Article Title: Apple Challenges Fintiv’s Renewed Legal Claims Over Apple Pay
Article Text:
Apple has recently filed a motion in the Northern District of Georgia, urging the court to either transfer Fintiv’s latest lawsuit back to Texas or dismiss it outright. This legal maneuver comes in response to Fintiv’s new allegations concerning trade secrets and racketeering, which Apple contends are merely a rehash of prior claims.
Background of the Dispute
The contention between Apple and Fintiv dates back to December 2018, when Fintiv accused Apple Pay of infringing on its digital wallet patent. Fintiv, originally a spin-off from the Korean mobile-payment company CorFire, alleged that Apple utilized features from its patent without authorization. This initial lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Texas and became notable as one of the first Apple Pay cases to be overseen by Judge Alan Albright, recognized for his expedited handling of patent cases.
Transition from Patent to Trade Secret Claims
Over the years, Judge Albright twice determined that Apple Pay did not infringe upon Fintiv’s asserted patent. In 2020, Fintiv sought to amend its complaint to include claims related to trade secrets and contractual breaches, arguing that confidential technology from CorFire was shared with Apple during the early development stages of Apple Pay. However, the court denied this amendment, leading Fintiv to proceed solely with the patent infringement claims. In August 2025, just days before the scheduled trial, Fintiv voluntarily dismissed the remaining counts.
Fintiv’s New Legal Strategy
Shortly after dismissing the Texas case, Fintiv initiated a new lawsuit in Georgia. This complaint reframes the situation as a case of trade-secret theft and racketeering, alleging that Apple conspired with partners and former CorFire employees to misappropriate payment technology. Apple, however, maintains that these allegations are not new and have been previously addressed.
Apple’s Motion for Transfer or Dismissal
In its recent motion, Apple requests the Georgia court to transfer the case back to the Western District of Texas, emphasizing that Judge Albright has already developed a comprehensive record on the matter. Apple argues that both efficiency and fairness favor this transfer, given that most witnesses and documents are located in Texas. Additionally, Apple points out that Fintiv had previously advocated for the Texas venue, asserting that Judge Albright was the appropriate judge for the case. If the Georgia court retains jurisdiction, Apple seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the trade-secret and RICO claims are time-barred and preempted by state law.
Statute of Limitations and Preemption Arguments
Apple asserts that Fintiv was aware of the underlying facts by 2020, meaning that the three to four-year statutes of limitation expired well before August 2025. The company also argues that the Georgia RICO claim is preempted by the state’s trade-secret statute and that Fintiv cannot demonstrate an enterprise or a pattern of criminal activities necessary for a federal RICO claim.
Questioning the Confidentiality of Alleged Trade Secrets
Apple challenges the core of Fintiv’s theory by stating that the wallet functions at the heart of Apple Pay were described years ago in Fintiv’s own patent filings, which became public when the company sought protection. Once disclosed, Apple argues, these functions cannot be treated as confidential trade secrets. Furthermore, Apple highlights the timing of events, noting that Apple Pay launched in October 2014, while the CorFire employees cited in Fintiv’s complaint did not join Apple until 2015. This timeline, according to Apple, undermines any claim that their hiring influenced the design or rollout of the service.
Broader Implications and Context
Fintiv’s prolonged litigation has been central to discussions surrounding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Fintiv rule, which allowed the U.S. Patent Office to deny inter partes reviews when parallel lawsuits were active. This rule faced significant criticism from industry groups and was scaled back in 2024. For Apple, protecting the design history of Apple Pay is crucial, as the service has become one of the company’s most profitable offerings. Apple maintains that it developed the system independently, relying on its own patented architecture, including the Secure Element chip that stores encrypted card data directly on the device.
Current Status and Next Steps
As of now, Fintiv has not served Apple with the Georgia complaint, meaning the case has not formally commenced. Apple’s motion may expedite proceedings before Fintiv takes further action. If the court agrees to transfer the case, Judge Albright may handle it once again, given his familiarity with the arguments from both sides. Alternatively, if the Georgia court retains the case, it will decide whether Fintiv’s new claims can withstand Apple’s motion to dismiss.
Conclusion
The Georgia court is now tasked with determining the appropriate jurisdiction for the case and whether it can proceed. Given the timing of Fintiv’s actions, Apple’s confidence, and the overlap with the Texas record, most key facts are already on file. Unless Fintiv presents new evidence or files a timely claim, Apple appears prepared to conclude a decade-long legal battle that began seven years ago in Waco. For now, the case continues in Georgia.
