Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 24-1345 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) — Nonprecedential Opinion

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

FINTIV, INC.,

Appellant

APPLE INC.,

Appellee

2024-1345

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-00976.

Decided: April 30, 2025

MEREDITH LEIGH MARTIN ADDY, AddyHart P.C., Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by CHARLES A. PANNELL, III; BENJAMIN CAPPEL, Chicago, IL; CAREN YUSEM, Washington DC; JECEACA AN, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York, NY; MARCUS BARBER, JOHN DOWNING, DARCY L. JONES, HEATHER KIM, THUCMINH NGUYEN, JONATHAN K. WALDROP, Redwood Shores, CA. FAN ZHANG, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOUGLAS

22 FINTIV, INC. v. APPLE INC.

HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER; JAMES LAWRENCE DAVIS, JR., JAMES RICHARD BATCHELDER, CHRISTOPHER M. BONNY, East Palo Alto, CA; BRIAN LEBOW, CASSANDRA B. ROTH, New York, NY.

Before PROST, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv”) appeals a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386 (“the ’386 patent”) unpatentable. Today we issued an opinion in related case Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025), holding, among others, claims 1–3 of the ’386 patent invalid as indefinite. There is no dispute that our affirmance in the related case compels dismissing as moot this appeal. See Oral Arg. at 0:27–0:40, No. 24-1345, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl= 24-1345_03032025.mp3. Accordingly, having affirmed in the related case, we dismiss as moot this appeal.

DISMISSED

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

DISMISSED

Cite this opinion