Mozido v. Apple (24-1741): Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Unpatentable
Mozido, Inc. challenged Apple over US10223692B2, a patent covering a method for setting temporary payment cards on mobile devices. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower invalidity ruling in a per curiam decision, closing a 592-day appellate battle with Apple’s Ropes & Gray team fully intact.
Federal Circuit seals mobile payment patent’s fate for Mozido
Mozido, Inc. filed appellate case 24-1741 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 25, 2024, appealing an adverse patentability ruling concerning US10223692B2 — a patent directed to a method for setting a temporary payment card and a mobile device applying that method. The defendant and appellee, Apple, Inc., was represented by Ropes & Gray LLP and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, while Mozido retained Addyhart, PC and Kasowitz LLP.
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance on December 8, 2025, with a three-judge panel comprising Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judges Taranto and Hughes. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ confirming the cancellation of the asserted patent claims. For Mozido, the affirmance exhausts appellate relief at this court level; for Apple, the ruling resolves the IP cloud over its mobile payment implementations covered by the disputed method.
The case ran for 592 days from filing to close — a duration consistent with a fully briefed Federal Circuit appeal, though the per curiam disposition without a detailed written opinion suggests the panel found the patentability questions relatively straightforward. What drove the underlying invalidity determination — whether prior art, subject-matter eligibility, or obviousness — is not apparent from the public appellate record, and the absence of a named-judge opinion limits further inference about the doctrinal basis.
Filing to Unpatentable in 592 days
592 days — above-average Federal Circuit appeal duration, suggesting substantive briefing
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower unpatentability decision stands
When the Federal Circuit issues an AFFIRMED disposition, it signals the panel found no reversible error in the decision below. The lower tribunal’s determination that the claims of US10223692B2 are unpatentable is now the binding conclusion. A per curiam affirmance without a detailed opinion typically indicates the panel viewed the outcome as controlled by existing precedent or clear record facts.
No reversible error foundMozido’s patent claims are cancelled — enforcement path closed
With the Federal Circuit affirming unpatentability, Mozido loses the enforceability of US10223692B2. The patent cannot be used to pursue infringement claims against Apple or any third party in its current form. Mozido’s only remaining options would be a petition for rehearing en banc or a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court — both statistically unlikely to succeed at this stage.
Patent unenforceableApple secures freedom to operate on temporary payment card method
Apple exits the appeal with the contested patent cancelled, removing a litigation risk from its mobile payments stack. The affirmance raises the bar for any future assertion of related temporary payment card method patents against Apple. Competitors and third parties relying on similar mobile payment method implementations also benefit from the cleared IP landscape created by this cancellation ruling.
Cleared IP landscapeTemporary payment card method patents face elevated invalidity risk
This outcome is consistent with continuing Federal Circuit scrutiny of mobile payment method patents, particularly those directed to transactional card-setting workflows on consumer devices. Companies developing or licensing patents in the temporary/virtual card and mobile wallet space should treat this case as a signal that broad method claims in this domain are vulnerable to patentability challenges, and should conduct prior art and eligibility audits accordingly.
Mobile payments IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MOZIDO, INC. | Company | Mobile payments technology company — holder of US10223692B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple, Inc. — global consumer electronics and mobile payments platform operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles A. Pannell III Esq. AT | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Heather Kim | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeceaca An | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Downing | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan K. Waldrop | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcus Barber | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith Leigh Martin Addy | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ThucMinh Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Addyhart, PC | Law Firm | Representing MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kasowitz LLP | Law Firm | Representing MOZIDO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cassandra B. Roth | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher M. Bonny | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas HallwardDriemeier | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fan Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Lawrence Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Richard Batchelder | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The per curiam panel of Chief Judge Moore with Circuit Judges Taranto and Hughes issued a single-word affirmance without a detailed written opinion. This disposition confirms that all asserted claims of US10223692B2 are unpatentable, and that the lower tribunal’s reasoning contained no reversible legal error. At the Federal Circuit, the standard of review for factual determinations of invalidity is ‘substantial evidence’ (for jury or board findings) and de novo for pure legal questions — a clean affirmance under either standard forecloses further appeal at this court level and renders the patent cancelled as a matter of final judgment.
