RFCyber Corp. v. Visa, Inc. — NFC E-Purse Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
RFCyber Corp. sued Visa, Inc. asserting four patents covering NFC-based portable e-purse technology in the Western District of Texas. The parties resolved their dispute and jointly requested dismissal after 587 days of litigation, with RFCyber’s claims dismissed with prejudice and each side absorbing its own legal costs.
NFC e-purse patent dispute resolved before trial in W.D. Texas
RFCyber Corp., a patent holding entity with a portfolio focused on NFC-based mobile payment and e-purse technology, filed suit against Visa, Inc. on June 28, 2022, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted four US patents — US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9240009B2, and US9189787B1 — each directed at methods and systems for provisioning and operating a portable e-purse on an NFC-enabled device, technology directly relevant to Visa’s contactless payment infrastructure.
The case closed on February 5, 2024, when the parties jointly announced they had resolved RFCyber’s claims and requested a consent dismissal. Under the court’s order, RFCyber’s claims against Visa were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing RFCyber’s right to re-assert the same infringement claims against Visa in any future proceeding. Visa’s defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Visa’s ability to raise them again should any related dispute arise. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
The 587-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pretrial activity — likely including claim construction proceedings common in W.D. Texas — before reaching a resolution. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, combined with each party absorbing its own costs, is a pattern typically consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms. What drove the resolution, and whether a licensing arrangement was reached, remains undisclosed.
Filing to dismissal in 587 days
587 days from filing to closure in W.D. Texas
RFCyber’s claims dismissed with prejudice; each side bears own costs
Consent dismissal with prejudice — a negotiated endpoint
The parties jointly requested dismissal, which the court granted. A with-prejudice dismissal at the plaintiff’s request — particularly one that is jointly filed — strongly suggests the underlying dispute was commercially resolved. RFCyber permanently loses the right to re-litigate these specific infringement claims against Visa, making this a full and final resolution of the asserted patent claims in this proceeding.
Final — no re-filing permittedClaims dismissed with prejudice; defenses dismissed without
The order applies different prejudice treatment to each side. RFCyber’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — barring any future action on the same grounds. Visa’s defenses (which likely included invalidity counterclaims) are dismissed without prejudice, meaning Visa could theoretically raise them again. This asymmetry is standard in consent dismissals and reflects the plaintiff’s voluntary relinquishment rather than a court finding on the merits.
Asymmetric prejudice treatmentEach party bears its own legal costs — no fee-shifting
The court ordered that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses are borne by each party incurring them. This is the standard cost allocation in a negotiated consent dismissal and reflects neither party’s admission of fault or weakness. Notably, it forecloses any subsequent motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would require an ‘exceptional case’ finding.
No § 285 fee awardPublic record is silent on financial terms
The joint dismissal structure — with-prejudice termination of plaintiff’s claims after nearly 20 months of active litigation — is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement. However, no financial terms, royalty rates, or licensing details appear in the public court record. Neither party has made public statements regarding the terms of resolution. Any characterisation beyond what the docket discloses would be speculative.
Terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RFCyber, Corp. | Company | NFC mobile payment patent assertion entity — holder of US8448855B1 and three related e-purse patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Visa, Inc. | Company | Visa, Inc. — global payments technology company and operator of contactless payment networksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred R. Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Ostling | 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 | Cassie Leigh Black | Attorney | Counsel for Visa, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James C. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for Visa, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie Y. Otto | Attorney | Counsel for Visa, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lucy Yen | Attorney | Counsel for Visa, 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 joint consent order reveals a negotiated endpoint rather than a court finding on the merits. The with-prejudice framing of RFCyber’s claims is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the claims themselves, permanently barring RFCyber from reasserting the same infringement theories against Visa. The without-prejudice dismissal of Visa’s defenses is procedurally conventional and preserves optionality for Visa in any hypothetical related proceeding. The mutual cost-bearing provision forecloses post-dismissal fee motions under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9240009B2, US9189787B1 — NFC e-purse method patents
The four asserted patents share a common technical lineage rooted in NFC-based e-purse provisioning — the process of loading, managing, and executing electronic payment credentials on a portable NFC-enabled device. US8448855B1 (application no. US13/400038) and US9240009B2 (US13/350835) cover method claims for e-purse setup and application management. US8118218B2 (US11/534653) represents an earlier filing in the family, while US9189787B1 (US13/903420) extends to operational aspects of the e-purse on the portable device. The technology domain overlaps directly with contactless payment infrastructure deployed by networks like Visa.
