Newly-founded Texas firm sues over Apple Pay's virtual wallet

Posted:
in iPhone
An Austin startup, Fintiv, is suing Apple over a patent covering virtual wallets such as the one core to Apple Pay.

Apple Pay wallet


The patent was acquired from South Korea and covers "management of virtual cards stored on mobile devices," including "provisioning a contactless card in a mobile device with a mobile wallet application," according to Fintiv's complaint filed with the U.S. District Court in Waco, spotted by Patently Apple. Apple is allegedly infringing three claims in the patent by way of iPhones, the Apple Watch, and the iOS Wallet app.

Fintiv was founded just this year, but already claims to have 5.4 million people on its mobile payments and marketing platform, available in 12 languages and 60 countries. The company is pursuing "monetary damages and prejudgment interest" for Apple's "past and continuing infringement" of the wallet patent.

Apple is regularly targeted by patent lawsuits, many of them by "trolls" -- firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

The biggest ongoing fight though involves chipmaking giant Qualcomm. That took a turn against Apple recently when China imposed an injunction against some iPhone sales. In response, Apple took the rare step of preparing a software update to sidestep infringement.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    I’v never seen this before the update, but now when my son messages me, they’re showing up in other contacts messages. 
  • Reply 2 of 27
    5.4 Million users in under a year!! 

    These people are full of  $*** and probably about to collapse. They probably figured they’d go out with a bang and what better way is there, then to try and take Apple to court. 
    edited December 2018 dysamoriagilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 27
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 872member
    Does this company happen to reside in the Eastern District of Texas?

    “Managing virtual cards stored on mobile devices” sounds like a blatantly obvious concept that shouldn’t be patentable. Are they going to file a patent for a system of “managing physical cards on mobile people” and sue regular wallet makers too?
    jbdragonbaconstangdysamoriaphilboogiegilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 27
    What a great patent system.  Check out the Austin Meyer / X-Plane story on YouTube.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    gatorguybeowulfschmidtSpamSandwichsanspscooter63watto_cobraairnerd
  • Reply 6 of 27
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,930member
    What a great patent system.  Check out the Austin Meyer / X-Plane story on YouTube.
    WOW,.. Won the first battle, but in the end, hasn't won the war and won't live long enough to win it in the end which way the system works.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    MplsP said:
    Does this company happen to reside in the Eastern District of Texas?

    “Managing virtual cards stored on mobile devices” sounds like a blatantly obvious concept that shouldn’t be patentable. Are they going to file a patent for a system of “managing physical cards on mobile people” and sue regular wallet makers too?
    It may be obvious to everyone now but was it obvious when the patent was filed? That’s a common mistake that people make who are not familiar with how patents work. 

    Austin is not in the Eastern District of Texas but almost any company can file there whether they reside there or not. 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 8 of 27
    The Wallet app appeared in 2012. Apple started approaching partners for ApplePay in 2013. This patent appears to be from 2014.
    dedgeckogilly33entropyswatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 27
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,377member
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    Apples and oranges.   Your uncle is also a farmer.   I assume that the patents he owns are for products or processes he designed.   As you say, he has never sued anyone.  Patent trolls are companies that exist solely for the purpose of buying up patents and then suing over them.   And even that would be legit if not for the fact that in most of these lawsuits (at least the ones we hear about), they seem to be for obvious business practices that never should have been granted patents in the first place since it's more about a concept than a design.    IMO, Amazon never should have been granted a patent for one-click ordering as the idea of storing a customer's name and address goes back to the beginnings of the computer era.  

    I'm involved in a lawsuit right now (as a witness) with a company claiming to have invented something that's incredibly obvious and which I implemented in software ("prior art") years before they did.  And they're suing everyone in sight who have something similar, which is practically everybody.    It's almost like suing over the concept of searching (as opposed to the engineering that makes it possible). 
    dysamoriasansStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 872member
    mld53a said:
    MplsP said:
    Does this company happen to reside in the Eastern District of Texas?

    “Managing virtual cards stored on mobile devices” sounds like a blatantly obvious concept that shouldn’t be patentable. Are they going to file a patent for a system of “managing physical cards on mobile people” and sue regular wallet makers too?
    It may be obvious to everyone now but was it obvious when the patent was filed? That’s a common mistake that people make who are not familiar with how patents work. 

