RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

I'll research this case before drafting. Let me start with searches on the parties, the patent, and the docket.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the complaint/accused product, the dismissal order, and RFCyber's corporate background.

I have reached the research tool limit, so here is the overview based on what I verified, with clear flags where the record is thin.

---

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. is a small, inventor-founded mobile-payments technology company (originally headquartered in Fremont, California; RFCyber Corp. was formed around 2003 and marketed smart-card/e-purse middleware, trusted-service-management platforms and NFC "mobile POS" products to mobile operators and e-money issuers — see RFCyber's own product literature at rfcybercorp.com). It is best characterized as a patent-holding/assertion entity in its litigation posture rather than an operating competitor of the defendants: RPX describes the campaign as "inventor-backed," and RFCyber monetizes its portfolio through suits against handset makers and platform operators (Apple, Google, Samsung, LG) and later retailers (Costco, Kroger, Shell, Starbucks, Walmart, Volkswagen). The ownership chain is somewhat tangled — in the Google/Samsung litigation RFCyber had to address a 2014 assignment of the '218 and '855 patents to Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management LLP and a July 30, 2020 exclusive license/assignment back to RFCyber Corp., and standing was contested. Defendant Visa U.S.A. Inc. is the Delaware-incorporated U.S. payments network entity (it admitted Texas registration and a Texas registered agent in its answer, Dkt. 18); Visa is an operating company and, here, an accused acquirer/network-side actor rather than a device maker.

The technology at issue. RFCyber's family (the '218, '855, '787 and '009 patents share a common specification) describes putting an "e-purse" — a stored-value payment application — on a smart card inside an NFC-enabled phone, so the device can transact both over the air with a payment server (m-commerce) and at a contactless reader (e-commerce). The architecture uses a user-facing "midlet," an "e-purse applet," a card "emulator" pre-loaded on the smart card, and a personalization process creating layered secure channels with a back-end security authentication module (SAM). Publicly available filings in this case don't include the complaint itself in what I retrieved, so I cannot responsibly state the precise accused Visa product/service from the record; Visa's answer (Dkt. 18) and the claim-construction briefing (Dkt. 41-1, Shamos declaration, Aug. 21, 2023) confirm the patents but did not surface an accused-product description in my searches. Given the campaign's pattern (Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, LG Pay, Google Pay, then merchant apps), the accusation most plausibly targets Visa's role in enabling contactless/tokenized mobile wallet transactions, but treat that as inference, not a documented fact. Notably, RFCyber's own 2007 marketing materials describe a smart-poster program run with Visa International in Taipei — an ironic historical connection I could not confirm is discussed in the litigation.

Patents, posture and significance. The complaint, filed June 28, 2022 in W.D. Tex. Waco before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserted four patents and, per the May 1, 2023 Case Readiness Status Report (Dkt. 16), 71 claims: the '218 ("Method and Apparatus for Providing Electronic Purse"), the '855, the '787 ("Portable Device for Commerce," claims 1–19 covering NFC plus wireless-network e-purse transactions), and the '009 ("Mobile Devices for Commerce Over Unsecured Networks"). Visa moved to dismiss (Dkt. 10, Nov. 11, 2022), which was denied April 26, 2023, and then moved to stay pending Apple's IPRs (Dkt. 22, June 8, 2023) — Apple had already instituted IPR2022-00412 ('787) and IPR2022-00413 ('009). On July 18, 2023 the PTAB split: it found all claims of the '009 unpatentable under § 103, but held Apple failed to prove the '787 claims unpatentable — the '787 therefore survived, which is why the case as docketed ultimately turns on the '787. The parties stipulated to stay the '009 claims (Dkt. 42, Aug. 31, 2023), and Judge Albright on October 13, 2023 severed and stayed the '009 claims pending RFCyber's Federal Circuit appeal (Dkt. 48). The case then settled: a joint motion to dismiss (Dkt. 53) produced the February 5, 2024 order (Dkt. 54) dismissing RFCyber's claims with prejudice and Visa's defenses without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs.

