RFCyber Corp. v. Volkswagen AG et al.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Case Overview — RFCyber Corp. v. Volkswagen AG et al., No. 2:24-cv-00576-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Parties. RFCyber Corp. is a Texas corporation with a stated place of business in Plano, Texas (7700 Windrose Ave., Suite G300), and is consistently characterized in trade press and by foreign IP-monitoring services as a non-practicing/inventor-backed licensing entity rather than an EV or payments operating company (RPX describes it as "inventor-backed"; Korea's KOITRA dispute database tags plaintiff as "NPE"). It is represented by Fabricant LLP (Alfred R. Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, Richard M. Cowell, Jacob Ostling), the same New York firm running RFCyber's broader contactless-payments campaign. Public patent records (as summarized by Patsnap) show the asserted '218 and '855 patents recorded to Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management, LLP, which is worth flagging as an ownership/standing issue to check in any follow-on matter. The defendants are Volkswagen AG (German parent, Wolfsburg — never served per VWGoA's Dkt. 16 n.1), Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (New Jersey corporation; the U.S. importer/distributor for VW, Audi and Porsche vehicles, apps and chargers, with Texas employees at the Port of Houston, a Fort Worth parts center, and an Irving regional office), and — added by the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) — Electrify America, LLC (Delaware LLC, Reston, VA; alleged VWGoA subsidiary operating the charging network). VWGoA is defended by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Daniel Yonan, Michael Specht, Daniel Block, William H. Crudo) with Michael C. Smith of Scheef & Stone as Marshall local counsel.

Accused technology and patents. The target is not a classic mobile-wallet product but automotive Plug&Charge under ISO 15118: the vehicle authenticates and settles payment automatically on cable connect, with credentials provisioned over the air from an OEM backend/"contract pool." The First Amended Complaint accuses the Plug&Charge software in the Volkswagen ID.4, Audi e-tron and Porsche Taycan (with the 2023/2024 ID.4 rollout at Electrify America as the lead example), plus the Volkswagen, myAudi, My Porsche and Electrify America apps, EA charging stations and related server infrastructure; the EA Android app's NFC "digital membership pass" tap-to-charge and "swipe to start" features are charted as the portable-device/e-purse embodiment (FAC ¶¶36, 43–49, 55–58, 74–81). The three asserted patents share inventors Liang Seng Koh, Hsin Pan, Futong Cho and Fuliang Cho and a mid-2000s-vintage e-purse/secure-element architecture: U.S. 8,118,218 ("Method and Apparatus for Providing Electronic Purse," issued Feb. 21, 2012) — a portable device with a smart-card emulator, an e-purse applet and a "midlet" that brokers transactions over wired/wireless networks, with a three-tier security model; U.S. 8,448,855 ("Method and Apparatus for Funding an Electronic Purse," issued May 28, 2013) — the method of topping up the e-purse from a financial institution via an e-purse applet/emulator exchange; and U.S. 9,189,787 ("Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-Commerce and M-Commerce," issued Nov. 17, 2015) — dual-interface (NFC field commerce plus network/m-commerce) transactions against a stored e-purse. The obvious soft spot flagged in the pleadings analysis is claim scope: the specifications describe a cellphone, so whether an EV's head unit or an Android handset running the EA app is a "portable device," and whether Plug&Charge's ISO 15118 backend maps onto a "midlet" and "e-purse applet," are the likely fights. Note also the patents' age: Patsnap estimates expiry around Sept. 24, 2026 for the '855 and Aug. 16, 2029 for the '218, which materially compresses the damages window.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed July 23, 2024 in the Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (flags: CONSOL, JRG3, JURY, PATENT/TRADEMARK), with a jury demand. RFCyber filed two overlapping complaints against Volkswagen that same day — 2:24-cv-00575 and 2:24-cv-00576 — and the "CONSOL" flag plus the September 2025 dismissal order's reference to "-576" as a "member case" indicate the two were consolidated (which docket is lead is not cleanly confirmed in the sources I reviewed). Venue was contested hard: on Sept. 30, 2024 VWGoA filed both a Rule 12(b)(6) partial motion to dismiss the pre-suit willful and indirect claims for failure to allege pre-suit knowledge (Dkt. 16, citing the W.D. Tex. dismissal of similar claims in RFCyber v. Apple, No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA) and a Rule 12(b)(3)/§ 1406(a) motion to dismiss or transfer, or alternatively § 1404(a) transfer, to the Eastern District of Michigan, where the accused Plug&Charge products were principally developed — arguing that franchised dealerships are not the automaker's "regular and established place of business" under Federal Circuit precedent and that **Elect

I'll research this case across court dockets, PTAB records, and legal news sources.

