Financial technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
74 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 3 · 74 total
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute an IPR against USAA’s 12,159,310 patent covering mobile check‑deposit methods, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a body of prior art.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. moved to withdraw its IPR petition after settling with Intercurrency Software LLC. The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, which was unopposed and at an early stage.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The email seeks rehearing of the denial and notes parallel P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 9,483,722.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s patent. iCashe argues the Director acted properly under established memos and statutes, and that Samsung’s due‑process claims fail. The patent owner requests denial of the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against iCashe, leaving the institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in the iCashe payment‑system IPR. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the case.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung's request for Director Review of institution denials in several IPRs was denied by the PTAB, leaving the original decisions unchanged.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of an IPR over iCashe's mobile‑payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, including the improper rescission of the Vidal Memo and failure to consider Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the one covering iCashe's mobile‑payment patent 9,202,156.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00642, arguing that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights. The petition contends the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied “settled expectations.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s payment patents was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung lacks a protected due‑process interest.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs targeting iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition seeks rehearing and submits P‑TACTS requests to keep the challenges alive.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for IPR against iCashe’s 9,208,423 patent covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on Doughty, Bursch and Fox references to argue obviousness under §103 and contends that discretionary denial does not apply.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software. The parties also filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in the underlying district court case.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, alleging obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition follows multiple infringement lawsuits in Texas that rely on the same patent.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed a petition for inter partes review of US 12,159,310, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over earlier mobile check‑deposit disclosures (Garcia, Luo, Meier, Cohen, Goyal, Yoon). The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. and Intercurrency Software LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01586 after reaching a confidential settlement over a foreign‑exchange trading patent.
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.