Why it matters: it is a clean illustration of the modern NPE playbook colliding with PTAB risk management — a serial campaign plaintiff, an IPR filed by a non-defendant (Apple) in a parallel Waco case (RFCyber v. Apple, 6:21-cv-00916-ADA), and a defendant that used those IPRs first as a stay lever and then as settlement leverage. It also shows the limits of that lever: the '787 came out of the PTAB intact, so Visa could not simply wait out invalidity and instead bought peace. The related Apple and merchant cases continued after this dismissal, and at least one RFCyber patent ('046) was later held unpatentable and affirmed by the Federal Circuit under Rule 36 (Apple v. RFCyber, No. 24-1612) — indicating the portfolio's durability is uneven.

Caveats. I could not retrieve the complaint (Dkt. 1), Visa's motion to dismiss briefing, or the settlement's terms, and the exact accused Visa product/service and any damages figure are not established in the sources I could access; the February 2, 2024 joint dismissal motion (Dkt. 53) recites only that the parties "resolved RFCyber's claims." Docket-level facts above are grounded in the filed documents available via Docket Alarm (Dkts. 16, 18, 22, 42, 48, 53-1, 54, 55).

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig into the docket entries and the PTAB proceedings.

RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright)

Threshold note on the patent list

The case metadata supplied to me lists only US 9,189,787. The docket record, however, shows that RFCyber actually asserted four patents from the same family — US 8,118,218; 8,448,855; 9,189,787; and 9,240,009 — totaling 71 claims at the time of the parties' May 2023 Case Readiness Status Report (Dkt. 16, filed 2023-05-01). Per my operating instruction I treat the metadata as authoritative on parties/court/patents, but the fuller record is set out below because it is essential to explaining why the case settled the way it did. The '787 was the only asserted patent that survived PTAB review.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Strategic significance: Visa's motion practice was almost entirely a holding action. The docket shows no scheduling order and no trial date ever entered; per Visa's own stay motion, "this case has not entered discovery." Visa's real strategy was to let the Apple IPRs — already instituted on the same two patents, against the same patent owner, with the same prior art — do the work.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

(a) Motion to transfer — contemplated, never filed. In the joint Case Readiness Status Report Visa stated it was "contemplating seeking transfer to the Northern District of California where Defendant is headquartered," and was "contemplating seeking a stay of the case at least pending the final written decisions expected in July 2023." Dkt. 16, 2023-05-01. No transfer motion appears on the docket — a notable choice, given that co-defendants in the family (Apple, Google) were litigating §1404(a) transfer in parallel Waco cases. Visa instead chose the stay route.

(b) Motion to stay pending IPR — filed, briefed, then withdrawn as part of a negotiated partial stay.

• 2023-06-08 — Visa's Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. 22), arguing the three Kirsch/Xylon factors and noting "the PTAB's final written decision is expected in under two months" (Dkt. 22).
• 2023-06-22 — RFCyber's opposition (Dkt. 28): a whole-case stay was unwarranted because (i) two of the four asserted patents (the '218 and '855) were not under any instituted IPR, and the Board had denied institution against those two repeatedly; and (ii) "the same Visa functionality infringes each of the four Patents-in-Suit," so discovery scope would not change (Dkt. 28).
• c. 2023-07 — Visa reply (Dkt. 33).
• 2023-08-31 — The motion was never ruled on. Instead the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay Litigation of the '009 Patent (Dkt. 42), conditioned on Visa withdrawing its pending Motion to Stay (Dkt. 22) (Dkt. 42). This is the pivotal procedural event of the case.

(c) No summary-judgment, Daubert, or James motions were ever filed — the case never reached expert discovery.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case never reached Markman. No scheduling order issued, no Markman order, no technical advisor appointed (the parties "defer[red] to the Court" on a technical advisor, Dkt. 16). Claim-construction work in the family was done in the parallel Apple case, No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA, where the parties exchanged opening construction briefs in April 2022 covering the '218, '855, '787, '009, '046 and '724 patents (Dkt. 43, 2022-04-19). Notably, the PTAB in the '724 appeal later adopted "the construction of 'emulator device' that the parties agreed to during claim construction in a parallel district court proceeding" — a Federal Circuit opinion confirming that the Apple case produced agreed constructions that fed back into the PTAB. RFCyber Corp. v. Squires, No. 2024-1614, slip op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025) (nonprecedential), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1614.OPINION.12-17-2025_2620416.pdf.