I have initial leads. Let me dig into the docket and the reported voluntary dismissal.

The case appears consolidated into a multi-defendant lead case. Let me pull the full docket and investigate the consolidation structure.

Source-quality note up front

I could not authenticate directly into PACER for this docket. Everything below is reconstructed from (a) Docket Alarm/RECAP mirrors of filed documents in 2:24-cv-00576, (b) third-party litigation databases quoting docket text verbatim, and (c) RPX/industry reporting. Docket numbers and dates for the documents I quote are reliable; a handful of entries (noted) I could not identify by content. I flag the two places where the record is genuinely ambiguous rather than filling gaps.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2024-07-23 — Complaint filed. RFCyber Corp. sued Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in E.D. Tex. (Marshall), Case No. 2:24-cv-00576-JRG, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Asserted: US 8,118,218; US 8,448,855; US 9,189,787 (a continuation family — '218 → '855 → '787, all to "e-purse"/contactless payment with a portable device). Accused: Plug&Charge (ISO 15118) functionality in VW/Audi/Porsche EVs (ID.4 named), the VW App / myAudi / My Porsche apps, and the Electrify America network and app, including NFC "tap-to-pay" at chargers. The complaint's venue theory rested on franchised dealers and Electrify America charging stations in the District as VW's "regular and established place of business." Case flags on the docket include CONSOL, JURY, and PATENT/TRADEMARK.

Context — this was a campaign filing, not a standalone suit. RFCyber filed a wave of E.D. Tex. complaints the same week against Costco (2:24-cv-00546), Kroger (2:24-cv-00548), Shell (2:24-cv-00549), Starbucks (2:24-cv-00550) and Walmart (2:24-cv-00551), asserting overlapping sets of the same three patents. RPX reported the wave on 2024-07-26. (Note: RPX's blurb lists the Volkswagen suit as 2:24-cv-00575, one number off from the caption here; the case metadata for 2:24-cv-00576 controls. It is possible both numbers exist as parallel VW filings — I could not confirm.)

Volkswagen AG was never served. VWGoA's motion expressly states: "Volkswagen AG ('VWAG') has also been named as a defendant in this case but has not been served with the complaint." So the litigation as a practical matter ran only against the U.S. importer.

Answer/counterclaims: I found no VW answer or counterclaims in the public record. VWGoA went straight to dispositive motions on 2024-09-30, consistent with its partial-dismissal strategy and with the case never reaching the answer stage in a meaningful way before consolidation. Flagging this as a gap rather than asserting no answer was filed.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

2024-09-30 — VWGoA's Partial Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 16). Targeted only RFCyber's allegations of pre-suit willful and indirect infringement, on the ground that the complaint never alleged VWGoA knew of the patents before suit. VWGoA leaned heavily on RFCyber's own loss in RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2022), where the court dismissed materially identical pre-suit willfulness/indirect claims. It also cited recent Gilstrap pleading authority (Signode Indus. v. Samuel, Son & Co., 2024 WL 3543408 (E.D. Tex. 2024); Touchstream Techs.) and RFCyber v. Visa U.S.A., 2024 WL 1219725 (E.D. Tex.). Same day, VWGoA filed a pro hac vice application (Dkt. 21) — its lead counsel line was Sterne Kessler (Milliken, Specht, Block, Crudo) with Michael C. Smith of Scheef & Stone as local counsel.

2024-09-30 / 2024-10-07 — Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for improper venue (sealed as Dkt. 18; publicly refiled as Dkt. 28 on 2024-10-07). Brought under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or alternatively § 1404(a). The argument: (i) independently owned franchised dealerships do not qualify as the automaker's regular and established place of business under Federal Circuit precedent; (ii) VWGoA does not control Electrify America or its stations, so those stations cannot supply venue; and (iii) the accused Plug&Charge software was "developed principally in the Eastern District of Michigan," making E.D. Mich. the proper forum — with the private- and public-interest factors favoring transfer.

2024-10-03 — Joint motion to extend the briefing schedule (Dkt. 27). Unopposed; pushed RFCyber's responses to both motions to 2024-10-28, VWGoA's replies to 2024-11-11, and RFCyber's sur-replies to 2024-11-18. Both sides cited "the complexity of the issues."

