Invalidity dossier

US 9208488

Using a mobile wallet infrastructure to support multiple mobile wallet providers

Current assignee: Fintiv, Inc.

Added 9/23/2026, 11:41:37 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challenges1 lawsuit on fileasserted by Fintiv, Inc.

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US9208488B2

Title: Using a mobile wallet infrastructure to support multiple mobile wallet providers

Patent number: US9208488B2 | Application: US13/680,824 | Publication: US20130132219A1
Inventor: Michael A. Liberty
Original assignee: Mozido Inc; current assignee listed as Fintiv Inc
Priority date: 2011-11-21 | Filing date: 2012-11-19 | Grant/publication date: 2015-12-08 | Anticipated expiration: 2032-11-19 | Status: Active
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9208488](/patent/US9208488)/en

Purpose (plain language): The patent describes a cloud-based transaction platform that lets people use third-party mobile wallets — wallets made by outside providers — rather than only a native wallet. The platform acts as a middle layer: it receives a communication, forwards it to the relevant third-party wallet or point-of-sale (POS) processing system, gets confirmation back, and confirms to the agent terminal or user.

Scope described in the excerpt: The infrastructure is said to support enrolling a customer for a third-party wallet, adding a stored-value account, linking bank/credit-union or debit/credit card accounts, depositing and withdrawing funds, paying bills, topping up prepaid mobile accounts, transferring funds, and making in-store purchases. Three described flows are:

  1. Agent-assisted transaction — the platform receives agent-terminal communication indicating a customer wants a mobile wallet transaction, sends it to a third-party mobile wallet platform, receives processing confirmation, and confirms back to the agent terminal.
  2. Third-party POS transaction — the platform routes POS communication from an agent terminal to the corresponding third-party POS transaction processing system and returns confirmation.
  3. Purchase using a third-party wallet — the platform receives customer communication indicating a desired item, amount, and payment method; returns a "secure, perishable purchase code"; receives agent-terminal communication that the code was presented; and debits the third-party wallet by the specified amount.

Classifications include G06Q20/36 (electronic wallets/e-money safes) and G06Q20/20 (POS network systems). FIG. 1 is described only as illustrating a monetary transaction system; the excerpt is truncated after that point.

What the excerpt does not establish: The claim text, dependent-claim limitations, specification details beyond the summary passages, drawing contents, and the identities or teachings of any cited references are not included. The excerpt therefore does not support statements about specific claim scope, validity, or prior art.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:32:30 PM

Cases on file (1)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9208488. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

Current assignee: Fintiv, Inc.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Keep exploring