RFCyber v. Volkswagen & Electrify America: EV Plug&Charge Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
RFCyber Corp. filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three smart-card and NFC patents against the Volkswagen ID.4’s Plug&Charge system and the Electrify America App. After 428 days of litigation, RFCyber voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41, permanently surrendering its right to re-litigate these patents against these defendants.
EV Plug&Charge Patent Dispute Ends With Permanent Dismissal in E.D. Texas
RFCyber Corp., an NFC and smart-card technology company, filed this infringement action on July 23, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. RFCyber asserted three patents — US8448855B1, US8118218B2, and US9189787B1 — against Volkswagen AG and its U.S. subsidiary, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., as well as Electrify America, LLC. The accused product was the Volkswagen ID.4 running automotive Plug&Charge software in conjunction with the Volkswagen App and/or Electrify America App.
On September 24, 2025, RFCyber filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordering that all claims in the member case are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A with-prejudice dismissal carries the effect of a final adjudication on the merits, permanently foreclosing RFCyber from reasserting these specific claims against these defendants.
The 428-day duration before dismissal suggests the parties engaged in at least some substantive litigation activity — likely including initial disclosures, claim construction positioning, or pre-trial motions — before RFCyber elected to withdraw. The mutual cost-bearing order and the with-prejudice nature of the dismissal are consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the public record does not confirm settlement terms. What drove RFCyber to abandon its claims entirely, rather than seek a without-prejudice exit, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 428 days
428 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases that terminate without trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a unilateral but permanent exit
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Filing ‘with prejudice’ converts that procedural right into a final, merit-equivalent adjudication. The court’s role is ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges the notice rather than ruling on the merits. Critically, the with-prejudice designation is RFCyber’s own choice, making the bar against re-filing self-imposed.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no merits rulingRFCyber permanently surrenders these claims against Volkswagen and Electrify America
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as res judicata. RFCyber cannot re-file infringement claims based on the same patents against the same defendants for the same accused conduct. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice exit. Whether RFCyber extracted any commercial consideration — licensing payments, a covenant not to sue, or design-around assurances — is not reflected in the public court record.
Res judicata bar for RFCyberVolkswagen and Electrify America secure permanent protection against these patent claims
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, and Electrify America a durable shield against re-assertion of US8448855B1, US8118218B2, and US9189787B1 in relation to the Plug&Charge system and associated apps. The mutual cost-bearing order means neither side recovers litigation spend, which is the default outcome absent an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Permanent bar — no fee recoveryEV Plug&Charge ecosystem gains clarity — but other OEMs remain exposed
The dismissal resolves RFCyber’s claims specifically against Volkswagen’s Plug&Charge implementation, but the underlying patents remain in force and could be asserted against other automakers or charging network operators deploying similar NFC-based EV payment architectures. R&D teams building ISO 15118-compliant Plug&Charge systems should treat these patents as live risks until they expire or are invalidated in a future proceeding.
Patents remain active — broader EV riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RFCyber, Corp. | Company | NFC and smart-card technology licensor — holder of US8448855B1, US8118218B2, US9189787B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Volkswagen, AG | Company | Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America — global automaker, developer of ID.4 EV Plug&Charge platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Daniel Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Matthew Cowell | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing RFCyber, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts RFCyber’s own characterisation verbatim, accepting the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice rather than adjudicating any disputed legal question. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ language elevates what could have been a procedural housekeeping step into a permanent bar with res judicata effect. The denial of all pending relief as moot signals that no dispositive or discovery motions remained live at the time of dismissal — consistent with a resolution reached before the case reached full litigation maturity.
US8448855B1, US8118218B2 & US9189787B1 — NFC Smart-Card EV Payment Authentication Patents
The three asserted patents — US8448855B1 (App. No. 13/400038), US8118218B2 (App. No. 11/534653), and US9189787B1 (App. No. 13/903420) — sit within RFCyber’s NFC and smart-card authentication portfolio. The patents collectively address secure contactless communication, credential management, and transaction authentication — the foundational technical layer underlying modern Plug&Charge protocols such as ISO 15118. Their application filing dates span from the mid-2000s through the early 2010s, predating widespread EV adoption but covering architectures now central to connected-vehicle payment infrastructure.