2024-10-21 — RFCyber's opposition to the venue motion (Dkt. 31) with exhibits including the '787 patent (Dkt. 31-3) and a declaration attaching property-tax and dealership evidence supporting its "ratification"/agency theory of venue. 2024-10-23 — Dkt. 34 appears on the docket in the same window; I could not confirm its contents.

No ruling on either motion on the merits is reflected in the public record. Critically, I found no order granting or denying the Rule 12(b)(6) partial dismissal, and no order transferring to E.D. Mich. Whether the court ruled, mooted the motions, or simply let them lapse on dismissal is unresolved in the sources available to me — this is the single biggest evidentiary hole in the chronology, and it matters because a transfer denial would have been a meaningful venue precedent for the campaign.

---

3. Consolidation and the addition of Electrify America

2024-11-01 — Notice of appearance of Michael Charles Smith (Scheef & Stone) for Electrify America, LLC. Electrify America, though repeatedly named in the infringement allegations from the start, appears to have been formally joined as a defendant by amended pleading in mid/late 2024. The docket's CONSOL flag and the eventual dismissal order's reference to "Member Case No. 2:24-cv-576-JRG" confirm this case was folded into a consolidated lead action — the lead docket being 2:24-cv-00551-JRG (RFCyber v. Walmart et al.), which was managing the campaign-wide schedule and protective order.

2024-11-06 — Order in the lead case terminating the joint motions for an agreed protective order and to consolidate/amend the case schedules (signed by Judge Gilstrap 2024-11-06). From that point, scheduling in the VW member case tracked the lead case.

---

4. Claim construction (Markman) — not reached

There is no Markman hearing, no claim construction order, and no joint claim construction statement in the public record for this case. The case was filed 2024-07-23 and dismissed 2025-09-24 (428 days). Given consolidation and the pendency of the venue motion into late 2024, a Markman was realistically a 2025 H2–2026 event; the dismissal foreclosed it. The substantive claim-scope fights the complaint teed up — most obviously whether a ~4,500-lb EV (ID.4) is a "portable device" under claims whose exemplary embodiment is a cellphone, and whether the Plug&Charge backend/app architecture reads on "midlet"/"e-purse applet" limitations — were therefore never judicially resolved. That is legally significant for RFCyber's remaining campaign: no adverse construction exists against it in this case.

---

5. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

Only two items have strategic weight:

• 2024-11-06 protective order (lead-case entry) — established the confidentiality regime for source code and technical documents. Once the protective order was in place, the case was positioned for VWGoA to produce the Plug&Charge and app source code developed in Michigan.
• 2024-10-31 / 2024-10-30 filings in the companion Kroger member case (2:24-cv-00548) — RFCyber's sur-reply and its response to Kroger's sur-reply on the identical pre-suit willfulness/indirect issue. This shows the campaign was coordinating a common defense-and-response playbook across member cases, and that the Rule 12(b)(6) knowledge-of-patent attack was being litigated in parallel across defendants.

No fact-discovery cutoff, no dispositive-motion deadline compliance, and no expert-report events are publicly documented before dismissal.

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no pre-trial order, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion was reached. The case was resolved roughly 14 months after filing, well before any trial date.

---

7. Final disposition

2025-09-24 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. 129) and order accepting it. RFCyber dismissed all claims against Electrify America, LLC with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1

I'll research the counsel of record for RFCyber Corp. in this case.

Good initial data. Let me verify the local counsel and confirm the full appearance list on the docket.

Let me pull the full docket sheet for appearance entries and check the attorneys' backgrounds.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. — RFCyber Corp. v. Volkswagen AG et al., No. 2:24-cv-00576-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: RFCyber was represented by a two-firm team: Fabricant LLP (Rye, NY / New York, NY) as lead trial counsel, and Truelove Law Firm (Marshall, TX) as local counsel — the same lineup Fabricant used across RFCyber's entire July 2024 six-defendant filing wave (Costco, Kroger, Shell, Starbucks, Walmart, Volkswagen). No in-house RFCyber attorney appears on the docket.

