The CAFC reversed a district court's summary judgment ruling of non-infringement for Apple, stating that Fintiv had provided sufficient evidence to show a 'widget' existed in the accused devices. Fintiv's patent, which pertains to a mobile wallet management system, claims that Apple Pay and Wallet infringe the patent by using technology covered by its patent. The district court's broad construction of 'widget' simply defines it as software with or supporting an application, both sides accepted this definition during the proceedings.
Under this broad construction, Fintiv proffered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that a widget exists in the accused products.
Collection
[
|
...
]