazill, or Moore within this search; the experience notes above are sourced to their appearance records and case papers rather than to firm marketing pages.

Sources