RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. — Six NFC Patents, Apple Pay, Settled After 874 Days
RFCyber Corp. asserted six mobile payment and NFC patents against Apple’s iPhone X running Apple Pay in the Western District of Texas. The parties resolved their dispute privately and secured a court-ordered dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees — a structure that strongly suggests a confidential settlement was reached.
Six NFC patents, Apple Pay in the crosshairs, quietly resolved in Texas
RFCyber Corp., a patent holding entity asserting a portfolio of NFC and mobile payment technology patents, filed suit against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas on September 7, 2021, before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright — a venue long favoured by patent plaintiffs. RFCyber alleged that the iPhone X running Apple Pay infringed six US patents covering secure element-based contactless payment, NFC emulation, and related mobile commerce technologies.
The case closed on January 29, 2024, after the parties jointly announced to the court that they had resolved all claims. RFCyber’s claims against Apple were dismissed with prejudice — permanently extinguishing those specific claims — while Apple’s defences were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Apple’s ability to raise them in future proceedings. Each side was ordered to bear its own legal costs, a standard confidential-settlement cost structure.
At 874 days, the litigation ran longer than many W.D. Texas patent cases that settle early but resolved before any trial or public judgment, suggesting substantive negotiation occurred during discovery or claim construction phases. The public record is silent on any monetary terms, licence grant, or other deal conditions, which is typical when a joint motion to dismiss precedes a private settlement agreement.
Filing to dismissal in 874 days
874 days — above median for multi-patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
What the with-prejudice dismissal means for RFCyber and Apple
Dismissed with prejudice — RFCyber’s claims are permanently closed
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. RFCyber cannot refile these six patent infringement claims against Apple in any US court based on the same accused products and same patents. This is the highest-finality outcome short of a trial verdict, and courts grant it here because both parties jointly requested it — a hallmark of a negotiated resolution.
Permanent bar on refilingApple’s defences dismissed without prejudice — a deliberate asymmetry
The order dismisses RFCyber’s claims with prejudice but Apple’s defences without prejudice. This asymmetry is standard in plaintiff-initiated settlements: Apple retains the theoretical ability to revive its invalidity or non-infringement defences if the settlement breaks down or a related dispute arises. In practice, because RFCyber’s claims are barred, Apple’s defences are moot — but the drafting protects Apple’s position in any hypothetical future dispute involving the same patents.
Apple’s defences preservedEach party bears its own costs — a neutral signal
The court ordered that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses be borne by each party incurring them. In US patent litigation, courts can award fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in ‘exceptional cases.’ The absence of any fee award to either side suggests neither party was found to have litigated in bad faith, and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement is a common term in confidential patent settlements to avoid further dispute.
No § 285 fee awardJoint motion structure strongly suggests a confidential licence deal
When parties jointly move to dismiss with prejudice and bear their own costs, the standard inference is that a private settlement — typically including a licence, lump-sum payment, or cross-licence — was reached but not disclosed. The public record contains no financial terms. Given RFCyber’s patent portfolio breadth across six NFC-related patents and Apple Pay’s commercial scale, the underlying deal, if any, would carry significant economic weight, though its existence cannot be confirmed from court filings alone.
Confidential terms likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RFCyber, Corp. | Company | NFC/mobile payment patent holding entity — asserting 6 patents incl. US8448855B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple Inc. — consumer electronics and services company, developer of Apple PaySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred R. Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique W. Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justine Minseon Park | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Raymond W. Mort , III | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard M. Cowell | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Yaghoubian | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chris M. Katsantonis | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin P. Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jessica Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Michael Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark D. Fowler | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael G. Strapp | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul R. Steadman | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter Maggiore | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean C. Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie Lim | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary Loney | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The order’s asymmetric structure — RFCyber’s claims dismissed with prejudice, Apple’s defences without — reflects a jointly negotiated exit rather than a court-imposed outcome. The ‘having resolved’ language confirms the parties reached private terms before approaching the court. The mutual cost-bearing clause is consistent with a settlement in which no party formally prevailed, and forecloses any § 285 fee dispute. No findings of fact were made on infringement, validity, or claim scope for any of the six asserted patents.
