RFCyber Corp. v. Shell Information Technology International, BV

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the docket, the RPX campaign coverage, and the reexamination/IPR history.

Now let me pin down the docket specifics — consolidation, transfer motion, and dismissal timing.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. RFCyber Corp. is a small, Texas-based mobile-payments technology company (originally founded in Fremont, California as an RFID/NFC and "e-purse"/trusted-service-management vendor, later headquartered in Plano, Texas). RPX describes it as "inventor-backed," and that characterization fits: the '855 patent's named inventors — Liang Seng Koh, Futong Cho, Hsin Pan and Fuliang Cho — are the source of the asserted family, and the patents of record now sit with Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management, LLP, the patent owner named in the later PTAB proceedings. RFCyber is best understood as a hybrid: a genuine one-time operating company in contactless micropayment infrastructure that has, since August 2020, run an assert-and-settle licensing campaign through Fabricant LLP (Alfred Ross Fabricant, Vincent J. Rubino III, Peter Lambrianakos, Richard M. Cowell, Jacob D. Ostling, with Justin K. Truelove) — i.e., functionally a PAE, though with an inventor/operating pedigree rather than a pure shell. The defendant in this case, Shell Information Technology International B.V., is Shell's Dutch IT/technology holding entity; the complaint as docketed also named Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US, the Shell downstream refining/marketing affiliate that operates the U.S. retail fuel network (the metadata caption lists only SITI; the Justia docket and RPX both reflect Equilon's presence as a co-defendant, and Equilon's counsel entered appearances in the consolidated E.D. Tex. proceeding).

The accused technology. RFCyber targeted the Shell App — "current and previous versions" on Android and iOS — together with the supporting Shell servers and payment backend. The accused functionality is the app's contactless/remote fuel-payment flow: a user links a funding source (e.g., "Shell S Pay (checking)" or a credit/debit card), then either enters a pump number for at-the-pump payment or generates a QR code for the cashier to scan in-store, with Shell's servers verifying the request against the user's bank/financial institution and initiating a fund transfer. RFCyber's theory maps each step of the claimed server-side method onto that flow. In the companion July 2024 wave, the same theory was leveled at Costco, Kroger, Starbucks and Walmart apps and at Volkswagen's Plug&Charge/Electrify America ecosystem — i.e., the campaign's 2024 phase shifted downstream from platform providers to merchants and app operators.

The patent and its technical sketch. One patent is at issue: U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 B1, "Method and Apparatus for Funding an Electronic Purse" (issued May 28, 2013; App. No. 13/400,038, filed Feb. 18, 2012; a continuation of App. No. 11/534,653, filed Sept. 24, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,118,218; inventors Koh et al.; originally assigned to Rich House Global Technology Ltd. and RFCyber Corp.). In one line: it claims a way to top up ("fund") a stored-value e-purse on an NFC handset over an open network — PIN entry → a Java "midlet" → an "e-purse applet" → a server that verifies the request against the user's bank account and initiates a fund transfer → commands returned to the device so an "emulator" updates a transaction log — all contingent on the e-purse having been "personalized" through a layered two-channel provisioning scheme between the device's card module and an external security authentication module (SAM). The complaint asserted at least independent claim 9 (the server-side method) while reserving other claims. That 2006-era, JavaCard-flavored vocabulary ("midlet," "applet," "card module," "emulator," "SAM") is the doctrinal pressure point: the whole case turns on whether those terms can be read onto a modern iOS/Android app, and on how Judge Gilstrap's prior constructions of "e-purse," "e-purse applet" and "SAM" apply.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed July 18, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned on July 19, 2024 to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap (2:24-cv-00549-JRG). The 2024 wave was consolidated before Gilstrap, and this case was treated as a member case; the dismissal order is captioned to "Member Case No. 2:24-cv-549-JRG," with the consolidation and amended scheduling handled on the lead docket. Venue mattered for two reasons. First, Gilstrap had already construed the '855 patent's key terms in RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-274-JRG, 2021 WL 5357465 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021) — rejecting the disclaimer arguments defendants have repeatedly pressed — so E.D. Tex. offered RFCyber a favorable, pre-existing claim-construction record. Second, it returned the campaign to the judge and division where RFCyber had run its first (2020) wave against Google, Samsung and LG, before it detoured to Judge Albright's Waco docket for Apple and Visa.

