Search company, investor...
Search
Fintiv company logo

The profile is currenly unclaimed by the seller. All information is provided by CB Insights.

fintivtech.com

Founded Year

2008

Stage

Series B | Alive

Total Raised

$313.71M

Valuation

$0000 

Last Raised

$185M | 8 yrs ago

Mosaic Score

+20 points in the past 30 days

What is a Mosaic Score?
The Mosaic Score is an algorithm that measures the overall financial health and market potential of private companies.

About Fintiv

Fintiv provides a suite of white-labeled mobile financial transaction services to serve unbanked and under-banked consumers. Fintiv's financial services solutions enable the movement of money, payment of bills, and purchase of goods and services across multiple channels via mobile and electronic devices.

Fintiv Headquarters Location

1601 S Mopac Expressway Two Barton Skyway, Suite 200

Austin, Texas, 78746,

United States

512-518-2200

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Expert Collections containing Fintiv

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

Fintiv is included in 2 Expert Collections, including Payments.

P

Payments

2,458 items

Companies and startups in this collection enable consumers, businesses, and governments to pay each other - online and at the physical point-of-sale.

F

Fintech

7,565 items

US-based companies

Fintiv Patents

Fintiv has filed 32 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Banking technology
  • Payment systems
  • Mobile payments
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

11/10/2017

4/5/2022

Payment systems, Electronic funds transfer, Mobile payments, Banking technology, Payment service providers

Grant

Application Date

11/10/2017

Grant Date

4/5/2022

Title

Related Topics

Payment systems, Electronic funds transfer, Mobile payments, Banking technology, Payment service providers

Status

Grant

Latest Fintiv News

Patent Case Summaries - September 2022 #2

Sep 15, 2022

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=32be3c07-f274-4ccb-ae4c-24ba2b2ecb24" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential). Opinion by Vidal. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board exercised its discretion to deny institution of NXP’s IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in view of the Board’s precedential Fintiv decision. NXP sought rehearing challenging the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factor 4, which concerns “overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding.” NXP argued that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the patent at issue may not be part of a scheduled trial in the parallel district court proceeding. NXP also submitted a stipulation agreeing that, if the IPR is instituted, it would not pursue in the district court any grounds based on the prior art references relied on in the IPR. The Board denied rehearing. Director Vidal sua sponte initiated review “to address the limited question of whether the Board may reconsider a decision to deny institution based on a stipulation filed after the institution decision is made.” The Director held “that the Board correctly determined that a stipulation, offered by a petitioner for the first time after a decision denying institution, is not a proper basis for granting rehearing of the decision on institution.” She stated that “the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation related to the Fintiv factor 4 analysis is prior to the Board’s decision of whether to institute review.” A contrary rule, where a petitioner could “wait and see if the Board denies institution under Fintiv, and then offer such a stipulation for the first time on rehearing,” would “open the door to gamesmanship.” Hyatt v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 21-2324 (Fed. Cir. (E.D. Va.) Sept. 8, 2022). Opinion by Prost, joined by Moore and Hughes. Mr. Hyatt filed a patent application in May 1995, just prior to the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which altered the law on patent terms by making the terms 20 years from the effective filing date instead of 17 years from the grant date. To govern such “transitional” applications, the PTO promulgated Rule 129 which provides that, “(1) In an application … that has been pending for at least three years as of June 8, 1995 …, no requirement for restriction … shall be made or maintained in the application after June 8, 1995, except where … (ii) The examiner has not made a requirement for restriction in the present or parent application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant ….” In 2013, the Examiner assigned to Mr. Hyatt’s transitional application instructed him to select a limited number of claims for examination. Mr. Hyatt complied by selecting eight claims out of the approximately 200 in the application. In 2015, the Examiner issued a non-final rejection of the selected claims, and Mr. Hyatt then responded by submitting significant claim amendments. The Examiner issued a restriction requirement on the basis that the amendments shifted seven of the eight selected claims to a different species of computer systems and processes. In response, Mr. Hyatt filed a district court complaint alleging that the PTO’s restriction requirement violated the Administrative Procedure Act since restriction requirements are generally not permitted for transitional applications. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the PTO, ruling that Mr. Hyatt “failed to disclose claims to a separate invention and attempted to file them many years after 1995,” and “withholding these claims is an action by the applicant that falls within Rule 129(b)(1)(ii)’s applicant-action exception to the general rule prohibiting restriction requirements on transitional applications.” Mr. Hyatt appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The court first rejected Mr. Hyatt’s argument that his “inaction” cannot constitute an “action” for purposes of Rule 129(b)(1)(ii). The Federal Circuit explained that whether Mr. Hyatt’s “actions are characterized as a failure to disclose or an act of withholding an entirely new species, it was that conduct of Mr. Hyatt that prevented the Examiner from entering a restriction requirement.” The Federal Circuit also rejected Mr. Hyatt’s argument that applying the applicant-action exception would conflict with Rule 129(a) and Rule 129(b)(2). The court explained that Rule 129(a) does not speak to restriction requirements and does not limit application of the applicant-action exception. Regarding Rule 129(b)(2), the court explained that it specifically provides room for the applicant-action exception. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., No. 21-1967 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Sept. 7, 2022). Opinion by Prost, joined by Chen and Stoll. Arendi sued LG for patent infringement (Arendi I). During the course of the litigation, the district court struck part of Arendi’s infringement expert reports as beyond the scope of Arendi’s infringement contentions. Arendi then filed a second patent infringement suit against LG in the same court and involving the same patent (Arendi II). The district court granted LG’s motion to dismiss the Arendi II complaint under the duplicative-litigation doctrine, determining that in both cases the same products were accused of infringing the same patent. Arendi appealed, arguing that there is no overlap in the accused products in Arendi I and Arendi II. Arendi relied on the fact that the district court had struck certain sections of its expert reports in Arendi I, and thus certain products accused in Arendi II were no longer at issue. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that just because the products were no longer at issue did not mean that they were not accused. Specifically, the Federal Circuit explained that the district court granted the motion to strike because Arendi failed to fulfill its discovery obligations with respect to the products, not because Arendi failed to sufficiently accuse the products. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Arendi II complaint.

