Infringement action filed 7 Sep 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Jun 2023, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Method and apparatus for conducting e-commence and m-commence · Method and apparatus for emulating multiple cards in mobile devices · Method and apparatus for funding an electronic purse · Method and apparatus for mobile payments · Mobile devices for commerce over unsecured networks
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:21-cv-00916, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Techniques for funding an electronic purse (e-purse) are disclosed. According to one aspect of the invention, a mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security. In one embodiment, a device is loaded with an e-purse manager. The e-purse manager is configured to manage various transactions and functions as a mechanism to access an e-purse therein. The e-purse is funded by interactions among the e-purse manager, a payment server and a financial institution (its server) that maintains an account therefor.
5 on record90020144 · EPR · filed by Greenberg Traurig (DEN)90015260 · EPRIPR2021-00954 · Other · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2022-01241 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2021-00978 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Techniques for portable devices functioning as an electronic purse (e-purse) are disclosed. According to one aspect of the invention, a mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security. In one embodiment, a device is loaded with an e-purse manager. The e-purse manager is configured to manage various transactions and functions as a mechanism to access an emulator therein. The transactions may be conducted over a wired network or a wireless network. A three-tier security model is contemplated to support the security of the transactions from the e-purse. The three-tier security model includes a physical security, an e-purse security and a card manager security, concentrically encapsulating one with another. Security keys (either symmetric or asymmetric) are personalized within the three-tier security model.
5 on recordIPR2022-01240 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2021-00979 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.IPR2021-00957 · Other · filed by GOOGLE LLC90020143 · EPR · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD90015259 · EPR
The docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Alfred R. Fabricant · Enrique W. Iturralde · Jacob Ostling · Justine Minseon Park · Peter Lambrianakos · Raymond W. Mort III · Richard M. Cowell · Vincent J. Rubino III
Benjamin Yaghoubian · Catherine Huang · Chris M. Katsantonis · Erin P. Gibson · Jessica Hannah · John Michael Guaragna · Mark D. Fowler · Michael G. Strapp · Peter Maggiore · Sean C. Cunningham · Stephanie Lim · Zachary Loney
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"On this day, come on for consideration Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Stay Pending Transfer (“Motion”). ECF No. 109. The Court, having considered Apple’s Motion, the authorities cited therein, the exhibits attached thereto, and the Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re Apple Inc., No. 2023-120, 2023 WL 2359699, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023), hereby GRANTS the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the proceedings, including all deadlines, in the above captioned matter are STAYED as of the date of this Order pending resolution of the Motion for Transfer at ECF No. 93."
Case 6:21-cv-00916 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 June 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
6:21-cv-00916 is a patent infringement action brought by RFCyber, Corp. against Apple Computer, Inc., filed on 7 Sep 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 June 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:21-cv-00916?
US8448855B1 (“Method and apparatus for funding an electronic purse”), assigned to SHENZHEN RFCYBER ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLP, currently active; US8118218B2 (“Method and apparatus for providing electronic purse”), assigned to SHENZHEN RFCYBER ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLP, currently active; US10600046B2 (“Method and apparatus for mobile payments”), assigned to RFCYBER CORPORATION; US9240009B2 (“Mobile devices for commerce over unsecured networks”), assigned to RFCYBER CORPORATION; US11018724B2 (“Method and apparatus for emulating multiple cards in mobile devices”), assigned to RFCYBER CORPORATION; US9189787B1 (“Method and apparatus for conducting e-commence and m-commence”), assigned to RFCYBER CORPORATION. The record also lists Method and apparatus for conducting e-commence and m-commence, Method and apparatus for emulating multiple cards in mobile devices, Method and apparatus for funding an electronic purse, Method and apparatus for mobile payments and Mobile devices for commerce over unsecured networks.
How was case 6:21-cv-00916 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: "On this day, come on for consideration Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Stay Pending Transfer (“Motion”). ECF No. 109. The Court, having considered Apple’s Motion, the authorities cited therein, the exhibits attached thereto, and the Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re Apple Inc., No. 2023-120, 2023 WL 2359699, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023), hereby GRANTS the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the proceedings, including all deadlines, in the above captioned matter are STAYED as of the date of this Order pending resolution of the Motion for Transfer at ECF No. 93."
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 6:21-cv-00916 take?
637 calendar days, from filing on 7 Sep 2021 to closure on 6 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:21-cv-00916?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Alfred R. Fabricant, Enrique W. Iturralde, Jacob Ostling, Justine Minseon Park, Peter Lambrianakos, Raymond W. Mort III, Richard M. Cowell and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff RFCyber. Benjamin Yaghoubian, Catherine Huang, Chris M. Katsantonis, Erin P. Gibson, Jessica Hannah, John Michael Guaragna, Mark D. Fowler, Michael G. Strapp, Peter Maggiore, Sean C. Cunningham, Stephanie Lim and Zachary Loney appear for defendant Apple Computer.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:21-cv-00916 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:21-cv-00916 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
