Electronic payments — US PTAB Patent Cases
7 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 7 total
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 29 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board invented a new obviousness theory not raised in Visa’s petitions, violating procedural rules.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP requests Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 17 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board introduced a new obviousness theory not present in the petition, violating procedural rules and the APA.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that cancelled 14 claims of its payment‑tokenization patent. The owner contends the Board introduced an unraised obviousness theory, violating procedural rules and the APA. The request asks the Director to reverse the cancellations and confirm the claims.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.