Why the case is notable. Three things. (1) Asset quality: the '855 patent is unusually battle-tested for an NPE assertion. The PTAB denied institution of Samsung's IPR2021-00978 and Apple's IPR2022-01241 on the '855 patent (Dec. 14, 2021 and Jan. 23, 2023, respectively), and two ex parte reexaminations (Samsung's 90/020,144 and Apple's 90/015,260) ended with all claims 1–17 confirmed without amendment — a C1 certificate on April 28, 2023 and a C2 certificate issued March 7, 2025, i.e., while this case was pending. That record meant Shell had no realistic invalidity off-ramp and had to fight on infringement/claim scope. (2) Campaign pattern: the 2024 filings follow a well-worn assert-and-settle arc — Google, LG and Samsung settled in 2020–22, and the merchant/retailer wave is the monetization tail, aimed at defendants for whom a licensing payment is cheaper than a Marshall trial. (3) Market/term context: priority dates to September 2006, roughly eight years before Apple Pay and Google Pay, which is exactly why the claims arguably read on today's QR-code and in-app checkout flows across fuel, grocery, and retail; but that also means the patent is near the end of its term (derived expiry c. September 2026), which sharpens the incentive to extract licenses quickly rather than try cases.

Termination. The case ended by Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Dkt. 115) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which Judge Gilstrap "accept[ed] and acknowledge[d]," dismissing all claims with prejudice and denying remaining relief as moot. No merits ruling on infringement, validity, or damages issued. A with-prejudice dismissal after roughly a year, in a consolidated multi-defendant proceeding, is consistent with a confidential settlement or license — but no settlement, license, or payment terms are on the public record, and RFCyber has recorded no licenses against the patent, so the existence and terms of any resolution should be treated as unconfirmed.

Sourcing note: party names, case number, court and judge are taken from the case metadata; the July 18, 2024 filing date, Gilstrap assignment, co-defendant Equilon, counsel appearances and the Aug. 12, 2024 extension are from the Justia docket; the accused-product and claim-mapping details are from the complaint analysis of Dkt. 1; the campaign scope and the characterization of RFCyber as "inventor-backed" are from RPX (July 26, 2024) and Law.com/The Recorder (July 23, 2024); the PTAB and reexamination history is from the Board's institution decisions and the USPTO Official Gazette reexamination certificate. I could not independently retrieve a primary PACER image of Dkt. 115 or its exact entry date, nor any transfer/stay ruling in this member case, so those specifics should be verified against PACER before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the asserted patent.

RFCyber Corp. v. Shell Information Technology International B.V. — Litigation Chronology

Case: No. 2:24-cv-00549-JRG, E.D. Tex. (Marshall Div.), Judge Rodney Gilstrap
Patent asserted: U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 ("Method and apparatus for funding an electronic purse"), claim 9 asserted at filing
Accused product: the Shell App (iOS/Android) and supporting Shell servers — contactless/QR fuel payment and "Shell S Pay"
Disposition: voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)); no merits adjudication
Note on posture: from 2024-10-22 forward this case was a member case of a consolidated pretrial proceeding led by RFCyber Corp. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00550-JRG.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint accused the Shell App of directly infringing at least claim 9 of the '855 patent (a method for funding an e-purse performed by a server system), reserving other claims for later assertion. This was one of six near-simultaneous complaints filed 2024-07-17/18 in the same campaign — Costco (2:24-cv-00546), Kroger (2:24-cv-00548), Shell (2:24-cv-00549), Starbucks (2:24-cv-00550), Walmart (2:24-cv-00551), plus Volkswagen (2:24-cv-00575) — as reported by RPX and Law.com (2024-07-23).

Answer/counterclaims (Dkt. 12+): the publicly mirrored dockets I could reach (Justia, CourtListener/RECAP) stop at Dkt. 11 on 2024-08-12 and do not show the Shell answer or any invalidity counterclaims. Given the case was consolidated for all pretrial issues two months later, any answer was almost certainly filed in or refiled to the lead case; I could not verify the answer's contents, affirmative defenses, or any counterclaims from an authoritative source. Treat this as an open item.

