⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Fintiv sued PayPal in 2022, accusing it of infringing a patent on mobile-wallet transactions for people without bank-account access. The patent describes an unbanked user loading cash through an agent, storing electronic value in a mobile wallet, and using the system to withdraw or transfer funds. PayPal challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable, relying chiefly on Tumminaro. Fintiv appealed. The patent expressly defines an unbanked subscriber as someone who does not have, or have access to, a bank or credit-union account. Yet a later passage asks whether that subscriber has enough e-money in a stored-value account or enough money in a bank account. In patent law, lexicography means the patent gives a term its own definition. The judges must decide whether the later passage changes that definition. Fintiv says a mobile wallet is not a bank account and Tumminaro gives its users bank-account access. PayPal says both systems use pooled bank accounts, so Fintiv's reading would exclude the patent's own system.

Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. (No. 25-1225) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 2026.