AllYouCanTech

Apple Addresses Fintiv’s Latest Legal Challenge Concerning Apple Pay Profitability

**Fintiv vs. Apple: An Extended Legal Conflict Regarding Apple Pay**

Fintiv, a company predominantly recognized for its role in patent disputes, has once again taken legal steps against Apple, specifically related to its mobile payment platform, Apple Pay. Introduced in 2014, Apple Pay has been central to Fintiv’s lawsuits since 2018, with the firm claiming that Apple has violated its patents concerning mobile payment technology.

**Apple’s Reaction to Fintiv’s Claims**

In a recent communication to 9to5Mac, Apple conveyed its discontent with Fintiv’s persistent legal maneuvers, accusing the Texas-based organization of trying to divert attention from its failed patent assertions. Apple stressed that the courts have repeatedly dismissed Fintiv’s claims and that the most recent accusations merit rejection as well. The company reaffirmed its dedication to offering a secure and private payment solution through Apple Pay, which it states was created independently.

The newest complaint, lodged in federal court in Georgia, indicates a notable change in Fintiv’s legal tactics. For the first time in more than seven years of litigation, Fintiv has charged Apple with trade secret theft and has included allegations of racketeering. The firm contends that Apple developed Apple Pay by appropriating technology from CorFire, a mobile payment firm that Fintiv purchased.

**A Chronicle of Legal Setbacks for Fintiv**

Fintiv’s legal campaign against Apple commenced in December 2018 with a singular patent allegation. Since then, the company has encountered numerous courtroom defeats. Judge Alan Albright, who oversaw the case in Texas, ruled twice that Apple did not infringe upon Fintiv’s patented technology. The essence of these decisions lies in the difference between Fintiv’s patent, which necessitates storing specific account data on devices, and Apple Pay’s architecture, which does not retain such information locally, instead utilizing a secure framework developed by Apple.

Although the Federal Circuit referred part of the case back for additional examination, Judge Albright confirmed in July 2025 that Apple had not violated most of Fintiv’s claims. Subsequently, Fintiv voluntarily withdrew its remaining claims after jury selection, opting not to advance to trial.

**Fresh Accusations and Ongoing Litigation**

Shortly after discontinuing the Texas trial, Fintiv initiated a new lawsuit in Georgia, claiming that Apple misappropriated trade secrets during discussions in 2011 and 2012 and by recruiting key personnel from CorFire. Apple has rejected these accusations as unfounded, highlighting that the patent in question was not filed until 2014, the identical year Apple Pay was launched. The company also contests the hiring allegations, indicating that one person mentioned never worked at Apple, another was involved in retail rather than Apple Pay, and the third was hired after Apple Pay had already been developed.

Fintiv’s new racketeering claims are seen by Apple as similarly flawed and devoid of merit.

**Delays and Legal Strategies**

Throughout the litigation process, Apple has sought to accelerate trial schedules, while Fintiv has attempted to postpone proceedings through various motions and appeals. Judge Albright has consistently denied these requests for delays, and the Federal Circuit dismissed Fintiv’s writ of mandamus shortly after jury selection in the Texas case.

**Fintiv’s Broader Legal Obstacles**

Apple is not the sole focus of Fintiv’s litigation pursuits. In 2022, the firm filed a lawsuit against PayPal over five patents, four of which were declared invalid in court, and the fifth was later invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Fintiv has also encountered its own legal troubles, including a recent breach of contract lawsuit initiated by investment firm Oxford Gray, claiming that Fintiv defaulted on over $9 million in loans.

**Conclusion: Apple’s Position on Innovation and Safety**

Apple asserts that Apple Pay was created utilizing its own patented technologies and that its design choices, particularly the decision not to store account-specific information on devices, represent fundamental divergences from Fintiv’s methodology. The company perceives Fintiv’s litigation approach as an attempt to exploit Apple Pay’s success after failing to substantiate infringement allegations in court.

As the legal saga persists, Apple remains dedicated to combating what it labels as unfounded claims, underscoring its commitment to innovation and user security in the mobile payment arena.

**Timeline: Fintiv vs. Apple**

– **December 2018:** Fintiv sues Apple in Texas, claiming patent infringement.
– **September 2020:** Judge Albright denies Fintiv’s attempt to incorporate willful infringement claims.
– **June 2022:** Fintiv postpones trial with a last-minute “emergency” motion.
– **June 2023:** Judge Albright grants Apple summary judgment of noninfringement.
– **May 2025:** Federal Circuit remands case for further review on certain claims.
– **July