Verification notes and caveats

• Source of the list. No public PACER mirror displays the 00576 attorney roster directly, so I triangulated: (1) the signature block of Dkt. 27 (Joint Motion for Extension of Time, filed 10/03/2024), which recites all five Fabricant LLP attorneys and expressly labels them "ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF RFCYBER CORP." in this case — this is the strongest direct evidence of record appearance; (2) third-party docket aggregation (Patsnap's case record for 2:24-cv-00576) recording plaintiff counsel as Fabricant, Ostling, Truelove, Lambrianakos, Cowell, and Rubino; (3) the appearance entries in the five companion cases filed the same week, which use identical signature blocks.
• Truelove caveat. I could not locate the specific notice-of-appearance document number for Truelove in 2:24-cv-00576 itself. He filed his appearance in the parallel RFCyber cases (e.g., Dkt. 12 in 2:24-cv-00548) and is listed as plaintiff's counsel for 00576 in the case-record aggregation. Treat his 00576 appearance as highly likely but not independently document-verified. Note also that VWGoA moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue (Dkt. 28), which would have put local-counsel designation in flux.
• Consolidation effect. The RFCyber cases were consolidated for pretrial on 10/22/2024 under lead case No. 2:24-cv-00550 (RFCyber v. Starbucks), so after that date most filings by this same counsel team appear on the 00550 docket rather than the 00576 docket. That is likely why 00576's own docket looks sparse.
• No in-house or additional outside counsel appeared. I found no appearance by an RFCyber legal-department attorney, and no second outside firm (unlike RFCyber's earlier cases, where McKool Smith's Samuel Baxter and Jennifer L. Truelove appeared as local counsel — a different firm and different attorneys from Justin Kurt Truelove's Truelove Law Firm; do not conflate Jennifer L. Truelove with Justin K. Truelove).
• Nothing sealed on the plaintiff's side. Plaintiff's counsel's identities come from public filings; the sealed material in this case (e.g., VWGoA's sealed transfer motion practice) concerns the defense.

Case-ending context (updating the existing summary)

The "closed" status flagged in the earlier summary is now confirmed from record text: the case terminated September 24, 2025, by voluntary dismissal with prejudice — the Court's order (accepting a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, Dkt. 129 in the lead case) recites that "all claims in Member Case No. 2:24-cv-576-JRG are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE," each party bearing its own costs and fees. Plaintiff's counsel of record at termination were the Fabricant LLP / Truelove Law Firm team above. (Patsnap case record; Dkt. 27 signature block; Dkt. 28 venue motion; Kroger companion docket showing Truelove appearance)

Unsourced / do-not-assert: I have no verified basis for detailed career histories (prior firm affiliations, law schools, bar-admission dates) for Fabricant, Lambrianakos, Rubino, Cowell, Ostling, or Truelove beyond the bar numbers appearing in filings; those should be pulled from the firm website or a bar directory before use in a brief or client memo.

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

I found the case and some filings. Let me verify the signature blocks and the full appearance list, since one snippet's labels were ambiguous.

Let me check the docket via CourtListener (RECAP) and look into the Electrify America appearance referenced in the dismissal order.

Short answer

Only Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") was ever represented by counsel of record in this case. Volkswagen AG was named but (per VWGoA's own filing) never served, so no counsel appeared for it. VWGoA's defense team was a two-firm combination: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. (Washington, D.C.) as lead/PHV counsel and Scheef & Stone, L.L.P. (Marshall, Texas) as local counsel.

---

Counsel of record for VWGoA

In-house counsel: none appeared of record. VW's legal department may have supervised the matter, but no in-house lawyer signed a filing or entered an appearance that I can source — do not list one without a docket entry.

Volkswagen AG: no counsel of record. VWGoA's partial motion to dismiss stated in a footnote: "This motion is filed on behalf of Defendant VWGoA only. Volkswagen AG ('VWAG') has also been named as a defendant in this case but has not been served with the complaint." (Dkt. 16 at 4 n.1, filed 9/30/2024). I found no later appearance for VWAG.

---

Record support

• Dkt. 21 (9/30/2024) — Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Daniel Yonan, approved by the clerk the same day: "Applicant is representing the following party(ies): Volkswagen Group of America, Inc."; address given as Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., 1101 K Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. (Mirror: docketalarm.com, 2--24-cv-00576/.../docs/21.pdf.)
• Dkt. 16 (9/30/2024) — VWGoA's Partial Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (pre-suit willful/indirect infringement), with Dkt. 18 being a sealed motion to dismiss or transfer under Rule 12(b)(6)/28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, alternatively, § 1404(a) — the latter is the kind of filing typically made for a foreign parent, consistent with the unserved VWAG.
• Dkt. 27 (10/3/2024) — Joint Motion for Extension of Time re Dkts. 16 & 18, whose signature block lists Michael C. Smith, Scheef & Stone, L.L.P. (Marshall) together with Yonan, Specht, Block, Milliken, and Crudo of Sterne Kessler (pro hac vice).
• Corroboration that Sterne