RFCyber Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

On September 7, 2021, RFCyber Corp. (“RFCyber” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Raymond W. Mort, III of The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief and damages along with prejudgment and post-judgement interests among other relief for the alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas.

The plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent No. 8,118,218 (the “’218 Patent”), United States Patent No. 9,189,787 (the “’787 Patent”), United States Patent No. 9,240,009 (the “’009 Patent”), United States Patent No. 10,600,046 (the “’046 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 11,018,724 (the “’724 Patent”) (collectively, “Patents-in-suit”) owned by Plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, “Apple has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’218 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the United States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’218 Patent.”

The plaintiff then alleged that, “Apple has had knowledge and notice of the ‘218 Patent at least as of the filing of the complaint” and “Apple has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’218 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by inducing infringement by others, such as Apple’s customers and end-users, in this District and elsewhere in the United States.”

Further the plaintiff also alleged that, “Apple has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’218 Patent, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by contributing to direct infringement by others, such as customers and end-users, in this District and elsewhere in the United States. Apple’s affirmative acts of selling and offering to sell the Accused Products in this District and elsewhere in the United States and causing the Accused Products to be manufactured, used, sold and offered for sale contributes to others’ use and manufacture of the Accused Products such that the ’218 Patent is directly infringed by others.”

Similar allegations have been made by the plaintiff with reference to the infringement of other Patents-in-suit. 

There are five claims for relief laid down by the plaintiff, one for the infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff has requested the court for declaratory relief and an order awarding damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, including supplemental damages post-verdict, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs. Further, the plaintiff also requested the court for enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 along with its cost and reasonable attorney fees and any other relief the court deems just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.