In a case closely watched by the fintech and mobile payments industry, RFCyber Corp. and Visa, Inc. reached a confidential settlement resolving four patent infringement claims before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas. Filed on June 28, 2022, and closed on February 5, 2024, Case No. 6:22-cv-00697 centered on four U.S. patents covering portable e-purse provisioning and contactless payment methods. The court dismissed RFCyber’s claims with prejudice and Visa’s defenses without prejudice, with each party bearing its own fees and costs after 587 days of litigation.

This settlement underscores the continuing strategic importance of e-purse and mobile wallet IP as major payment networks face recurring assertions from specialized patent holders. For patent counsel, in-house IP teams at fintech companies, and R&D leaders developing contactless payment technology, this case signals that foundational NFC and e-purse provisioning patents remain potent litigation tools — and that even defendants with the resources of Visa may resolve rather than litigate such claims to judgment.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The four patents at issue — US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9240009B2, and US9189787B1 — cover methods and systems for provisioning and managing electronic purses (e-purses) on portable devices such as smartphones and smart cards using NFC and secure element technology. The claims describe how payment credentials are loaded, stored, and transacted on portable devices, enabling contactless payments at point-of-sale terminals. These inventions underpin foundational mobile wallet functionality now common in platforms like Visa’s contactless payment ecosystem.

• • US8448855B1
• • US8118218B2
• • US9240009B2
• • US9189787B1

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Fabricant LLP; The Mort Law Firm PLLC (lead: Alfred R. Fabricant)
Defendant Counsel: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP (lead: Cassie Leigh Black)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed on June 28, 2022, in the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright — a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its patent-friendly docket management and experienced IP bench. As a first-instance district court proceeding, this was a plenary infringement action where all factual and legal issues, including claim construction, validity, and infringement, were subject to full adjudication unless resolved earlier by motion or settlement.

The case ran for 587 days — approximately 19 months — before closing on February 5, 2024. This duration is typical for complex patent infringement actions in the Western District of Texas, which frequently proceed through claim construction and fact discovery before settling. The basis of termination — dismissal with prejudice as to RFCyber’s claims and without prejudice as to Visa’s defenses — strongly indicates a confidential bilateral settlement. No damages award or injunctive relief was entered by the court, and the mutual fee-bearing order confirms the resolution was negotiated rather than adjudicated.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court entered a joint dismissal order on February 5, 2024, pursuant to the parties’ announced resolution of all claims. RFCyber’s infringement claims against Visa were dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing any re-filing of the same claims, while Visa’s defenses — including any invalidity counterclaims — were dismissed without prejudice. No damages amount, royalty rate, or injunctive relief was publicly disclosed, and all attorneys’ fees and costs were borne by each party incurring them, consistent with a standard negotiated settlement.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The following legal grounds and procedural considerations shaped the trajectory and ultimate resolution of this infringement action:

• RFCyber asserted four issued U.S. patents covering e-purse provisioning methods on portable devices, giving the plaintiff a facially strong claim portfolio with issued claims across multiple continuation applications.
• Visa’s defense team from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati mounted invalidity and non-infringement defenses, which were dismissed without prejudice upon settlement — indicating Visa preserved optionality on validity arguments without a merits ruling.
• The Western District of Texas under Judge Albright is known for efficient scheduling orders that compress timelines to trial, creating settlement pressure on both parties before costly expert and trial phases.
• The with-prejudice dismissal of RFCyber’s claims prevents re-litigation of the same patents against Visa, representing a defined licensing resolution or covenant-not-to-sue outcome for Visa’s operations.

Legal Significance

1. 1. Because the case settled before any claim construction order or validity ruling, the four asserted patents — US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9240009B2, and US9189787B1 — carry no adverse judicial precedent and remain fully enforceable against other defendants in future proceedings.
2. 2. The dismissal-without-prejudice of Visa’s defenses means no IPR estoppel or judicial estoppel attaches to Visa’s invalidity positions, preserving tactical flexibility should related patents be asserted by RFCyber against Visa in future matters.
3. 3. This outcome reinforces the pattern of RFCyber using the W.D. Texas venue strategically against major payment networks, and signals to other fintech defendants that early claim construction and IPR petition filing may be critical leverage points in defending against this portfolio.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• File IPR petitions early against RFCyber’s e-purse patent family to create parallel PTAB proceedings that provide invalidity leverage and potential stays of district court proceedings.
• In W.D. Texas before Judge Albright, prioritize early claim construction briefing as the court’s aggressive scheduling compresses the timeline to trial, limiting defendant preparation windows.
• Analyze the prosecution history of US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9240009B2, and US9189787B1 for file-wrapper estoppel arguments that can narrow asserted claims during Markman proceedings.
• Structure any settlement of RFCyber assertions to include covenant-not-to-sue language covering continuation patents and related family members to prevent serial assertion against the same product lines.

For IP Professionals:

• Monitor RFCyber’s remaining patent portfolio for continuation filings or newly issued patents in the e-purse and NFC provisioning space, as the with-prejudice dismissal covers only the four asserted patents and does not immunize against related family members.
• Conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis mapping your mobile wallet and contactless payment product features against the claim scope of US8448855B1 and US9240009B2, which cover core portable e-purse provisioning methods likely to read on industry-standard implementations.

For R&D Teams:

• Engineering teams building NFC-based mobile wallet or e-purse provisioning flows should obtain FTO clearance against RFCyber’s patent family before feature launch, particularly for secure element credential loading and over-the-air provisioning workflows.
• Consider design-around strategies that route e-purse provisioning through cloud-based tokenization architectures rather than device-resident secure element methods, which are the primary focus of RFCyber’s asserted claims.