2. Consolidation and pre-trial motion practice

• 2024-10-22 (docketed 2024-10-23): Judge Gilstrap enters a CONSOLIDATION ORDER — all of these cases consolidated "for all pretrial issues" with 2:24-cv-00550 (Starbucks) as lead case; "[i]ndividual cases remain active for trial." (This order appears as Dkt. 19 in RFCyber v. Kroger, 2:24-cv-00548.) The Shell dismissal order later refers to 2:24-cv-00549 as a "Member Case," confirming its inclusion. Caveat: I could not retrieve the consolidation order's exhibit list to confirm 549 is expressly enumerated.
• ~2024-11-01/04: Defense appearances begin — Andrea Leigh Fair for Equilon (an appearance for Shell ITI was filed and then filed in error per attorney on 2024-11-04). Defense-side counsel of record in the campaign included Ropes & Gray, Sheppard Mullin, and Gillam & Smith (per litigation-database records), though I could not confirm the shell-specific roster.
• Substantive 12(b)(6) activity in the campaign: In the parallel Kroger member case, Kroger moved on 2024-10-04 to dismiss pre-suit willful and indirect infringement under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 14 in 2:24-cv-00548), with RFCyber's opposition (10/18), reply, and sur-reply through 10/31/2024. That motion was never decided on the merits — it was terminated as moot by the 2025 dismissal order. No comparable motion to dismiss, § 1404(a) transfer motion, or motion to stay pending IPR was filed in the Shell member case on any record I could find. Given Gilstrap's practice in this campaign, no transfer motion was likely (all defendants were national retailers with Texas presence).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case did not reach claim construction. No Markman hearing, claim construction order, or joint claim construction statement is reflected in any of the available records for 2:24-cv-00549 or for the consolidated lead case before termination. The consolidated pretrial schedule was still in its early stages when the cases began resolving in August–September 2025.

Relevant background on the '855 claim terms (from other RFCyber litigations, which is where the Markman work on this patent actually happened):

• E.D. Tex., RFCyber v. Google/Google Payment & Samsung, No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG (same judge): Gilstrap construed terms including "e-purse"/"electronic purse" and rejected a prosecution-disclaimer argument (cited as 2021 WL 5357465 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2021)); that case also produced a stay pending PTAB review (see §6).
• **W.D. Tex., RFCyber v. Visa U.S.A., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA**: Markman hearing held 2023-10-25 on the disputed terms "fund," "fund stored in the emulator," "funded," and "funding" as used in claim 9 of the '855 patent (and claims 1/11 of the '787 patent); the court announced it would maintain its preliminary constructions. This is the most directly on-point construction of the very claim asserted against Shell.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

No discovery orders, protective-order disputes, or discovery motions specific to the Shell member case are publicly visible. Two structural points matter:

• The agreed protective order governing the consolidated campaign was entered in the lead/member cases in early November 2024 (an order resolving the joint motion for agreed protective order and to amend case schedules was signed 2024-11-06 in 2:24-cv-00551-JRG). Source-code and financial-institution data produced under that order would have been the discovery leverage point, since the '855 claim 9 elements map onto server-side payment-authorization flows.
• RFCyber's campaign-wide practice (documented in the 2020–21 Google/Samsung litigation) was to serve P.R. 3-1/3-2 contentions early and produce conception/reduction-to-practice documents going back to December 2004, with a P.R. 3-1 priority date of 2006-09-24. That priority story — not claim construction — was the live battleground in the earlier campaign.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was reached in the Shell case. The case was terminated roughly 14 months after filing, entirely at the pleading/discovery stage.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '855

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. — 2:24-cv-00549-JRG

Bottom line: RFCyber was represented by the same outside-counsel team it has used across its entire contactless‑payment campaign — Fabricant LLP (Rye, NY / New York, NY) as lead trial counsel, with The Truelove Law Firm (Marshall, TX) as Texas local counsel. All six Fabricant attorneys entered appearances on the day of filing (July 18, 2024); no in‑house RFCyber attorney ever appeared, and no appearance was sealed.

