Predict your next investment

Fintiv company logo
Corporation
MOBILE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS | Mobile Software & Services / Payments
fintivtech.com

See what CB Insights has to offer

Founded Year

2008

Stage

Series B | Alive

Total Raised

$313.71M

Valuation

$0000 

Last Raised

$185M | 7 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 Headquarter Location

1601 S Mopac Expressway Two Barton Skyway, Suite 200

Austin, Texas, 78746,

United States

512-518-2200

Latest Fintiv News

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2021

Oct 5, 2021

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=4854916e-c70a-4d3a-b978-63a780b7e0ca" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> USPTO News On September 9, 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thom Tillis wrote a letter to Acting Director Andrew Hirshfeld requesting that the USPTO “take steps to reduce patent applicants’ making inappropriate conflicting statements in submissions to the PTO and other federal agencies.” On September 10, 2021, pursuant to Executive Order 14036 , the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs Dr. Janet Woodcock wrote a letter  to Acting Director Hirshfeld “in the hope of further developing the … FDA[’s] engagement with the [USPTO].” The letter recognized that “patents are critical to fostering innovation,” but also expressed concern that certain practices before the USPTO could “forestall access to lower cost medicines.” The letter concluded with some suggestions and questions to address that concern. The USPTO posted an on-demand video training and is offering virtual trainings on how to file DOCX documents. In a guest blog post on the USPTO’s Director’s Forum, Acting Commissioner for Patents Andrew Faile discussed how to ensure the validity of micro entity certifications in patent application filings. Legislation On September 21, 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Tillis introduced two bills: the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021 and the Pride in Patent Ownership Act . According to Senator Leahy’s press release , the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021 is “aimed at improving the participation of Americans from all backgrounds in the patent system,” while the Pride in Patent Ownership Act would “require[] patent owners to disclose their identity with the Patent Office when a patent issues and whenever it changes hands so that the public can easily look up a patent’s owner and the owner’s ultimate parent entity.” On September 26, 2021, Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Darrell Issa, Henry Johnson, and Ben Cline introduced the SHOP SAFE Act “to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for contributory liability for certain electronic commerce platforms for use of a counterfeit mark by a third party on such platforms, and for other purposes.” On September 29, 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy and John Cornyn introduced the Restoring the America Invents Act , which addresses numerous topics, including Director review of final PTAB decisions, the scope of prior art and grounds for challenge in IPR proceedings, discretionary institution denials, the one-year time bar for filing IPR petitions, considerations for issuing a stay of civil actions pending post-grant proceedings and interlocutory appeals relating to the same, multiple proceedings involving the same patent before the Office, IPR estoppel, claim amendments in post-grant proceedings, timing for rehearing decisions, and standing for appeals from the PTAB. Notices, Guidance, and Requests The USPTO is still seeking input on the interim Director review process following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Input may be submitted to [email protected] . Administrative Updates to the General Requirements Bulletin for Admission to the Examination for Registration To Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office , 86 Fed. Reg. 181 (September 22, 2021) (“provid[ing] information relating to the implementation of … three proposals” “to change the criteria for sitting for the registration examination: (1) Adding common Category B degrees to Category A, (2) accepting advanced degrees (i.e., master’s and doctor of philosophy degrees) under Category A, and (3) accepting a combination of core sciences under Category B, Options 2 and 4, so long as one of the core science courses has a lab component”). Modification of COVID–19 Prioritized Examination Pilot Program , 86 Fed. Reg. 169 (September 3, 2021) (“modifying the COVID–19 Prioritized Examination Pilot Program to accept applications until December 31, 2021”). Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence Study , 86 Fed. Reg. 169 (September 3, 2021) [Written comment period closes October 15, 2021] (“extending the period for public comment” for the “July 9, 2021 … request for public input on a study it is conducting on the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States and on how that jurisprudence has impacted investment and innovation” “until October 15, 2021”). Final Rules Interim Rules Proposed Rules PTAB Decisions  New Informative PTAB Decisions New Requests for POP Review There were 6 new requests for POP review, including, for example: Chemco Sys., LP v. RDP Techs., Inc. (IPR2019-01563) [Notice of Receipt of POP Request issued September 7, 2021] [Petitioner requests review of Rehearing Decision, presenting the question of whether decisions on rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) to modify a Final Written Decision can be “limited to issues that would result in full reversals of a decision” rather than all “properly presented requests” for modification.] Apple Inv. V. Corephotonics Ltd. (IPR2020-00489) [Notice of Receipt of POP Request issued September 7, 2021] [Petitioner requests review of Final Written Decision, presenting the questions of (1) “[w]hether the Board must reverse given the panel’s reliance on one party’s representations as to the state of the art made in briefing and at oral hearing, when mere days after securing a favorable result before this tribunal, the party made contradictory admissions in its briefing before another tribunal”, (2) “[w]hether the Board may, consistent with its judicial role and requirements of due process, announce sua sponte in its Decision an inapposite exclusionary rule drawn from prosecution history estoppel/claim construction and apply same to deem ‘unrelated’ two US patent documents … that published/issued from the same provisional application and which each claim priority of, and incorporate by reference, the very same provisional application”, and (3) “[w]hether the Board, consistent with its judicial role and requirements of due process and without opportunity to be heard pursuant to the Board’s precedential decision in Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, IPR2018-00816, paper 19 (2019) and corresponding provisions of Trial Practice Guide, may simply deny (without reasoned basis necessary for meaningful appellate review of agency decisionmaking) Petitioner’s request for a conference call to demonstrate good cause to admit a new evidentiary exhibit.”] Global Tel*Link Corp. v. HLFIP Holding, Inc. (IPR2021-00444) [Notice of Receipt of POP Request issued September 7, 2021] [Petitioner requests review of Institution Decision, presenting the question of “[w]hether a panel should be permitted to deny institution under Section 314(a) and Fintiv based solely on copending litigation to which petitioner is not a party, and where patent owner has continually sought to delay the litigation and trial.”] Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Stragent, LLC (IPR2021-00425, -00426, -00427) [Notice of Receipt of POP Request issued September 8, 2021] [Petitioner requests review of Institution Decision, presenting the questions of (1) whether “deni[al of] institution pursuant to the discretionary powers granted under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)” is proper where “multiple interviews” were held during prosecution and the references relied upon in the Petition were listed on an IDS but “were [not] discussed by either applicant or Examiner, nor were they the subject of any rejection” and (2) whether denial of institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is proper where a terminal disclaimer was filed between challenged claims and another patent with similar, but not identical claims that were previously found to be invalid.] Intel Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V. (IPR2021-00328) [Notice of Receipt of POP Request issued September 14, 2021] [Petitioner requests review of Institution Decision, presenting the questions of (1) “[w]hether 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) is unconstitutional to the extent it specifies that a panel, and thus not the Director, decides rehearing requests and to the extent that it requires deference to the original panel when the Director re-hears a decision whether to institute IPR”, and (2) “[w]hether the six-factor test set forth in Apple Inc. v Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 Paper No. 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) should apply to IPR proceedings involving a parallel ITC investigation, and if so, whether additional or different factors should apply in such instances and whether this modified Fintiv framework should consider all related co-pending matters, including those pending at the Board and in district court.”] Requests for Director Review Parties have submitted 53 requests for Director review under the USPTO’s interim process in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Arthrex. Of those requests, a total of 20 have been denied and 33 are pending. No request has been granted.

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

1,618 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

26,163 items

US-based companies

Fintiv Patents

Fintiv has filed 30 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Payment systems
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Mobile payments
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

9/12/2019

9/14/2021

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

Grant

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Application Date

9/12/2019

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Grant Date

9/14/2021

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Title

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Related Topics

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

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Status

Grant

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Fintiv Web Traffic

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

Fintiv Rank

CB Insights uses Cookies

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.