### Fintiv’s Legal Challenges with Apple: An Examination of Patent Disputes
A recently unsealed ruling highlights the difficulties Fintiv has encountered in its prolonged legal conflict with Apple, notably in Texas. After seven years of court battles, Fintiv failed to present proof that Apple Pay or Apple Wallet employed the “widget” referenced in its patent. This absence of evidence resulted in Fintiv’s exit from Texas and raises doubts about its future legal endeavors in Georgia.
#### Reasons Behind Fintiv’s Texas Claims Failing
Judge Alan Albright, overseeing a crowded patent case docket in the Western District of Texas, awarded Apple a summary judgment of non-infringement on the primary claims Fintiv was advancing. The essence of the unsealed opinion indicated that Fintiv’s claims concerning Apple Pay incorporating a “widget” were baseless. When questioned, Fintiv and its expert could not clarify what this widget was meant to be.
The most Fintiv could manage was to refer to card images and metadata, branding them as “software.” However, the court found this reasoning unpersuasive. Judge Albright concluded that Apple’s servers did not act as “widget management components,” and that neither Wallet nor Apple Pay qualified as “mobile wallet applications designed to store a widget.” As a result, Fintiv’s claims collapsed.
Confronted with the possibility of a jury hearing Albright’s unfavorable findings, Fintiv chose to withdraw from Texas rather than risk an adverse judgment.
#### Fintiv Turned to Georgia Following Its Loss in Texas
Soon after its setback in Texas, Fintiv launched a new lawsuit in Georgia, this time accusing Apple of trade secret theft and racketeering instead of patent violation. Despite this shift in legal approach, the storyline remains remarkably consistent.
For years, Fintiv has maintained that Apple Pay infringes upon its intellectual property. However, a judge in one of the most patent-focused courts in the country has explicitly explained why Fintiv’s claims were without merit. Apple’s statement to 9to5Mac emphasized that “the court has consistently dismissed Fintiv’s claims,” with this ruling serving as a comprehensive illustration of that dismissal.
Fintiv has invested seven years in pursuing a “widget” it could never validate. Now, it aims to persuade a new court that Apple has illegally taken trade secrets. Regardless of the result, the recent ruling does not bode well for Fintiv’s case in Georgia.