    Austin is not in the Eastern District of Texas but almost any company can file there whether they reside there or not. 
    Since all it is a an electronic version of a physical wallet, yes, I would say it’s been obvious since devices had they capability to do so.
    mdriftmeyerdysamoriathtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 27
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 872member
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    The key difference between your uncle and most of these entities is that your uncle is the primary inventor and actually works in the field. Contrast this with many of these entities that did not invent anything themself, are incorporated as shell organizations in the Eastern District of TX simply because of favorable judges there, and do nothing besides file lawsuits - many of which are for dubious patents in the first place. Yes, these ‘companies’ are trolls. They contribute nothing to society or business other than generating legal fees.
    mdriftmeyerdysamoriasanswatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    mknelson said:
    The Wallet app appeared in 2012. Apple started approaching partners for ApplePay in 2013. This patent appears to be from 2014.
    So, it sounds like they are infringing on Apple’s tech. I’m sure their lawyers are glad they brought it to their attention 
    mdriftmeyerbaconstanglostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 27
    MplsP said:
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    The key difference between your uncle and most of these entities is that your uncle is the primary inventor and actually works in the field. Contrast this with many of these entities that did not invent anything themself, are incorporated as shell organizations in the Eastern District of TX simply because of favorable judges there, and do nothing besides file lawsuits - many of which are for dubious patents in the first place. Yes, these ‘companies’ are trolls. They contribute nothing to society or business other than generating legal fees.
    They may have a genuine case of infringement. We don’t know. Let the lawyers and courts do their jobs.
  • Reply 14 of 27
    genovelle said:
    mknelson said:
    The Wallet app appeared in 2012. Apple started approaching partners for ApplePay in 2013. This patent appears to be from 2014.
    So, it sounds like they are infringing on Apple’s tech. I’m sure their lawyers are glad they brought it to their attention 
    Perhaps this is a cunning plan to get themselves noticed before they go bankwupt in the hope that someone will buy them out?
    Why haven't they sued Google?
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,675member
    genovelle said:
    mknelson said:
    The Wallet app appeared in 2012. Apple started approaching partners for ApplePay in 2013. This patent appears to be from 2014.
    So, it sounds like they are infringing on Apple’s tech. I’m sure their lawyers are glad they brought it to their attention 
    Perhaps this is a cunning plan to get themselves noticed before they go bankwupt in the hope that someone will buy them out?
    Why haven't they sued Google?
    One at a time. If Apple falls then it's easier to get everyone else to sit and talk. Suing Google may be on the shortlist. 

    FWIW tho at least on the surface Google seems more capable of combating questionable patent claims than some other companies, Apple included. 
  • Reply 16 of 27
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,882member
    MplsP said:
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    The key difference between your uncle and most of these entities is that your uncle is the primary inventor and actually works in the field. Contrast this with many of these entities that did not invent anything themself, are incorporated as shell organizations in the Eastern District of TX simply because of favorable judges there, and do nothing besides file lawsuits - many of which are for dubious patents in the first place. Yes, these ‘companies’ are trolls. They contribute nothing to society or business other than generating legal fees.
    They may have a genuine case of infringement. We don’t know. Let the lawyers and courts do their jobs.
    The point is that this system is not helping society and is actively harming it. It is doing the exact opposite of its intended function (protecting the wealthy from, and allowing them to attack, smaller competitors. It’s just feeding certain patent lawyers and the trolls they willingly represent. This is what happens when regulation is hijacked by corporatism.

    The patent system has been broken for decades and you can thank the computer industry and its lobbyists. The US patent office originally rejected software patenting, but their rational and logical position was overturned by corporate America and politicians loyal to capitalism only.
    watto_cobramacgui
  • Reply 17 of 27
    zoetmb said:
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    Apples and oranges.   Your uncle is also a farmer.   I assume that the patents he owns are for products or processes he designed.   As you say, he has never sued anyone.  Patent trolls are companies that exist solely for the purpose of buying up patents and then suing over them.   And even that would be legit if not for the fact that in most of these lawsuits (at least the ones we hear about), they seem to be for obvious business practices that never should have been granted patents in the first place since it's more about a concept than a design.    IMO, Amazon never should have been granted a patent for one-click ordering as the idea of storing a customer's name and address goes back to the beginnings of the computer era.  