---

4. Discovery milestones

There were effectively none of substance. As of Visa's June 2023 stay motion the case was "still at the pleading stage," with no scheduling order and no trial date; the parties' joint report confirms "A scheduling order has not yet been filed." The only discovery-adjacent disputes visible in the record are the ones Visa argued would arise — viz., that the PTAB's claim-language analysis would reshape invalidity contentions and Markman positions (Dkt. 33). RFCyber's counter-argument — that discovery scope was fixed because one Visa functionality allegedly infringed all four patents — is the only meaningful discovery-positioning dispute on the docket.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was set, no trial occurred, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion. Fees and costs were resolved by the dismissal order itself (each party to bear its own).

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

This is where the case was actually decided. RFCyber's family was the subject of an unusually heavy petition campaign by Google, Samsung and Apple:

Against the two patents never instituted on:

Counsel of record for Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. — RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

RFCyber's legal team was a two-tier structure typical of W.D. Tex. patent practice: a New York patent boutique (Fabricant LLP) acting as lead/of-counsel, and a single Austin attorney as local counsel. No in-house RFCyber attorney ever entered an appearance, and I found no sealed or restricted attorney appearances on this docket.

Corroboration and docket grounding

• Dkt. 2 (Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, filed 2022-06-28) is signed "/s/ Raymond W. Mort, III," with Fabricant, Lambrianakos and Rubino listed under "OF COUNSEL … (pro hac vice to be filed)." Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-00697/RFCyber_Corp._v._Visa_U.S.A._Inc/docs/2.pdf
• Dkt. 9 (Notice Extending Time to Respond, 2022-11-29) signed by Mort alone, with his firm address at 501 Congress Ave., Suite 150, Austin.
• Dkt. 10 — PHV motion and order for Richard Matthew Cowell (filed 2022-12-13; order 2022-12-20), identifying Mort as the W.D. Tex.–admitted co-counsel sponsor.
• Dkt. 25 — PHV order for Jacob Ostling (2023-06-09); Dkt. 36 — PHV order for Vincent J. Rubino III (2023-08-03); Dkt. 38 — PHV motion/order for Alfred R. Fabricant (Aug. 2023).
• Dkt. 53 / 53-1 (joint stipulation and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, filed 2024-02-02, signed February 2024) closes with "OF COUNSEL: Alfred R. Fabricant … Peter Lambrianakos … Vincent J. Rubino, III … Richard M. Cowell, FABRICANT LLP … ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF RFCYBER CORP." — i.e., those four were still the plaintiff's counsel of record at dismissal. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-00697/RFCyber_Corp._v._Visa_U.S.A._Inc/53/1/

Notes, caveats, and things I could not verify

• Firm name change: Fabricant LLP has since rebranded as Fabricant Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP (frlip.com), still at 411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Rye, NY. The docket for this 2022–24 case uses the old name.
• Possible additional Fabricant attorneys — not confirmed here. Enrique W. Iturralde (USPTO Reg. No. 72,883) and Justine Minseon Park appear for RFCyber in related matters (Apple, Jawbone) and in RFCyber's PTAB mandatory notices, but I found no PHV order or appearance for either of them on the 6:22-cv-00697 docket, so I have not listed them as counsel of record. If you need certainty, pull the full PACER docket sheet (attorney/appearance filter) rather than the partial Docket Alarm page.
• Timing quirk worth flagging: the complaint listed Fabricant, Lambrianakos and Rubino as "pro hac vice to be filed," but their PHV motions were not filed until roughly a year later (mid-2023). In the interim, filings were signed by Mort and/or Cowell (Cowell admitted Dec. 2022). Lambrianakos's individual PHV order in this case did not surface in my searches, though he is described as "Admitted Pro Hac Vice" in this case's signature blocks — treat his admission date as unverified.
• For context (defense side, not requested): Visa was represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Jamie Y. Otto, Los Angeles; James C. Yoon, Palo Alto; NY office attorneys), per Dkt. 53-1 signature blocks and Prof. Michael Shamos's expert disclosure. RFCyber's case-specific merits record was thin — the parties were headed to claim construction on the "fund" terms of the '855/'787 patents (Dkts. 41, 45) before the Feb. 2024 settlement/dismissal.

