AddyHart is pleased to announce a significant appellate victory in Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2208, further underscoring our firm’s commitment to advancing our clients’ intellectual property rights in mission-critical disputes.
On May 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Western District of Texas’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Apple and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court had previously ruled that Fintiv failed to identify the “widget” software at issue in the company’s patent covering mobile wallet technology.
The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that Fintiv presented sufficient circumstantial evidence—including expert testimony and documented user interface functionality—to create a genuine dispute over whether Apple’s products infringe Fintiv’s patent claims. Notably, the appellate panel rejected the notion that direct source code evidence is the only way to prove infringement in cases involving complex software, emphasizing that functionality and circumstantial evidence can also establish infringement at trial.
This decision revives Fintiv’s claims regarding widely used features of Apple Wallet and Apple Pay and reinforces important principles about how plaintiffs can prove infringement in modern technology cases.
Why This Case Matters to Future Patent Enforcement Matters
This is a closely watched dispute at the intersection of mobile payments and patent enforcement. The Federal Circuit’s opinion clarifies that plaintiffs asserting software-related patents can rely on a combination of expert analysis and circumstantial evidence, rather than being limited to dissecting source code alone.
Looking Ahead: Partner with an Experienced IP Appellate Lawyer
Firm-founding attorney, Meredith “MIMI” Martin Addy was honored to lead the appellate team in this matter and proud to have helped secure this important ruling. AddyHart’s appellate team remains dedicated to protecting innovation and guiding clients through the most sophisticated disputes in patent law.
You can read the full opinion here.
For more information about this case or our experience in complex patent litigation, please contact us to schedule a consultation with an experienced IP appellate attorney.