US8448855B1 and 5 co-asserted NFC mobile payment patents
RFCyber’s six asserted patents span a family of inventions covering NFC-based mobile payment systems, secure element provisioning, contactless transaction emulation, and related mobile commerce infrastructure. The earliest application, US8118218B2 (application US11/534653), dates to technology conceived in the mid-2000s — predating the mass commercialisation of tap-to-pay services. The patents collectively address how a mobile device authenticates, emulates a payment card, and transacts securely over short-range wireless links, the core technical stack underlying Apple Pay.
For the contactless payment industry, this portfolio represents a meaningful prior-art and claim-scope risk. The patents span both hardware-bound secure element approaches and software-layer emulation — meaning they potentially cover a wide range of implementation architectures. Any OEM, payment network, or transit operator deploying NFC payment acceptance should assess claim overlap with this family, particularly given that no court has ever publicly construed the key claim terms, leaving scope uncertainty intact.
Should you run an FTO analysis against RFCyber’s NFC payment patent portfolio?
If your product or platform involves NFC-based mobile payments, contactless card emulation, secure element provisioning, or tap-to-pay infrastructure, RFCyber’s six-patent portfolio is a direct FTO concern. The fact that these patents survived nearly 2.5 years of litigation against Apple — without public invalidation — suggests they present real claim scope. Android OEM handset makers, payment processors, transit card operators, and fintech platforms deploying host card emulation are especially exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your product’s technical architecture against the independent claims of each RFCyber patent, flag overlap risk, and monitor for continuation filings or new assertions in the same family. Given the absence of any public Markman ruling in this case, Eureka’s claim-parsing tools can help you build your own internal claim construction baseline and track any post-grant proceedings that may narrow or confirm claim scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8448855B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NFC and mobile payment patent infringement cases in US courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the NFC and mobile payments IP landscape
Six asserted patents, a high-profile defendant, and a quiet exit. Here is what the RFCyber–Apple outcome means for IP strategy in contactless payments.
NFC payment patent portfolios remain a credible enforcement threat
RFCyber sustained litigation against one of the most resource-rich defendants in US patent law for nearly 2.5 years without a public invalidation of any asserted patent. That survival alone signals that the underlying NFC and secure element patent claims carry sufficient claim scope to resist early dispositive challenges — a warning for any company deploying contactless payment technology.
W.D. Texas remains a strategic forum for NPE payment patent cases
Chief Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract high-value NPE filings in fintech and mobile technology. Companies in the Apple Pay, Google Wallet, and tap-to-pay ecosystem should monitor new filings in this court as early indicators of enforcement campaigns targeting NFC infrastructure patents — especially those covering secure element emulation and host card emulation architectures.
RFCyber v Apple — key questions answered
RFCyber asserted six US patents: US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US10600046B2, US9240009B2, US11018724B2, and US9189787B1. All relate to NFC mobile payment technology, secure element provisioning, and contactless transaction emulation — the core technical infrastructure of Apple Pay on the iPhone X.
RFCyber’s claims against Apple were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring RFCyber from refiling the same claims against Apple. Apple’s defences were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Apple’s theoretical ability to revive them. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court made no ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The parties jointly announced they had ‘resolved’ the claims before requesting dismissal, which strongly suggests a private settlement was reached. The financial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
The Western District of Texas under Chief Judge Alan D. Albright has been a preferred venue for NPE patent plaintiffs due to its historically fast scheduling orders and plaintiff-friendly reputation. RFCyber’s choice of this forum is consistent with a broader pattern of NFC and mobile technology patent assertions filed in W.D. Texas by non-practising entities.
A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes RFCyber’s claims against Apple only — it does not invalidate or dedicate the patents to the public. Subject to maintenance fee payments and any pending post-grant proceedings, all six asserted patents remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other defendants in the NFC and mobile payment space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.