Apple v. Fintiv

Full

2020-00019 · US8843125B2

In plain English: The Patent Office declined to review this case as a matter of discretion, without deciding whether the challenged claims are valid.

How to read this page: start with the Case brief above, use (the small numbered links) to open the exact source page they cite, then use Reference material further down for claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground detail.

Case brief

Discretionary denial

The Board denied Apple's petition without a trial, exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because a parallel district court case stood ready for trial first.[3][14]

Fintiv sues Apple in the Western District of Texas December 21, 2018·Apple files its petition for inter partes review October 28, 2019·District court resets the jury trial to March 8, 2021 April 23, 2020·Board denies institution under § 314(a) May 13, 2020

  • The '125 patent describes storing a mobile wallet application on a mobile device and managing its credentials through a wallet management system.[5]
  • Apple asserted two obviousness grounds, both built on the Aiglstorfer publication; the discretionary denial meant neither was ever tested at trial.[8][20]
  • Applying the six factors from its own precedential order, the Board found the advanced parallel case counseled against a duplicative trial.[11][12]
  • The denial ended Apple's bid at the Office, and the order this decision applied was already precedential, making the case the framework's namesake.[11][20]

Fintiv supplied the six-factor framework for discretionary denial of inter partes review based on the state of parallel district court litigation.[11][12]

In the News

Reference material

Claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground records underlying the brief above.

Claims × grounds ()

No FWD-stage ground outcomes recorded yet.

Denied grounds ()
Documents