According to 9to5Mac, Apple has filed a response to Fintiv’s trade secret complaint from August despite Fintiv not actually serving Apple with the lawsuit for two months. Apple claims Fintiv is deliberately delaying and avoiding having what it calls a “frivolous and meritless” case tried in court. The response highlights that Fintiv previously insisted the Western District of Texas was “the right place” and Judge Alan Albright was “the right judge” for its patent case, but is now trying to use an unrelated district for trade secret claims. Apple argues Fintiv has spent over seven years trying to exploit a single patent that courts twice found Apple Pay does not use, and that the company abandoned its prior case before it could reach a jury trial.
Table of Contents
The Unusual Legal Maneuver
Apple’s decision to respond to an unserved lawsuit represents a sophisticated legal strategy that turns the tables on Fintiv. Typically, defendants wait to be formally served before engaging, but Apple’s preemptive response puts pressure on Fintiv and signals confidence in their position. This approach suggests Apple’s legal team believes Fintiv’s delay tactics reveal weakness in their case. By filing now, Apple forces the court to consider their arguments while Fintiv appears to be stalling, potentially influencing judicial perception from the outset. This aggressive posture is characteristic of Apple’s broader legal strategy when facing what it perceives as nuisance lawsuits.
The Seven-Year Patent Battle
The underlying dispute traces back to fundamental questions about patent validity and technology development timelines. Fintiv’s claims appear to revolve around technology that courts have already examined and rejected twice, which raises questions about why the company continues pursuing this avenue. In the fast-moving payments technology space, seven years represents multiple generations of technological evolution. Apple Pay launched in 2014, meaning this legal battle has persisted through nearly the entire lifespan of the service. The repeated judicial findings that Apple Pay doesn’t use Fintiv’s patented technology suggests either overly broad patent claims or deliberate attempts to extract settlements from deep-pocketed technology companies.
Trade Secret Allegations Examined
Apple’s argument that Fintiv’s trade secret claims repackage failed patent allegations touches on a critical distinction in intellectual property law. True trade secrets require confidentiality and reasonable protection measures, whereas patented technology becomes public knowledge. If the technology was indeed disclosed in Fintiv’s original patent filings, as Apple claims, then it cannot legally qualify as a trade secret. This represents a fundamental flaw in Fintiv’s legal theory that could prove fatal to their case. The timing issues Apple highlights—that former CorFire employees joined after Apple Pay’s launch—further undermine any claim that their hiring contributed to product development.
Broader Industry Implications
This case reflects larger patterns in technology litigation where smaller companies target major players like Apple with intellectual property claims. The Western District of Texas has become a popular venue for patent cases due to perceptions about favorable treatment for plaintiffs. Apple’s pushback against what it characterizes as forum shopping—choosing jurisdictions based on perceived advantage rather than case relevance—could influence how courts handle similar disputes. If Apple succeeds in having the case dismissed on these grounds, it might discourage similar tactics by other patent assertion entities targeting technology companies.
What Comes Next
The most immediate question is whether Fintiv will actually serve Apple and proceed with the case or continue delaying. Given Apple’s aggressive response and the weaknesses highlighted in their filing, Fintiv may be reconsidering its strategy. The racketeering allegations Apple describes as “overreach” could backfire significantly on Fintiv if pursued, as such claims require meeting high legal standards. This case ultimately tests whether persistent legal challenges without strong merits can yield results against well-resourced defendants, or if companies like Apple can successfully shut down what they view as frivolous litigation through aggressive defense strategies.