Appearance record (E.D. Tex. 2:24‑cv‑00549)

Source: Justia docket transcript for No. 2:24‑cv‑00549 (snapshot last retrieved Aug. 12, 2024), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00549/[231717](/patent/231717). The case was later consolidated into lead case No. 2:24‑cv‑00550‑JRG, and the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal was docketed there (reported as Dkt. 115).

Individual counsel

1. Alfred Ross Fabricant — lead counsel

• Fabricant LLP, 411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite 206 South, Rye, NY 10580 (NY Bar No. 2219392); firm also identified in press coverage as "Fabricant Law of New York."
• Founding partner and the attorney who signed the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure, the AO‑120 form, and the extension application in this case; he has led every RFCyber assertion of the '855 patent family since 2020 (Google, 2:20‑cv‑00274‑JRG; Samsung, 2:20‑cv‑00335; LG, 2:20‑cv‑00336; Apple, 6:21‑cv‑00916‑ADA (W.D. Tex.); Visa, 6:22‑cv‑00697‑ADA).
• Caveat: I did not find a primary source confirming his pre‑Fabricant LLP firm history, so I'm not stating it.

2. Vincent J. Rubino, III — of counsel / case team (Fabricant LLP)

• Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY (NY Bar No. 4557435).
• Sworn declaration in the related Google case: "I am a Partner at the law firm of Fabricant LLP and counsel of record for Plaintiff RFCyber Corp." (Declaration of V.J. Rubino, III, Dkt. 213, 2:20‑cv‑00274‑JRG). Admitted pro hac vice in RFCyber's W.D. Tex. Apple case; handled expert‑report/claim‑construction briefing there.

3. Peter Lambrianakos — of counsel / case team (Fabricant LLP)

• Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY (NY Bar No. 2894392).
• Long‑time RFCyber patent litigator; listed as "Of Counsel" and admitted pro hac vice in RFCyber v. Apple, No. 6:21‑cv‑00916‑ADA (W.D. Tex.) (deposition notice, Dkt. 134).

4. Richard Matthew Cowell — of counsel / case team (Fabricant LLP)

• Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY (NY Bar No. 4617759).
• Same role: pro hac vice in the W.D. Tex. Apple matter and appearance in all five July 2024 E.D. Tex. RFCyber complaints (Costco 546, Kroger 548, Shell 549, Starbucks 550, Walmart 551).

5. Jacob Daniel Ostling — of counsel / case team (Fabricant LLP)

• Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY (NY Bar No. 5684824).
• Filed appearances expressly "for purposes of receiving notices and orders from the Court" in RFCyber's 2020–21 E.D. Tex. cases (e.g., Dkt. 13, 2:20‑cv‑00335‑JRG); the notices/ECF‑service attorney for the campaign.

6. Justin Kurt Truelove — Texas local counsel

• The Truelove Law Firm, 207 N. Wellington, P.O. Box 1409, Marshall, TX 75671, (903) 938‑8321.
• Marshall‑based local counsel in numerous E.D. Tex. patent suits (e.g., Longhorn HD LLC v. Fortinet, 2:19‑cv‑00124; Semcon IP v. Louis Vuitton N.A., 2:19‑cv‑00122; Winterspring Digital v. HPE) and RFCyber's local counsel in the parallel July 2024 filings (appearance at Dkt. 12 in 2:24‑cv‑00548, filed 9/18/2024).
• Sourcing caveat: Truelove is listed as RFCyber's plaintiff counsel in the Shell case by PatSnap's docket‑derived profile (https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/rfcyber-v-shell-information-technology-patent-infringement-patsnap/), but his appearance does not appear in the Justia snapshot of No. 2:24‑cv‑00549, which cuts off on Aug. 12, 2024 — before the date on which he appeared in the sister cases. His appearance in 549 is therefore likely but not independently confirmed in the sources I could reach; a PACER pull of the 549/550 docket after Sept. 2024 would confirm it.

