Apple Wallet patent infringement suit heads to settlement conference

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in iOS
Apple and Texas firm Fintiv are preparing to hash out a potential settlement on June 8, to try and end a patent infringement lawsuit involving Apple Pay and Apple Wallet.

Apple Wallet on an iPhone
Apple Wallet on an iPhone

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has ordered for Fintiv and Apple to meet for a settlement conference on June 8. The conference is meant as the last formal step before the two sides head to a full trial, with the intention of arranging a settlement before reaching that point.

The court-ordered settlement conference, reported by Fox Business, is the latest event in a lengthy lawsuit that stems back to December 2018. At that time, Fintiv launched the lawsuit against Apple, taking aim at Apple Wallet and Apple Pay.

Fintiv was previously founded in 2010 under the name Mozido, Inc, as a fintech firm with a mobile cloud commerce platform. It holds a number of patents relating to those technologies.

The patent in question was acquired by the company and deals with the "management of virtual cards stored on mobile devices. This includes the "provisioning of a contactless card in a mobile device with a mobile wallet application," with Apple said to be infringing on claims with its products and services.

The lawsuit did previously reach a trial stage in 2022, but the judge decided to delay proceedings and opened the discovery process back up.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,958member
    Texas touts it’s business superiority to California. True, if it’s “business” is suits in Texas courts against California creators by non-practicing entities over moribund patents. Hucksterism at its finest. 
    killroydavenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 7
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,125member
    Texas touts it’s business superiority to California. True, if it’s “business” is suits in Texas courts against California creators by non-practicing entities over moribund patents. Hucksterism at its finest. 
    What makes you think Fintiv is a non-practicing entity?

    AppleInsider isn't saying that. Their website certainly indicates an operating business. https://fintivtech.com/
  • Reply 3 of 7
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,958member
    mknelson said:
    Texas touts it’s business superiority to California. True, if it’s “business” is suits in Texas courts against California creators by non-practicing entities over moribund patents. Hucksterism at its finest. 
    What makes you think Fintiv is a non-practicing entity?

    AppleInsider isn't saying that. Their website certainly indicates an operating business. https://fintivtech.com/
    Agree, this is not a prime example, but it did say Fintiv “acquired” the patent. Not damning in itself as Apple does the same, but it does muddy the waters. Isn’t possible that they could be both? A company that does operate at some level, maybe not doing so well, and making ends meet by suing over use of patents it bought but no longer or nerved used? Inquiring minds . . . 🙂
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 7
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,958member
    Deeper dive shows this company sure looks likes it’s primary activity is “defending its portfolio of patents.”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2019/03/25/once-hot-startup-at-center-of-investment-fraud-allegations-moves-to-enforce-it-patents/?sh=4a8cca3d796c
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 7
    1348513485 Posts: 347member
    Please educate yourself about patents. There is no requirement that a patent holder must make the item he/she invented, nor is there any provision that prevents the sale of a patent to anyone else, who is also not required to make the item. This is true all over the world. 

    Further, what’s it to you whether a patent owner is making the item, it’s still their limited monopoly property whether they never make it or make it 20 years later, or make one copy. If the patent is valid, it has value, like any property. If someone infringes you can go after them.

    If I own twenty houses, and you’re camping in one of them, I can go after you even if I was not using the house or any of my houses. This is not complicated. It’s not yours, it’s mine.

    Now the corrupted Texas judicial system and jury awards,  on the other hand, are indeed something to be upset about.
    williamlondonbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 6 of 7
    jdonAIjdonAI Posts: 12member
    This is a crock of s***, no matter how you look at it. . . .
  • Reply 7 of 7
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,132member
    13485 said:
    Please educate yourself about patents. There is no requirement that a patent holder must make the item he/she invented, nor is there any provision that prevents the sale of a patent to anyone else, who is also not required to make the item. This is true all over the world. 

    Further, what’s it to you whether a patent owner is making the item, it’s still their limited monopoly property whether they never make it or make it 20 years later, or make one copy. If the patent is valid, it has value, like any property. If someone infringes you can go after them.

    If I own twenty houses, and you’re camping in one of them, I can go after you even if I was not using the house or any of my houses. This is not complicated. It’s not yours, it’s mine.

    Now the corrupted Texas judicial system and jury awards,  on the other hand, are indeed something to be upset about.

    Exactly this.  Practicing or non-practicing is irrelevant.  Actual manufacturing is irrelevant.  Ownership and validity of the patent are the only things that are relevant.  If the court has determined that the patent is, in fact, valid, and someone else (even Apple, the paragon of ethical patent use!) uses it without permission, then they are liable to the actual patent owner.  It really is that simple.

    Now, whether any given thing should be patent-able is another question.
Sign In or Register to comment.