Fintiv Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

Fintiv Rank

  • When was Fintiv founded?

    Fintiv was founded in 2008.

  • Where is Fintiv's headquarters?

    Fintiv's headquarters is located at 1601 S Mopac Expressway, Austin.

  • What is Fintiv's latest funding round?

    Fintiv's latest funding round is Series B.

  • How much did Fintiv raise?

    Fintiv raised a total of $313.71M.

  • Who are the investors of Fintiv?

    Investors of Fintiv include Wellington Management, Mastercard, Sheikh Nahayan Mabarak Al Nahayan, Julian Robertson Jr., Lakewood & Company and 7 more.

  • Who are Fintiv's competitors?

    Competitors of Fintiv include PayPal and 1 more.

You May Also Like

C
Contract Keeper Solutions

Contract Keeper Solutions is a CRM centered around escrow and time vesting. The company offers an all-in-one solution to keep track of contractors, purchase orders, and gigs centered around escrow. It integrates various APIs that allow for payment, pre-configured forms, and time monitoring. It is based in Macomb, Michigan.

Mswipe Technologies Logo
Mswipe Technologies

Mswipe Technologies enables merchants to ease the process of payment collection through acceptance of debit and credit cards using mobile phones. Mswipe's terminals are handy and reliable, with acceptance for all major types of cards.

P
Peloton

Peloton provides a managed platform for payment solutions.

MatchMove Logo
MatchMove

MatchMove provides end-to-end mobile wallet and payment card solutions to help businesses increase revenue and boost user engagement. It was founded in 2009 and is based in Singapore.

Curve Logo
Curve

Curve is a banking platform, consolidating all cards and accounts into one smart card and smart app. Curve offers a host of benefits to its customers; it makes all cards fee-free when spending abroad, offers instant notifications and categorization of spend.

Fundbox Logo
Fundbox

Fundbox is a financial technology company offering a B2B payments and credit network. With Fundbox, sellers (of all sizes) can quickly increase average order volumes (AOV) and improve close rates by offering more competitive net terms and payment plans to their approved SMB buyers.Fundbox offers loans and financial products to small businesses with a focus on B2B-focused small businesses. It aims to solve SMB working capital challenges through credit and payments offerings.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.