Short Summary
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑01152), Apple Inc. seeks to invalidate the 72 claims of CardWare Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 11,620,634, which describes a method and system for generating limited‑use payment information and conducting NFC‑based transactions on a mobile device. Apple asserts that each claim group is obvious in view of prior‑art references such as Collinge, Lin, Sahota, Smith, Kranzley, Fadell and Yu, and relies on pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 unpatentability. The petition includes detailed claim constructions proposed by the patent owner and cites case law supporting the obviousness analysis. Related district‑court litigation between the parties is noted, but no institution decision has yet been made.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs CardWare Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsBarco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Olympus Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.vsMHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al.vsWrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al.vsP & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Delta Power Equipment, Lowe’s and Home Depot seek rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their cutting‑machine blade‑guard patent, arguing the Board misread the Gass prior art and that claims 1,2,5,9 are obvious.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.