    I'm involved in a lawsuit right now (as a witness) with a company claiming to have invented something that's incredibly obvious and which I implemented in software ("prior art") years before they did.  And they're suing everyone in sight who have something similar, which is practically everybody.    It's almost like suing over the concept of searching (as opposed to the engineering that makes it possible). 
    Thank you for explaining a little bit about the patent process. Yep this company seems to be a troll. 
    watto_cobramacgui
  • Reply 18 of 27
    mknelson said:
    The Wallet app appeared in 2012. Apple started approaching partners for ApplePay in 2013. This patent appears to be from 2014.
    The patent actually has priority back to 2010.

  • Reply 19 of 27
    MplsP said:
    mld53a said:
    MplsP said:
    Does this company happen to reside in the Eastern District of Texas?

    “Managing virtual cards stored on mobile devices” sounds like a blatantly obvious concept that shouldn’t be patentable. Are they going to file a patent for a system of “managing physical cards on mobile people” and sue regular wallet makers too?
    It may be obvious to everyone now but was it obvious when the patent was filed? That’s a common mistake that people make who are not familiar with how patents work. 

    Austin is not in the Eastern District of Texas but almost any company can file there whether they reside there or not. 
    Since all it is a an electronic version of a physical wallet, yes, I would say it’s been obvious since devices had they capability to do so.
    Was it obvious back at the end of 2010?

    And it is not the concept of an electronic patent that causes infringement, it is the specific claims of the patent. That makes it narrower than just an electronic wallet. Here are the claims; in order for Apple to be infringing, they have to satisfy every claim element. And there re more claims than just the first one I am providing.

    1. A method for installing a wallet application in a mobile device, comprising:
    requesting, by the mobile device, a mobile wallet application comprising a corresponding Over-the-Air (OTA) proxy;
    receiving mobile wallet application installation information;
    installing the mobile wallet application in the mobile device;
    capturing mobile device information by using the OTA proxy, the mobile device information comprising secure element (SE) information; and
    transmitting the mobile device information for registering the installed mobile wallet application.

    Here is a link to the entire patent (below)
    https://patents.google.com/patent/US8843125

    And the link to the complaint, filed in the Western District of Texas where Apple has a facility (2 miles from my house coincidentally) is below and there are specific details of why the think Apple infringes.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/396304520/Dec-25-2018-Fintiv-v-Apple-Patent-Infringement-Cases-Dec-2018




  • Reply 20 of 27
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,418member
    dysamoria said:
    MplsP said:
    many of them by "trolls" — firms that own the rights to one or more patents but don't actually develop any products with them, instead depending on legal actions and/or licensing agreements to make money.

    I’m getting tired of this definition. How a company ACTS defines whether they’re a troll, not whether they make products. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) and make money licensing patents you own.

    If you file frivolous/vague lawsuits, file lawsuits without negotiating in good faith first, threaten potential infringers to secure a quick settlement, try to abuse patents that are part of a standard or try to sue end users instead of manufacturers - these would be activities that would earn you a troll label.

    My uncle owns a couple patents related to farm equipment (he’s a farmer and inventor). He licenses them to equipment manufacturers. He’s never had to sue anyone and makes a reasonable income from
    his patents. Is he a troll because he doesn’t own a billion dollar manufacturing company to make his own  products?
    The key difference between your uncle and most of these entities is that your uncle is the primary inventor and actually works in the field. Contrast this with many of these entities that did not invent anything themself, are incorporated as shell organizations in the Eastern District of TX simply because of favorable judges there, and do nothing besides file lawsuits - many of which are for dubious patents in the first place. Yes, these ‘companies’ are trolls. They contribute nothing to society or business other than generating legal fees.
    They may have a genuine case of infringement. We don’t know. Let the lawyers and courts do their jobs.
    The point is that this system is not helping society and is actively harming it. It is doing the exact opposite of its intended function (protecting the wealthy from, and allowing them to attack, smaller competitors. It’s just feeding certain patent lawyers and the trolls they willingly represent. This is what happens when regulation is hijacked by corporatism.

    The patent system has been broken for decades and you can thank the computer industry and its lobbyists. The US patent office originally rejected software patenting, but their rational and logical position was overturned by corporate America and politicians loyal to capitalism only.
    I think you might find the system you describe is called corporatism. Capitalism is simply people buying and selling stuff in things like markets.  Corporatism is when government gets too big and too close to asset holders and controllers of labour and the three groups rig things like markets and rights in their favour.  Big Government, big corporate and big union. The upper echelons of this happy little tri-umpherate rig the system for themselves.  The bigger the government, the easier it is for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.