Unified Patents LLC v. RFCyber Corp

Unified Patents LLC, a membership organization dedicated to deterring non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions and improving patent quality, filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition against RFCyber Corp.. Unified Patents frequently challenges patents it believes are unpatentable or invalid through administrative proceedings like PGRs and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), acting independently of its members.. RFCyber Corp is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or patent holding entity, actively asserting patents primarily in NFC, smart-card technology, and mobile payments..

The patent at issue in this PGR is U.S. Patent 10,600,046, which broadly covers a "method and apparatus for mobile payments, NFC/contactless payment technology.". In the context of a PGR, Unified Patents challenged the patentability of the claims within this patent rather than a specific accused product or service. RFCyber Corp has previously asserted similar mobile payment and NFC-related patents in district court infringement cases against major technology companies such as Apple, Google, Volkswagen, and Electrify America..

The procedural posture of this matter is a Post-Grant Review (PGR2021-00029) filed on May 10, 2021, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case ultimately concluded in a settlement. This case is notable as it reflects Unified Patents' strategy of proactively challenging patents held by alleged NPEs like RFCyber Corp. The challenged patent, US 10,600,046, also had significance in parallel litigation, where it was asserted by RFCyber against Apple Inc. and was subsequently found unpatentable by a lower tribunal, a decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit in December 2025.. The settlement in the PGR context demonstrates a resolution of the patentability dispute between Unified Patents and RFCyber concerning this key mobile payment patent.

Unified Patents LLC v. RFCyber Corp: PGR2021-00029 - Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This summary details the key legal developments and outcome of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, PGR2021-00029, filed by Unified Patents LLC against RFCyber Corp concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046. The proceeding ultimately resulted in a settlement.

Chronological Developments:

• 2021-05-10: PGR Petition Filed. Unified Patents LLC filed a Post-Grant Review petition, PGR2021-00029, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046, owned by RFCyber Corp.
• Parallel Litigation for Patent 10,600,046: While the PGR was ongoing, RFCyber Corp. was actively asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046B2 (likely the B2 reissue or continuation of the '046 patent) against Apple Inc. This district court litigation eventually led to an appeal at the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1612), filed on March 28, 2024.
• PGR Settlement and Termination: The PGR proceeding, PGR2021-00029, was terminated due to a settlement between Unified Patents LLC and RFCyber Corp. The specific date of the settlement or termination order in the PGR is not readily available in public search results.
• 2025-12-03: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Related Patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming a lower tribunal's finding that U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046B2 (the patent related to the one challenged in this PGR) was unpatentable. This appellate decision extinguished RFCyber's ability to enforce that patent.

Outcome:

The Post-Grant Review, PGR2021-00029, concluded with a settlement between Unified Patents LLC and RFCyber Corp. The exact terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed. The parallel litigation involving a related patent, US10600046B2, against Apple Inc. resulted in a significant outcome where the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of unpatentability for that patent, effectively cancelling its enforceability. This Federal Circuit decision, occurring in December 2025, highlights broader challenges to RFCyber's patent portfolio in the mobile payments sector.

Unified Patents LLC operates as a deterrence entity rather than a traditional law firm, and as such, directly employs patent counsel who manage and litigate patent office proceedings internally. They do not act as a law firm representing members and do not have an attorney-client relationship with their members.

Based on the information available, Unified Patents employs a team of in-house patent counsel to handle its Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions. While specific attorneys of record for PGR2021-00029 are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, Unified Patents' team of Senior Patent Counsel are responsible for drafting, filing, and litigating these proceedings.

Some of the Senior Patent Counsel listed on Unified Patents' team page, indicating their roles in managing patent office proceedings, include:

• Jonathan Stroud - COO & CLO.
• Jenn Bisk - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Kyla Bulter - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Kelly Hughes - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Patrick King - Senior Patent Counsel.
• T.J. Murphy - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Vinu Raj - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel.
• David Seastrunk - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Andrea Shoffstall - Senior Patent Counsel.
• Jason Wejnert - Senior Patent Counsel.

Unified Patents actively recruits experienced patent attorneys with a background in PTAB proceedings, emphasizing their internal management of such cases. They require their patent counsel to have at least five years of experience in PTAB proceedings, including drafting petitions, filing, litigating, and depositions. These attorneys work from Unified Patents' offices, which are headquartered in San Jose, California, though remote work options are also available.

In the Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2021-00029, Unified Patents LLC v. RFCyber Corp, concerning US Patent 10600046, the specific counsel of record for RFCyber Corp. is not immediately available through general web searches of PTAB dockets and case lists for RFCyber or Unified Patents. While Unified Patents' PTAB activity is extensively documented, details regarding RFCyber Corp.'s legal representation in this particular PGR settlement are not readily published in the publicly accessible summaries of the case.

To definitively identify the counsel of record for RFCyber Corp., a direct review of the official docket for PGR2021-00029 on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's electronic filing system (PTAB-EFS) or through a service like PACER would be necessary. Such a review would reveal the attorneys who entered appearances for RFCyber Corp. However, without direct access to these specific docket filings, a comprehensive list of counsel cannot be provided at this time.

General information about RFCyber Corp.'s past patent litigation against companies like Apple suggests they have engaged various law firms specializing in patent assertion and intellectual property, but the counsel for this specific PGR settled case is not explicitly stated in the available public summaries.