Notes and caveats

• Party identification: The Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 3) identifies RFCyber Corp.'s corporate parent as "RFCyber Corporation." Press coverage describes RFCyber as a Plano, Texas company; a W.D. Tex. opinion refers to it as a Texas corporation with a Waco place of business. Defendant-side counsel (e.g., Andrea Leigh Fair, who entered an appearance for Equilon in the lead case) is outside the scope of this request.
• No sealed or pro se representation: Nothing in the docket suggests sealed appearances, and RFCyber never proceeded pro se.
• Record thinness: Because the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before trial, there are no counsel-identifying opinions or substantive rulings in 549 itself; all experience notes above are drawn from RFCyber's related dockets (2:20‑cv‑00274, 2:20‑cv‑00335/336, 6:21‑cv‑00916, 6:22‑cv‑00697) rather than from this case.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Let me pull the actual docket from CourtListener/RECAP and confirm defendant-side appearances.

Counsel of Record for the Defense — RFCyber Corp. v. Shell Info. Tech. Int'l B.V., No. 2:24-cv-00549-JRG

Bottom line: The docket shows only one defense-side appearance in this case — a Texas local-counsel notice from Longview. No national/lead trial counsel for Shell ever entered an appearance on the public record before the case was dismissed with prejudice, and no appearance at all was perfected for the Dutch entity, Shell Information Technology International B.V.

Appearing counsel

Docket basis: "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrea Leigh Fair on behalf of Equilon Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Fair, Andrea) (Entered: 11/01/2024)" — reported in the consolidated RFCyber docket listing at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/rfcyber-corp (mirroring the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF entries).

Notable docket facts bearing on the defense roster

1. A second appearance notice was stricken. On the same day (11/1/2024), a notice of appearance by Ms. Fair "on behalf of Shell Information Technology International B.V." was docketed and then marked "FILED IN ERROR PER ATTORNEY" and modified/struck on 11/4/2024. So the B.V. never had a counsel of record — consistent with the Justia docket, which shows service only on Equilon (Dkt. 10, served 7/23/2024) and no return of service on the Dutch defendant (Dkt. 9 summons issued as to both). Treat any claim that Shell ITI B.V. appeared through counsel as unsupported.
2. The 8/12/2024 extension application (Dkt. 11) was filed by plaintiff's counsel, Alfred R. Fabricant, not by the defense — a common E.D. Tex. practice where plaintiff files the unopposed first application and the clerk grants the 45-day extension (deadline moved to 9/27/2024). Do not read that entry as a Fabricant LLP appearance for Shell.
3. No answer, Rule 12 motion, or corporate disclosure statement by Shell appears on the public docket in the snapshots available (Justia docket last retrieved 8/12/2024; PatSnap's case review likewise states "No defendant counsel filings appear in the available case record"). The case ended by RFCyber's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 115 in the consolidated lead docket), which Judge Gilstrap "accept[ed] and acknowledge[d]" as to "Member Case No. 2:24-cv-549-JRG," denying remaining relief as moot — meaning 549 was litigated as a member case of a consolidated RFCyber lead action.

What I could not verify (stated rather than invented)

• No national/lead counsel identified. Unlike the sister case RFCyber v. Kroger (2:24-cv-00548), where Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (William P. Atkins, Benjamin Kiersz) appeared alongside Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love as local counsel, I found no firm-website announcement, Law360/Reuters coverage, or docket entry identifying Shell's national patent counsel in 549. Given the with-prejudice dismissal roughly a year in (with a probable confidential settlement/license), it is likely defense-side activity was minimal and any national counsel appearance is either absent from the public docket or buried in the consolidated lead case.
• No in-house counsel of record for Shell or Equilon is reflected on the public docket.
• Consolidation details. The dismissal order refers to 549 as a "member case," so some filings may sit on the lead docket rather than 549's own sheet; I could not confirm the lead case number or rule out a defense appearance docketed there. This is the single biggest gap in the above.

Recommended verification

Pull the full PACER docket for 2:24-cv-00549-JRG (and the consolidated lead case) and check: (a) all "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entries between 9/27/2024 and the dismissal, (b) Equilon's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, and (c) the certificate-of-service block on RFCyber's Dkt. 115 notice of dismissal, which typically lists every defense attorney served — that filing is the most reliable one-document roster of defense counsel of record at the close of the case.