Apple has submitted a reply to Fintiv’s trade secret lawsuit concerning Apple Pay, which was initiated in August. This reply is not a response to any court-imposed deadline but is instead a move by Apple to accelerate the process. Fintiv has not yet formally served the complaint to Apple, which Apple contends is a strategy to prolong the case and evade a court trial.
In its reply, Apple reiterates that it had previously attempted to transfer Fintiv’s patent case to California, while Fintiv maintained that the appropriate jurisdiction was the Western District of Texas and Judge Alan Albright. Apple contends that Fintiv should not be permitted to select a different district for its trade secret lawsuit after failing to gain any advantage from Apple Pay in Texas.
Apple outlines several grounds for dismissing Fintiv’s lawsuit:
1. Fintiv’s assertions under federal and Georgia trade secrets legislation, as well as federal racketeering laws, are barred since Fintiv has been aware of the circumstances since 2014 but postponed litigation until August 2025 after losing its patent case.
2. The claim of racketeering in Georgia is unfounded as it is solely based on trade secret claims under state law.
3. Fintiv’s effort to frame its trade secret lawsuit as a racketeering case does not satisfy the required elements of an enterprise or a series of unlawful acts.
Apple also underscores Fintiv’s record of failed attempts to monetize Apple Pay, referencing court decisions that have found Apple Pay does not infringe on Fintiv’s patent. Apple asserts that it developed Apple Pay independently utilizing its own technologies, and that Fintiv’s latest trade secret claims merely reiterate earlier patent assertions. The technology Fintiv alleges as confidential is publicly available in its prior patent, disqualifying it from being deemed a trade secret.
Moreover, Apple notes that two former CorFire employees referenced in Fintiv’s complaint became part of Apple in 2015, well after the 2014 launch of Apple Pay, which undermines any claims regarding their impact on the product’s evolution. Apple labels Fintiv’s racketeering accusations as an overreaching assertion based on the same flimsy basis as its trade secret allegations, arguing that the supposedly criminal enterprise is simply Apple’s routine business conduct.
The case is currently at a standstill until Fintiv serves the complaint to Apple. Should this not happen soon, Apple’s reply may cause the situation to progress faster than Fintiv’s actions.