US10223692B2 — Temporary payment card method for mobile devices
US10223692B2, filed under application number US14/647859, claims a method for setting a temporary payment card and a mobile device that applies that method. The patent sits within the mobile payments and financial technology domain, addressing how a temporary or virtual card credential is configured and activated on a consumer device — a workflow central to digital wallet implementations and tokenised payment systems. The application’s international filing origin (suggested by the PCT-style application number format) indicates broad initial filing ambitions.
Temporary payment card methods are commercially significant across mobile wallet platforms, contactless payment systems, and virtual card issuance services — markets dominated by Apple Pay, Google Pay, and banking app ecosystems. A valid and enforceable patent in this space would carry substantial licensing leverage against major platform operators. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability removes that leverage entirely, and is consistent with broader judicial scepticism toward method patents in consumer fintech where prior art density and subject-matter eligibility questions are acute.
Should your team run an FTO against US10223692B2?
Product teams building mobile wallet features, temporary virtual card issuance flows, or tokenised payment credential management should note that US10223692B2 has been cancelled as unpatentable — it no longer presents a direct enforcement risk. However, FTO clearance is not complete on the basis of this single cancellation: related patents in the same family, co-pending applications under the US14/647859 priority chain, and third-party patents covering overlapping temporary card method claims may still create exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family around US14/647859, identify live claims in related applications, and surface third-party filings in the same CPC subclasses covering mobile payment card methods. Run a targeted FTO before launching or expanding any temporary card or virtual wallet feature to ensure cancellation of this patent genuinely clears your product’s IP path.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10223692B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals: mobile payment method patent validity
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving mobile payment method patents, virtual card technology, and fintech invalidity challenges with comparable claim structures.
What this case signals for the mobile payments IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance adds to a pattern of mobile payment method patents failing validity challenges — with direct implications for licensing strategy and portfolio planning.
Per curiam affirmance signals weak claim architecture in mobile payments
A per curiam disposition without a substantive opinion typically suggests the panel viewed the invalidity determination as non-controversial. Patent holders in the mobile payments and virtual card space should audit claim scope and specification support before asserting method patents, particularly where prior art density is high.
Apple’s dual-firm defence strategy proved decisive at appeal stage
Apple deployed both Ropes & Gray and Sheppard Mullin — a resource-intensive dual-firm configuration — consistent with its standard approach to Federal Circuit patent appeals. Parties appealing against well-resourced tech defendants should assess settlement windows carefully before briefing closes, as the cost-to-outcome ratio in 500+ day appeals is unfavourable for smaller IP plaintiffs.
MOZIDO v Apple — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower unpatentability ruling in a per curiam decision on December 8, 2025. The three-judge panel — Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judges Taranto and Hughes — found no reversible error. US10223692B2 is cancelled and unenforceable.
US10223692B2 claims a method for setting a temporary payment card and a mobile device applying that method — technology directly relevant to Apple’s mobile payments and digital wallet implementations. Mozido, as patent holder, asserted the patent in an invalidity/cancellation action that ultimately proceeded to Federal Circuit appeal.
A per curiam affirmance without a detailed written opinion confirms the lower patentability determination stands and signals the panel viewed the outcome as non-controversial. For Mozido, the patent is cancelled and unenforceable. Remaining options — en banc rehearing or Supreme Court certiorari — are statistically unlikely to succeed and do not stay the cancellation.
The cancellation removes this specific patent as an enforcement risk. However, full FTO clearance requires analysis of related family members under application US14/647859, any co-pending continuations, and third-party patents covering overlapping temporary card method claims. The cancellation is necessary but not sufficient for complete clearance in this technology space.
The appeal ran for 592 days from filing (April 25, 2024) to close (December 8, 2025) — consistent with a fully briefed Federal Circuit appeal including opening, response, and reply briefs plus oral argument scheduling. The per curiam disposition suggests that despite the full briefing cycle, the panel found the patentability questions sufficiently clear to resolve without a detailed written opinion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.