Fintiv, a firm you’ve probably only heard of in the context of patent litigation, is once again suing Apple over Apple Pay. Apple’s secure mobile payment solution launched over a decade ago in 2014. Fintiv has been unsuccessfully suing Apple over Apple Pay since 2018.
Apple is not hiding its frustration. In a statement to 9to5Mac, the company accused the Texas-based firm of trying to “distract from their failed patent case” with a new set of allegations.
Apple responds
“The court has repeatedly rejected Fintiv’s claims and we believe this latest attempt to distract from their failed patent case should also be dismissed,” Apple tells 9to5Mac. “We launched Apple Pay over a decade ago and have been innovating every day since to give users the best, most private and secure experience available. We’ll continue to defend against these false claims.”
The new complaint, filed this week in federal court in Georgia, is the first time in more than seven years of litigation that Fintiv has accused Apple of trade secret theft. It also adds racketeering allegations, claiming Apple built Apple Pay by copying technology from CorFire, a mobile payments company Fintiv later acquired.
Years of courtroom losses
Fintiv’s litigation campaign began in 2018 with a single patent and has repeatedly failed in court. Judge Alan Albright, who presided over the long-running case in Texas, has twice ruled that Apple does not use Fintiv’s patented technology.
Those rulings hinged on a key difference: Fintiv’s patent requires storing “account-specific information” like credit card numbers directly on the device. Apple Pay, by design, does not store that information locally, relying instead on a secure architecture that Apple says it developed from scratch to protect privacy and security.
Even after the Federal Circuit sent part of the case back for further review, Judge Albright again found in July 2025 that Apple did not infringe most of Fintiv’s claims. Fintiv then voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims with prejudice, after the jury had been selected, rather than proceed to trial.
Apple says it was prepared to prove not only that it does not use Fintiv’s technology, but also that the patent is invalid in light of prior work by VivoTech, a company founded by payments industry pioneer Mohammad Khan.
Shifting claims after patent defeat
Less than a week after abandoning the Texas trial, Fintiv filed its new Georgia case, alleging Apple stole trade secrets during meetings in 2011 and 2012 and by hiring away key CorFire employees. Apple calls those accusations baseless.
For one, the patent at the center of the original dispute was not filed until 2014, the same year Apple Pay launched, making it impossible, in Apple’s view, for 2011–2012 events to relate to the patented technology.
The company also disputes the hiring claims, noting that one cited individual never worked at Apple, another worked in Apple Retail rather than on Apple Pay, and the third joined after Apple Pay was already developed.
Apple says the racketeering claims are built on the same flawed narrative and are without merit like the trade secret claims.
A pattern of delays
While Apple has been pushing for a trial date, the company says Fintiv has repeatedly tried to slow the process. That includes last-minute “emergency” motions in 2022 and 2025, attempts to move trial dates, and even a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit, a remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Albright denied the latest delay request, and the Federal Circuit rejected Fintiv’s writ the day after jury selection. Two days later, Fintiv dropped its case rather than face the jury.
Apple isn’t Fintiv’s only target
Apple is not the only company Fintiv has pursued. In 2022, the firm sued PayPal over five patents. Four were invalidated in court, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office later invalidated the fifth. The Federal Circuit upheld the rulings earlier this year.
Fintiv has also had its own legal trouble. Last month, investment firm Oxford Gray sued Fintiv for breach of contract, alleging it defaulted on more than $9 million in loans. The suit points to what the U.S. Department of Justice described as a “scheme to defraud” investors that led to a 2019 criminal indictment of Michael Liberty, the founder of Mozido, a mobile payments venture from which Fintiv later emerged.
Apple’s position
Apple maintains that Apple Pay was developed from the ground up using its own patented technology, and that its design choices, particularly not storing account-specific data on devices, are fundamental differences from Fintiv’s approach. The company frames Fintiv’s strategy as an attempt to profit from Apple Pay’s success after failing to establish infringement in court.
With the Texas case closed in Apple’s favor and the Georgia case just beginning, the company says it will continue to defend against what it calls false claims.
Again, here’s Apple’s full statement shared with 9to5Mac:
The court has repeatedly rejected Fintiv’s claims and we believe this latest attempt to distract from their failed patent case should also be dismissed. We launched Apple Pay over a decade ago and have been innovating every day since to give users the best, most private and secure experience available. We’ll continue to defend against these false claims.
Timeline: Fintiv vs. Apple
December 2018: Fintiv sues Apple in Texas, alleging Apple Pay infringes its patent.
September 2020: Judge Albright rejects Fintiv’s attempt to add willful infringement claims.
June 2022: Fintiv delays trial with a last-minute “emergency” motion.
June 2023: Judge Albright grants Apple summary judgment of noninfringement.
May 2025: Federal Circuit remands case for further review on certain claims.
July 30, 2025: Judge Albright again rules Apple does not infringe most claims.
August 2, 2025: Fintiv voluntarily dismisses its remaining claims after jury selection.
August 7, 2025: Fintiv files new Georgia lawsuit alleging trade secret theft and racketeering.
By the numbers: Fintiv’s litigation record
7+ years: Time Fintiv has spent suing Apple over Apple Pay
2: Times Judge Albright ruled Apple does not infringe the patent
0: Trials Fintiv has won against Apple
5: Fintiv patents invalidated in PayPal litigation (4 in court, 1 at the USPTO)
$9 million: Debt Fintiv is accused of defaulting on in separate breach-of-contract case
1 week: Time between abandoning Texas trial and filing new Georgia lawsuit
Check out these great accessories
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
