RFCyber v. Walmart: NFC Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice After 293 Days
RFCyber Corp. filed suit against Walmart, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US8448855B1 against the Walmart App and Sam’s Club App mobile payment systems. The case closed on May 7, 2025 — 293 days after filing — with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, signalling a confidential resolution between the parties.
NFC Mobile Pay Patent Clash Ends in Confidential Resolution
On July 18, 2024, RFCyber Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Walmart, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the country’s most experienced patent trial judges. The asserted patent, US8448855B1 (application no. US13/400038), covers NFC-based emulated smart card payment technology. The accused products were the Walmart App and the Sam’s Club App, including the underlying hardware and software infrastructure supporting mobile payments within those platforms.
The case closed on May 7, 2025, when RFCyber filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal with prejudice, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes RFCyber’s right to reassert the same patent claims against Walmart in future litigation — a legally significant concession that, combined with the mutual cost-bearing order, is consistent with a confidential financial settlement.
The 293-day resolution timeline suggests the parties reached terms relatively efficiently for a patent case in E.D. Tex., a venue known for active patent dockets. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal and the mutual cost order indicate a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side, though the specific financial terms — if any — remain undisclosed. What drove resolution at this stage, rather than proceeding toward a Markman hearing, is not apparent from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 293 days
293 days — faster than the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases proceeding to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Filing with prejudice — rather than the default without prejudice — is a deliberate choice that permanently bars RFCyber from reasserting these claims against Walmart based on US8448855B1.
Permanent bar on re-filingRFCyber gives up future claims against Walmart on this patent
By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice, RFCyber permanently relinquishes its ability to sue Walmart again on US8448855B1 for the same accused products. This is an unusually strong concession in a plaintiff-initiated dismissal. The public record states the parties ‘have resolved the claims,’ which is consistent with a confidential settlement payment — but neither figure nor terms are disclosed.
Claims resolved — terms undisclosedWalmart secures permanent release from this patent claim
Walmart exits the litigation with a permanent bar against RFCyber re-filing the same NFC payment patent claims. The court’s order that each party bears its own costs suggests Walmart did not seek or obtain a fee award, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a decisive win on the merits. Walmart’s mobile payment infrastructure — Walmart App and Sam’s Club App — retains operational continuity.
No fee award; permanent releaseNFC payment patent risk remains live for other retailers
The resolution with Walmart does not dispose of US8448855B1 itself — RFCyber retains the patent and may pursue other defendants. Retailers and fintech companies operating NFC-based mobile payment apps should note that this dismissal provides no invalidity finding or claim construction that could be leveraged in future proceedings. RFCyber’s litigation posture suggests ongoing assertion activity is possible.
Patent still active — monitor for new suitsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RFCyber, Corp. | Company | NFC mobile payment technology licensing company — holder of US8448855B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | Walmart, Inc. — multinational retail corporation operating the Walmart App and Sam’s Club AppSearch 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 | Benjamin A. Yaghoubian | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Shafer Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry R. Fildes | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jackob Ben-Ezra | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn Riley Grasso | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Richard Steadman | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stuart Hene | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tessa Duxbury | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary Aaron Loney | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) – Washington | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a straightforward acceptance of RFCyber’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice rather than a merits adjudication. The language that the parties ‘have resolved the claims for relief’ strongly suggests a confidential settlement preceded the filing. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative element: it functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring RFCyber from asserting the same claims against Walmart. The mutual cost-bearing provision is characteristic of negotiated resolutions where neither party sought to establish litigation misconduct.
US8448855B1 — NFC-based emulated smart card mobile payment technology
US8448855B1 (application no. US13/400038) covers technology in the field of near-field communication (NFC) payment systems, specifically the emulation of smart card functionality within mobile devices. The patent relates to how a mobile application can authenticate and execute contactless payments by emulating the behaviour of a physical smart card — a foundational capability underlying tap-to-pay features in retail mobile apps. The application was filed in 2012, placing it in an early phase of commercial NFC payment adoption.
Strategically, US8448855B1 sits at the intersection of mobile commerce infrastructure and retail payment platforms — a sector that has seen exponential growth since the patent’s priority date. Retailers operating app-based tap-to-pay or NFC checkout features, payment processors integrating emulated card functionality, and fintech platforms supporting in-store mobile wallets all represent potential risk zones. RFCyber’s willingness to pursue Walmart — one of the largest retail app operators — signals confidence in the patent’s claim breadth and its application to mainstream commercial payment systems.
Should you run an FTO against US8448855B1?
Any company operating a mobile payment application that incorporates NFC-based contactless checkout, emulated smart card functionality, or tap-to-pay features in a retail context should treat US8448855B1 as a priority FTO target. RFCyber’s action against Walmart’s app-based payment infrastructure demonstrates that the patent is being actively asserted against commercial-scale implementations — not just startups or niche players. In-house IP and product teams at retailers, payment platforms, and super-app operators should assess exposure before receiving a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US8448855B1’s independent claims against your product’s technical architecture, identify prosecution history estoppel, surface prior art that may support design-around or invalidity arguments, and flag related family members or continuation risks. Given that no claim construction has been issued in this case, early-stage FTO work carries particular value — there is no court-established claim scope to anchor against, making proactive analysis the most defensible posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8448855B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NFC Payment Patent Cases in E.D. Texas and Related Courts
Cases involving NFC mobile payment patent assertions in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable venues, including prior RFCyber enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the mobile payments IP landscape
RFCyber’s enforcement of US8448855B1 against a Tier 1 retailer signals ongoing NFC patent assertion risk across the mobile commerce sector.
E.D. Tex. remains a preferred venue for NFC payment patent assertions
RFCyber chose Judge Gilstrap’s court in the Eastern District of Texas — a well-established and plaintiff-friendly venue for patent cases. Retailers and fintech operators with app-based payment systems should expect E.D. Tex. as the likely filing jurisdiction for any future RFCyber actions and plan litigation response strategies accordingly.
Dismissal with prejudice narrows Walmart’s exposure but does not invalidate the patent
The with-prejudice dismissal protects Walmart specifically, but US8448855B1 remains in force. No invalidity determination, no claim construction order, and no IPR record was generated in this case. Other companies deploying NFC-based mobile checkout or emulated smart card payment functionality have no new prior art or prosecution history to rely on from this proceeding.
RFCyber v Walmart — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 7, 2025, following a voluntary dismissal filed by RFCyber under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The parties represented they had resolved their claims. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. RFCyber is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Walmart.
RFCyber asserted US8448855B1 (application no. US13/400038), a patent covering NFC-based emulated smart card mobile payment technology. The accused products were the Walmart App and the Sam’s Club App, together with the underlying hardware and software infrastructure supporting those payment platforms.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal protects Walmart specifically from future RFCyber suits on US8448855B1 but does not invalidate the patent or establish any claim construction. No PTAB invalidity proceeding was resolved in this case. Other retailers and mobile payment operators remain exposed to potential assertion of US8448855B1 by RFCyber.
Dismissal with prejudice functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. It permanently bars the plaintiff — here, RFCyber — from bringing the same patent claims against the same defendant, Walmart, in any future proceeding. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiff cannot refile the case. In patent litigation, this outcome typically reflects either a settlement or a plaintiff’s decision that further prosecution is not commercially viable.
RFCyber was represented by Fabricant LLP and Truelove Law Firm, with lead counsel including Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, and Justin Kurt Truelove. Walmart was represented by DLA Piper US LLP across multiple offices and Findlay Craft PC, with lead counsel including Paul Richard Steadman, Eric Hugh Findlay, and Kathryn Riley Grasso.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.