This patent family sits at the intersection of NFC hardware, secure element architecture, and mobile payments software — a space that has seen sustained commercial and litigation activity as contactless payments scaled globally. The patents’ claim scope, directed at method steps for e-purse provisioning on a ‘portable device,’ is broad enough to potentially implicate not only payment network infrastructure but also device OEMs, TSM (Trusted Service Manager) providers, mobile wallet platforms, and transit operators. RFCyber’s willingness to assert these patents against a defendant of Visa’s scale and legal resources is itself a signal about perceived claim strength.
Should your product team run an FTO against this NFC e-purse patent family?
If your organisation develops, operates, or integrates NFC-based contactless payment functionality — including mobile wallets, tap-to-pay features, transit ticketing, or NFC-enabled wearables — these four patents warrant a freedom-to-operate review. The method claims covering e-purse provisioning on portable devices are technology-layer claims that could implicate implementations across the payment stack, not just at the network level. The with-prejudice dismissal covers Visa only; no other market participant received any form of release through this proceeding.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each asserted claim against your specific product architecture, flagging overlap risk at the method-step level. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools allow your IP team to track prosecution history, continuation filings, and any new assertions from this family in real time. For teams building on NFC payment rails, a one-time FTO snapshot is not sufficient — ongoing monitoring of this family is advisable given RFCyber’s demonstrated enforcement posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8448855B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NFC payment patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
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 payments IP landscape
Four NFC e-purse patents, one of the world’s largest payment networks, and a quiet resolution. Here is what the pattern means.
NFC e-purse patents remain a live assertion risk for payment networks
RFCyber has filed multiple actions asserting overlapping NFC e-purse patent families against major payment industry players. The willingness of Visa — a well-resourced defendant with sophisticated patent counsel — to resolve rather than litigate to judgment suggests these patents carried enough validity and infringement risk to warrant a commercial resolution. Payment platforms and contactless wallet providers should treat this family as a monitored risk.
W.D. Texas / Judge Albright cases frequently resolve before trial
Cases filed before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas are known for aggressive scheduling and early Markman hearings, which can accelerate both claim construction clarity and settlement pressure. The 587-day resolution timeline here is consistent with a case that progressed through early pretrial milestones before the parties reached commercial terms. Defendants in Albright’s docket face meaningful schedule-driven litigation costs.
RFCyber v Visa — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to RFCyber’s infringement claims against Visa, and without prejudice as to Visa’s defenses. The parties jointly announced they had resolved the dispute and requested the dismissal on February 5, 2024. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. No financial terms were disclosed in the public record.
RFCyber asserted four US patents: US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9240009B2, and US9189787B1. All four relate to NFC-based e-purse technology, covering methods for provisioning and managing electronic payment credentials on portable NFC-enabled devices. The patents share overlapping technical subject matter in the mobile contactless payments space.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, on-the-merits termination of the plaintiff’s claims. It permanently bars RFCyber from re-filing the same infringement claims against Visa based on the same patents and the same accused conduct. RFCyber cannot refile these claims in any US court. This is legally distinct from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile.
RFCyber was represented by Fabricant LLP and The Mort Law Firm PLLC, with lead counsel including Alfred R. Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, and Raymond W. Mort III. Visa was represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP, with counsel including James C. Yoon, Cassie Leigh Black, Jamie Y. Otto, and Lucy Yen.
The parties announced they had ‘resolved’ RFCyber’s claims and jointly requested dismissal, a structure that typically signals a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. However, the public court record does not disclose any financial terms, royalty rates, or licensing arrangements. The existence or terms of any private agreement cannot be confirmed from publicly available information.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.