Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., decided May 16, 2025

Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Appeal of Summary Judgment)

Case Title: Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Number: 2023-2208 Date Decided: May 16, 2025 Disposition: Reversed and Remanded (Nonprecedential)

I. Executive Summary

This document summarizes the key points from the Federal Circuit's nonprecedential opinion regarding Fintiv, Inc.'s appeal against Apple Inc. The case involves alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 ('125 patent), which relates to managing mobile wallets and associated credentials. The core of the appeal revolves around the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Apple, specifically concerning the "widget" limitation of the asserted claims. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's decision, finding that Fintiv presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a "widget" in Apple's accused products (iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac, particularly related to Apple Pay and Apple Wallet). The case is remanded for the district court to consider other potential grounds for summary judgment that were not addressed in the initial ruling.

II. Background

• The Patent: The '125 patent is titled "System and Method for Managing Mobile Wallet and Its Related Credentials." It describes a mobile wallet application capable of storing "virtual cards" and user financial credentials for contactless payment. Key components of the system include a wallet client management component (the container) and a widget management component (responsible for individual widgets within the container). Widgets are described as applications or software that interface with a user and can be used to view and manage information stored in a corresponding Wallet Management Applet (WMA).

• Accused Products: Fintiv accused Apple's iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac, through their use of Apple Pay and Apple Wallet, of infringing certain claims of the '125 patent (specifically, claims 11, 13-14, 18, 20, and 23-25).

• District Court Proceedings: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Apple's motion for summary judgment but later granted it upon reargument, finding that Fintiv failed to identify the claimed "widget" in the accused products.

• Claim Construction: The district court construed the term "widget" as "plain-and-ordinary meaning and where the plain-and-ordinary meaning is ‘software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface.’" Neither party disputed this construction on appeal.

• Basis for Summary Judgment: The district court's grant of summary judgment was based solely on Fintiv's perceived failure to identify the "claimed widget in the accused products." The court reviewed Fintiv's evidence but found it insufficient.
  

III. Key Issues on Appeal

The primary issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement based on Fintiv's alleged failure to identify the claimed "widget" in the accused products.

IV. Federal Circuit Analysis and Findings

• Standard of Review: The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying Fifth Circuit law. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Infringement is a question of fact.

• District Court's Reasoning: The Federal Circuit disagreed with Fintiv's characterization that the district court only required source code evidence. The district court faulted Fintiv for failing to identify any software that constituted the accused widget, not just source code.

• Sufficiency of Fintiv's Evidence: The Federal Circuit concluded that, under the broad construction of "widget" adopted by the district court, Fintiv did proffer sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.

• Circumstantial Evidence is Acceptable: The court reiterated that "a patentee may prove infringement by ‘any method of analysis that is probative of the fact of infringement,’ and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient."

• Dr. Shamos's Testimony: Fintiv's expert, Dr. Michael Shamos, testified about observed functionality in the accused products. He stated that the "software (the ‘widget’) allows a user to, for example, view the card’s details or perform transactions." He described the widget as the "software (with a user interface) that is made available to the user for selecting, via its user interface, among the available ones to, for example, view the card’s details or perform transactions." This software underlies the observed user interface and functionality that allows interaction with the virtual cards in Apple Wallet.

• Apple Witness Testimony: An Apple witness, Mr. Tackin, testified that a "pass" in the context of Apple Pay could be understood as "a [user interface] and software presentation on the application processor that relates to the card that was installed." The court found this testimony consistent with Dr. Shamos's opinion that software underlies the user interface presentation.

• No Requirement for Visible Software: The court stated that "the widget software does not necessarily need to be a discrete element visible ‘in’ the user operation screenshots."

• Apple's Counter-Argument: Apple speculated that "mere data" might underlie the observed functions, but provided no evidence to support this.

• Conclusion on Widget Identification: The Federal Circuit found that, "drawing reasonable inferences in favor of Fintiv, the non-moving party, Fintiv’s evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that software provides the functionality Dr. Shamos observed and identified in the accused products." The court found the idea that the accused products contain no software "beyond the apparent implausibility."

• Related Claim Limitations: The court noted that the "real issue" might be whether the identified software satisfies other related claim limitations (e.g., corresponding to the contactless card applet, being retrieved and provisioned). However, the district court did not grant summary judgment on these grounds, and they were not fully briefed on appeal.

• Remand: The Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for the district court to address the related claim limitations and any other remaining grounds for summary judgment that Apple had raised but were not addressed in the initial ruling.
  

V. Most Important Ideas/Facts

• The case centers on the definition and identification of a "widget" in Apple's mobile wallet technology for patent infringement purposes.

• The district court's broad construction of "widget" as "software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface" was not disputed on appeal.

• The Federal Circuit found that circumstantial evidence, such as expert testimony based on observed functionality and internal company descriptions, can be sufficient to establish the existence of a software component like the claimed "widget," even without identifying specific source code.

• Fintiv's expert, Dr. Shamos, provided testimony describing the "widget" as the software underlying the user interface that allows interaction with virtual cards in Apple Wallet (viewing details, performing transactions).

• Apple's own witness's description of a "pass" as a "software presentation on the application processor that relates to the card" was found to be consistent with Fintiv's theory.

• The Federal Circuit concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the presence of a "widget" based on the circumstantial evidence presented by Fintiv.

• The case was reversed and remanded, meaning the summary judgment in favor of Apple on the "widget" limitation is overturned, and the district court must now consider other potential grounds for noninfringement.

• The nonprecedential nature of the opinion indicates it is primarily intended for the parties involved and does not set a binding precedent for future cases, although it reflects the Federal Circuit's approach to evaluating circumstantial evidence of software in patent infringement disputes.
  

VI. Key Quotes

• "...the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas changed course and granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Apple."

• "Central to the district court’s grant of summary judgment and this appeal is the court’s construction of 'widget.' The district court construed 'widget' as 'plain-and-ordinary meaning and where the plain-and-ordinary meaning is ‘software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface.’'"

• "In granting the motion, the court reasoned that Fintiv and its expert witness, Dr. Michael Shamos, 'failed to identify the claimed widget in the accused products.'"

• "'A patentee may prove infringement by ‘any method of analysis that is probative of the fact of infringement,’ and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient.'"

• "Dr. Shamos testified in his report that '[t]he software (the “widget”) allows a user to, for example, view the card’s details or perform transactions.'"

• "He further testified that... 'the interactivity that occurs between the user and that card information is performed by a widget.'"

• "The district court faulted Fintiv and Dr. Shamos for not 'identify[ing] specifically what in [Dr. Shamos’s] screenshots is the claimed “widget.”'... But the widget software does not necessarily need to be a discrete element visible “in” the user operation screenshots."

• "Like Dr. Shamos, Apple’s own witness testified that software underlies the card art and user interface presentation."

• "Although Dr. Shamos did not identify the precise source code that makes up the alleged widget, drawing reasonable inferences in favor of Fintiv, the non-moving party, Fintiv’s evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that software provides the functionality Dr. Shamos observed and identified in the accused products."

• "The real issue, it appears to us, is whether the alleged widget as identified by Fintiv can satisfy related claim limitations."

• "For the reasons stated above, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."