Sourcing caveat: PACER itself is paywalled and I relied on Docket Alarm mirrors of the filed documents, CourtListener/Justia dockets from RFCyber's related cases, and USPTO PTAB papers. Names, bar numbers, and firms above come from those filed documents; the one-line experience notes are from firm bios and PTAB filings and are necessarily summary.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Visa U.S.A. Inc.

Bottom line: Visa was represented throughout by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. ("WSGR"), appearing through its New York, Los Angeles and Palo Alto offices. The appearances I could verify from filed documents are four WSGR attorneys — James C. Yoon, Lucy Yen, Cassie L. Black, and Jamie Y. Otto. I found no separate Texas local-counsel firm appearing for Visa and no Visa in-house attorney entering an appearance in the documents I could retrieve (flag below).

Documentary basis

• Dkt. 26 (June 2023) — Visa's filing identifies "Lucy Yen (pro hac vice)" and "Cassie L. Black (pro hac vice)," both at WSGR's New York office (lyen@wsgr.com / cblack@wsgr.com).
• Dkt. 42 — the Joint Stipulation to Stay Litigation of U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 (Aug. 31, 2023) is signed "WILSON SONSNI [sic] GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation, By: James C. Yoon … Attorneys for Defendant VISA U.S.A."
• Dkt. 53 — the joint motion to dismiss (Feb. 2, 2024) carries Visa's counsel block: cblack@wsgr.com at WSGR New York and Jamie Y. Otto at WSGR Los Angeles, "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT VISA U.S.A. INC."

Flags and gaps

1. Formal "lead counsel" designation. I did not retrieve the CM/ECF attorney list or a notice of appearance designating a lead attorney in this docket. I designate Mr. Yoon as lead because he is the WSGR attorney who signed the operative stipulation for Visa in this case and is docketed as Visa's "Lead Attorney" in the parallel Cortex MCP v. Visa matter. Treat "lead" as a strong inference rather than a quoted docket label.
2. Local counsel. W.D. Tex. practice generally contemplates a Texas-barred local counsel for pro hac vice admissions, and WSGR maintains an Austin office (900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Las Cimas IV). However, the Visa signature blocks I recovered list only New York and Los Angeles counsel, and the pro hac vice orders I located in this docket (Dkts. 25, 36) concern plaintiff's counsel, not Visa's. I could not confirm whether a WSGR Austin or other Texas attorney appeared for Visa — that appearance, if any, is not in the documents I retrieved.
3. In-house counsel. No Visa legal-department attorney appears in the filings I reviewed; the Dkt. 18 answer was filed through outside counsel.
4. Sealed/omitted material. Because the case settled, there is no trial team record; the settlement papers do not identify additional counsel. Any additional WSGR associates who worked the matter but never entered an appearance would not appear in the docket.

Sources: Docket Alarm docket sheet and documents for RFCyber Corp. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00697-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — Dkts. 26, 42, 53 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-00697/RFCyber_Corp._v._Visa_U.S.A._Inc/); WSGR attorney bios for Cassie Leigh Black (https://www.wsgr.com/print/v2/content/17929/Cassie-Leigh-Black.pdf) and Jamie Y. Otto (https://www.wsgr.com/en/people/jamie-y-otto.html); N.D. Cal. docket, Cortex MCP, Inc. v. Visa, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-05720-EJD (attorney listings); WSGR 2020 diversity/pro bono report (naming James Yoon and Lucy Yen as attorneys on Visa matters).