CardWare vs. Apple: NFC Payment Patent Case Transferred to Austin Division

Introduction

A patent infringement lawsuit targeting the heart of Apple’s payment ecosystem has taken a significant procedural turn. CardWare, Inc. filed suit against Apple, Inc. on November 4, 2024, in the Western District of Texas, asserting six patents covering Near-Field Communication (NFC) payment technology against some of Apple’s most commercially significant products — including iPhone, Apple Watch, Apple Card, and Apple Pay.

After 141 days of litigation, the case closed at the district court level not on the merits, but via a joint stipulation to transfer venue from the Waco Division to the Austin Division — with Chief Judge Alan D. Albright retaining jurisdiction. The transfer signals early-stage strategic maneuvering that patent attorneys and IP professionals tracking NFC payment patent litigation should monitor closely.

For R&D teams and in-house counsel operating in the contactless payments space, this case underscores the persistent and expanding scope of NFC patent assertion against major platform ecosystems.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

CardWare asserted six U.S. patents covering NFC payment technology. These patents collectively cover CardWare’s NFC technology, which allegedly underlies the contactless payment interactions enabled by Apple’s device and services ecosystem:

• • US11176538B2 (App. No. US17/075637)
• • US10339520B2 (App. No. US15/701261)
• • US11620634B2 (App. No. US17/528073)
• • US10628820B2 (App. No. US16/025829)
• • US11328286B2 (App. No. US16/854829)
• • US10810579B2 (App. No. US16/459150)

The Accused Products

The complaint targeted a remarkably broad range of Apple products and services:

• • iPhone smartphones and iPad tablets
• • Apple Watch smartwatches
• • Apple Mac laptops and desktop computers
• • Apple Vision Pro spatial computer
• • Apple Card and Apple Cash digital payment card
• • Apple Wallet and Apple Pay platforms
• • Apple-branded electronic devices supporting Apple Pay

The breadth of accused products — spanning hardware, wearables, and financial services — signals an assertion strategy designed to maximize the commercial scope of potential damages.

Legal Representation

For CardWare: Attorneys Caroline M. Walters, Eric H. Findlay, Khue V. Hoang, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Navid Cyrus Bayar, Patrick R. Colsher, and Yue (Joy) Wang, representing firms Findlay Craft PC and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.

For Apple: A twelve-attorney team led by Sean C. Cunningham, Erin P. Gibson, John Michael Guaragna, and others from DLA Piper US LLP.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, a forum historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its efficient docket management and Judge Albright’s deep patent litigation expertise. Since taking the bench, Judge Alan D. Albright has presided over more patent cases than virtually any other federal judge in the country, making the Western District of Texas one of the nation’s busiest patent litigation venues.

The case resolved at the first-instance level within 141 days — a notably short window that reflects the early procedural posture of the transfer resolution rather than any merits-based adjudication. No claim construction hearing, summary judgment ruling, or trial occurred within this timeline.

The parties jointly stipulated to transfer from the Waco Division to the Austin Division, suggesting mutual agreement on forum logistics while preserving Judge Albright’s ongoing oversight of the matter.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case closed on March 25, 2025, pursuant to a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (ECF No. 37). Chief Judge Alan D. Albright granted the joint motion, directing the Clerk of Court to effectuate the transfer while expressly ordering that the case remain on Judge Albright’s docket.

No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted or denied. The closure of the Waco docket entry reflects a procedural transfer, not a merits-based termination.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The basis of termination is classified as a case transfer — not dismissal, settlement, or judgment. This distinction is legally and strategically significant:

• Neither party conceded liability. The transfer was jointly stipulated, indicating cooperative procedural management rather than adversarial resolution.
• Merits remain unresolved. All six patents remain in dispute. Infringement and validity have not been adjudicated.
• Judge Albright’s retention signals that any tactical advantage either party sought from the original Waco filing — or from resisting it — was neutralized by agreement.

The joint nature of the transfer motion suggests that both CardWare and Apple found the Austin Division mutually acceptable, potentially due to witness locations, logistical considerations, or evolving forum preferences in post-TC Heartland patent venue practice.

Legal Significance

This case reflects several important trends in NFC payment patent litigation:

1. Multi-patent, multi-product assertion strategies targeting platform ecosystems remain prevalent, particularly against defendants whose products span hardware and services.
2. Texas Western District continues to attract high-value patent disputes, even as venue challenges and transfers reshape individual case trajectories.
3. Joint venue transfers — rather than contested transfer motions — may reflect parties’ increasing pragmatism about forum selection in an era of heightened judicial scrutiny of venue shopping.

The retention of Judge Albright post-transfer is notable. His continued assignment preserves scheduling predictability and eliminates uncertainty about judicial familiarity with the case’s technical and legal background.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: Asserting a portfolio of six patents across a broad product ecosystem maximizes leverage but also increases the complexity and cost of litigation. Prosecution strategies should ensure claim diversity to cover both hardware implementations and software/service layers.

For Accused Infringers: Early venue cooperation — as Apple’s team demonstrated here — can neutralize plaintiff forum advantages without conceding any substantive ground. DLA Piper’s large defense team signals Apple’s intent to mount a full defense on validity and infringement.

For R&D Teams: The inclusion of Apple Vision Pro among accused products illustrates that emerging product categories inherit NFC patent risk even when payment functionality is not their primary purpose. Freedom-to-operate analyses should account for patents covering underlying communication protocols, not just payment application layers.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The NFC payment technology space is densely contested from an intellectual property standpoint. As contactless payments have become ubiquitous — accelerated by pandemic-era consumer behavior shifts — patent holders with foundational NFC portfolios have increasingly targeted platform gatekeepers like Apple, Google, and Samsung.

CardWare’s assertion against Apple’s entire payment-adjacent product line reflects a litigation posture designed to capture the full commercial footprint of NFC implementation. The inclusion of Apple Vision Pro is particularly notable — it suggests CardWare’s patents may cover NFC interaction architectures broad enough to encompass next-generation spatial computing devices.

For companies building products that integrate NFC-based authentication, payment, or data exchange, this case serves as a reminder that legacy patent portfolios in payment technology remain active threats. Licensing exposure is not limited to payment-specialist companies; it extends to any enterprise deploying NFC at scale.

The case also reflects the ongoing vitality of Texas Western District as a venue for patent assertion, notwithstanding post-TC Heartland venue reforms. With Judge Albright retaining the case despite the divisional transfer, litigants in this space should anticipate continued engagement with his court’s well-established patent case management procedures.

FAQ

What patents were involved in CardWare v. Apple?

CardWare asserted six U.S. patents — US11176538B2, US10339520B2, US11620634B2, US10628820B2, US11328286B2, and US10810579B2 — covering NFC payment technology against Apple’s device and services ecosystem.

What was the basis for case closure in Case No. 7:24-cv-00279?

The case was closed via a joint stipulation to transfer venue from the Waco Division to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. No merits-based decision was issued.

How might this case affect NFC payment patent litigation?

It reinforces that NFC patent assertions against platform companies remain active and that Texas Western District — under Judge Albright — continues to be a preferred venue for complex IP disputes in the payments technology sector.