IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Non-infringement summary judgment for Apple reversed on appeal in mobile payment technology provider’s lawsuit, (May 16, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

District court erred in concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the “widget” limitation.

In a nonprecedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Texas district court's non-infringement summary judgment favoring Apple Inc. in mobile payment technology provider Fintiv, Inc.’s long-running patent suit. The district court had granted Apple’s motion based solely on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to identify a “widget” in the accused products. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the plaintiff had presented enough circumstantial evidence, through expert testimony and product functionality, for a reasonable jury to find that the “widget” limitation was satisfied under the court’s broad claim construction (Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2208 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, Fintiv, Inc., is a mobile payments technology company based in Texas. The defendant/appellee, Apple Inc., is a globally recognized consumer electronics and software company. Fintiv filed suit in December 2018, accusing Apple of infringing claims of its U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (the ’125 patent) through its Apple Pay and Apple Wallet features on iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and Macs.

Titled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Wallet and Its Related Credentials,” the ’125 patent discloses a digital wallet system that enables users to provision, store, and interact with virtual payment credentials on a mobile device. The system includes a wallet management component and a “widget” that functions as a user interface, allowing the user to interact with data corresponding to a “contactless card applet” stored in a secure element on the device. Fintiv asserted independent claims 11, 18, and 23 and several dependent claims, including limitations involving a “widget” retrieved, provisioned, or stored within a mobile wallet application.

The Western District of Texas construed the term “widget” as “software that is either an application or works with an application, and which may have a user interface.” Applying that construction, Apple moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including non-infringement of the widget limitation. The district court initially denied the motion without explanation, but later granted Apple's renewed motion shortly before trial. The court reasoned that Fintiv, through its expert Dr. Michael Shamos, had failed to identify any software in the accused products that constituted a “widget” as construed. While acknowledging that Dr. Shamos discussed software components that interact with the user, the court concluded that neither he nor Fintiv had identified a discrete piece of software constituting the claimed widget. The final judgment was entered in favor of Apple, and Fintiv appealed.

Scope of appellate review. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the summary judgment under the Fifth Circuit's standard and construed the central dispute as whether Fintiv had offered enough evidence, source code or otherwise, for a jury to find that the accused products included a widget as claimed. The court reaffirmed that infringement is a question of fact and that summary judgment should only be granted where no reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.

Fintiv’s circumstantial evidence was sufficient. While the court acknowledged that Fintiv and its expert did not identify source code for the widget itself, it found that Fintiv had presented enough circumstantial evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. In particular, Dr. Shamos testified that the Apple Wallet interface—through which users select virtual cards, view card details, and make transactions—was operated by software that met the definition of a "widget." He described this software as providing the interactivity between the user and the card information. His deposition testimony indicated that the user interface components behind the "card art" in Apple Wallet triggered actions and facilitated management of stored credentials, aligning with the patent's description of widget functionality.

The Federal Circuit concluded that, drawing all inferences in Fintiv's favor, a jury could reasonably find that the underlying software driving these features was the claimed widget. It emphasized that circumstantial evidence, such as user-facing behavior, can be sufficient to prove infringement of software patents, even in the absence of direct source code evidence. The court cited its own precedent, including Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., 965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020), for the proposition that circumstantial and functional evidence may establish infringement of computer-implemented technologies.

Widget-related limitations not yet addressed. The Federal Circuit noted that the district court had granted summary judgment solely on the ground that Fintiv had failed to identify a widget in the accused products. The court emphasized that Apple had raised other non-infringement arguments, including that the alleged widget did not satisfy limitations such as "retrieving" and "provisioning" in the method claims or "corresponding to the contactless card applet" in system and device claims. However, because the district court had not ruled on those alternative theories and because the appeal was limited to the widget issue, the Federal Circuit declined to address them and remanded for the district court to do so in the first instance.

District court's legal error. The court rejected Fintiv's claim that the district court improperly required source code evidence, clarifying that the lower court had faulted Fintiv for failing to identify software of any kind that constituted a widget, not just source code. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit held that the court had erred in concluding there was no triable issue of fact. It noted that Apple had offered no counter-testimony or product documentation to show that the observed functionality could be performed without software, and thus, Apple's summary judgment motion failed as a matter of law.

Conclusion. Finally, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement and remanded for further proceedings. It instructed the district court to address the remaining widget-related limitations and any other grounds for non-infringement not previously ruled upon. Costs were awarded to Fintiv.

The Case is No. 23-2208.

Judge: Chen, R.

Attorneys: Meredith Lee Martin Addy (AddyHart P.C.) and Marcus Barber (Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP) for Fintiv, Inc. Melanie L. Bostwick (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) and Abigail Colella (DLA piper LLP) for Apple Inc.

Companies: Fintiv, Inc.; Apple Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews TexasNews GCNNews