Apple urges Fintiv to cease reviving old litigation cases
In the ever-evolving realm of technology and intellectual property, the legal battles surrounding companies like Apple are often as dramatic as the innovations they create. One recent case involving Apple and Fintiv exemplifies the complexities that can arise when technology, trade secrets, and patent laws intersect. This article delves into the intricacies of the ongoing litigation, the implications of Apple's legal strategies, and the broader context of the dispute.
- Apple's legal maneuvers against Fintiv
- Transition from patents to trade secrets
- Apple's strategic dismissal plan
- Challenges in timing and scope
- Exposing the nature of alleged trade secrets
- Broader implications and context of the case
- Current status of the case
- Future outlook and potential developments
Apple's legal maneuvers against Fintiv
On October 27, 2025, Apple made a significant legal move by requesting a Georgia judge to either dismiss Fintiv's lawsuit regarding Apple Pay or transfer it back to Texas. Apple argues that Fintiv's claims, which include allegations of trade secrets and racketeering, are largely repetitive of issues raised in earlier litigation.
The lawsuit in question stems from a protracted seven-year patent dispute originating in Texas, where Fintiv accused Apple Pay of infringing on its digital wallet technology. This earlier case was initiated in December 2018, and the legal tussle has been marked by numerous twists and turns that highlight the tension between innovation and intellectual property rights.
Fintiv, which spun off from the Korean mobile payment company CorFire, has been persistent in its legal challenges against Apple, targeting one of the most profitable services in the company’s portfolio. The attention drawn to this lawsuit is not merely a result of its content, but also due to the implications it has for how trade secrets and patents are treated in the tech industry.
Transition from patents to trade secrets
The shift from patent claims to trade-secret allegations marks a crucial evolution in Fintiv's legal strategy. In previous rulings, Judge Alan Albright found that Apple Pay did not infringe on Fintiv’s patents, prompting Fintiv to explore alternative legal grounds. In 2020, Fintiv sought to introduce trade-secret claims, alleging that proprietary technology was shared with Apple during the development of Apple Pay.
However, the court denied this amendment, and Fintiv later dismissed its remaining patent claims just days before trial in August 2025. Shortly after, they filed a new lawsuit in Georgia, framing the accusations as a scheme involving trade-secret theft and racketeering, suggesting collaboration between Apple and former CorFire employees to misuse technology.
Apple’s response has been clear: the claims lack novelty and rely heavily on previously rejected arguments. This back-and-forth highlights the strategic legal maneuvers companies often resort to during prolonged litigation.
Apple's strategic dismissal plan
In its motion, Apple emphasizes the need for judicial efficiency by requesting that the case be transferred back to Texas, where a comprehensive record already exists. The company argues that this move would not only be more efficient but also fairer, given that most witnesses and relevant documentation are located in Texas.
Moreover, Apple points out that Fintiv had previously insisted that Judge Albright was the appropriate adjudicator for the patent issues, indicating a potential inconsistency in their current strategy. If the Georgia court retains jurisdiction, Apple is prepared to seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), claiming that Fintiv's allegations are time-barred and lack sufficient legal foundation.
- The trade-secret claims are argued to be preempted by Georgia's trade-secret statute.
- Apple asserts that Fintiv was aware of the underlying facts as early as 2020, exceeding the statute of limitations.
- CorFire meetings and the hiring of former employees illustrate that Fintiv had prior knowledge of potential issues.
Challenges in timing and scope
Apple contends that the timing of Fintiv's claims is problematic. By 2022, Fintiv acknowledged that the facts could support trade-secret claims, yet this acknowledgment came after critical deadlines had passed. Apple argues that the continued use of the alleged technology does not reset the legal timeline, a position supported by precedent in similar cases.
Furthermore, Apple challenges the viability of Fintiv's RICO claims, asserting that the allegations do not demonstrate an enterprise or a pattern of criminal activity, but rather reflect standard business practices within the technology sector.
Exposing the nature of alleged trade secrets
Central to Apple's defense is the assertion that the functionalities at the heart of Apple Pay are not proprietary. In fact, Apple argues that these features were publicly disclosed in Fintiv's own patent filings, which undermines any claim to confidentiality. Once information is made public, it cannot be retroactively classified as a trade secret.
Additionally, Apple highlights the timeline of events: Apple Pay was launched in October 2014, while the CorFire employees mentioned in Fintiv's complaint did not join Apple until 2015. This timeline suggests that any influence on the service's design from those hires is implausible.
Broader implications and context of the case
The ongoing litigation has broader implications for the tech industry, particularly regarding how trade secrets and patent rights are navigated. Fintiv's seven-year campaign has sparked significant discussion about the "Fintiv rule," which allows the U.S. Patent Office to deny inter partes reviews when parallel lawsuits are active. This rule faced backlash from industry stakeholders and was scaled back in 2024.
For Apple, the stakes are particularly high. Apple Pay has become a cornerstone of the company's service revenue, and protecting its design and underlying technology is crucial. The company maintains that it independently developed the system, relying on its patented architecture, including the Secure Element chip that securely stores card data.
Current status of the case
As it stands, Fintiv has not formally served Apple with the Georgia complaint, leaving the case in a state of limbo. This lack of action means Apple's recent motion could potentially expedite the proceedings even before Fintiv takes further steps.
If the court decides to transfer the case, it is likely that Judge Albright will preside over it once again, given his familiarity with the case’s history and the arguments presented by both sides. Should the court retain the case in Georgia, it will need to evaluate whether Fintiv's new claims are substantial enough to overcome Apple's motion to dismiss.
Future outlook and potential developments
The Georgia court is now tasked with determining the appropriate venue for the case and the viability of Fintiv's claims moving forward. Given the timing of Fintiv's actions, Apple's confidence in its position, and the established record in Texas, the situation remains precarious for Fintiv.
Unless Fintiv can introduce new evidence or file a timely claim, Apple appears poised to conclude a decade-long saga of litigation concerning Apple Pay, a process that began in Waco seven years ago. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for future disputes in the tech industry, particularly surrounding intellectual property rights.
For anyone interested in the nuances of this case, the following video provides insightful commentary on the implications of Apple's ongoing legal battles in the tech landscape:
Leave a Reply