As automakers accelerate Plug&Charge deployment — enabling EVs to authenticate and pay at charging stations without driver interaction — NFC and secure-element patent portfolios like RFCyber’s become strategically valuable. The accusation against the VW ID.4 specifically targets the intersection of the vehicle’s onboard software, the OEM companion app, and the charging network app, suggesting the patents are drafted broadly enough to reach multi-party authentication flows. Competitors deploying similar architectures on platforms such as CCS, CHAdeMO, or OCPP with ISO 15118 compliance face structurally similar exposure.
Should your EV Plug&Charge platform run an FTO against US8448855B1 and related patents?
Any organisation developing or deploying NFC-based EV charging authentication — including OEMs, Tier 1 automotive software suppliers, charging network operators, and mobile app developers integrating Plug&Charge flows — should treat RFCyber’s three asserted patents as active clearance targets. The VW dismissal does not invalidate these patents, and the same technical claims could be directed at comparable implementations across Ford, GM, BMW, Stellantis, or independent charging operators.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8448855B1, US8118218B2, and US9189787B1 against your specific Plug&Charge architecture — identifying whether your authentication flow, credential storage mechanism, or app-to-vehicle communication protocol falls within the asserted claim language. Eureka also surfaces related continuations, divisionals, and family members that may not have been asserted in this case but remain enforceable.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8448855B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NFC and EV Payment Authentication Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving NFC smart-card and EV Plug&Charge patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap — same plaintiff, related technology, or overlapping claim scope.
What this case signals for the EV Plug&Charge IP landscape
Three asserted smart-card patents, one of the world’s largest automakers, and a 428-day sprint to a permanent exit — the signals here extend well beyond VW.
Plug&Charge is now a defined patent litigation target in E.D. Texas
RFCyber’s choice of Judge Gilstrap’s court and the specific accusation of ISO 15118-style Plug&Charge software confirms that NFC-based EV payment authentication is on plaintiffs’ radar. Any OEM or charging network deploying similar architectures should proactively audit exposure against RFCyber’s portfolio and comparable smart-card patent families.
With-prejudice exit at 428 days strongly suggests a negotiated off-ramp
Plaintiffs rarely voluntarily dismiss with prejudice unless they have secured something of value or face a dispositive motion they cannot survive. The mutual cost-bearing order and the absence of any public settlement notice leaves the commercial terms opaque, but the pattern is consistent with a licensing resolution or covenant-not-to-sue agreement reached before claim construction.
RFCyber v Volkswagen — key questions answered
RFCyber asserted three patents: US8448855B1, US8118218B2, and US9189787B1. All three relate to NFC and smart-card authentication technology. The accused product was the Volkswagen ID.4 running Plug&Charge software in conjunction with the Volkswagen App and/or Electrify America App.
A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) has the legal effect of a final adjudication on the merits. RFCyber is permanently barred from re-asserting the same patent claims against Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, and Electrify America for the same accused conduct. The patents themselves remain enforceable against third parties.
Judge Gilstrap’s order states that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee-shifting was awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is the default outcome for voluntary dismissals absent an exceptional-case finding.
Yes. The dismissal binds only Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, and Electrify America LLC. US8448855B1, US8118218B2, and US9189787B1 remain in force and could be asserted against other automakers or charging network operators deploying comparable NFC-based Plug&Charge authentication architectures. An FTO analysis is advisable for any company with ISO 15118-compliant Plug&Charge deployment.
The accused product description references the Volkswagen ID.4 running Plug&Charge software ‘in conjunction with the Volkswagen App and/or Electrify America App,’ suggesting RFCyber’s infringement theory extended to the charging network authentication layer operated by Electrify America. The court’s order specifically identifies Electrify America, LLC as the defendant in Member Case No. 2:24-cv-576-JRG, confirming it was a separately named party whose claims were dismissed with prejudice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.