DCT
2:18-cv-00200
Millennium Commerce LLC v. Equinox Payments LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Millennium Commerce, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Equinox Payments, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, PLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00200, D. Ariz., 01/19/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the District of Arizona and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s point-of-sale (POS) terminal systems infringe a patent related to technology for combining a purchase transaction with a request for an additional cash amount.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns user interfaces for POS terminals, which are foundational to modern retail, and seeks to streamline common transactions such as receiving cash back with a debit card purchase.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit, the applicant distinguished the invention from the Lapsley prior art reference. The applicant argued that its description of a "cash back" feature predated a similar disclosure in Lapsley, based on a claimed priority date of April 13, 1995. This prosecution history may be relevant to the court's future construction of the patent’s claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-04-13 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,954,701 |
| 2011-06-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7954701 Issued |
| 2018-01-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,954,701 - Electronic Fund Transfer or Transaction System, issued June 7, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art electronic fund transfer systems, such as ATMs and POS terminals, as inefficient and time-consuming for users. It notes that performing a transaction required manually selecting the transaction type and multiple parameters through a series of separate menu screens, which the patent characterizes as "annoying and time consuming" and an "inefficient" process. (’701 Patent, col. 2:11-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a POS terminal that streamlines transactions by integrating a purchase with a request for an additional cash amount. The terminal is configured to combine the purchase amount and the extra cash amount into a single authorization request sent to a financial institution. (’701 Patent, Abstract). The specification gives an example of a predefined transaction option such as "'Pay by ATM and Receive $50 Cash Back,'" which would reduce the number of user inputs required at checkout. (’701 Patent, col. 9:60-65).
- Technical Importance: This technology sought to improve the user interface and efficiency of POS terminals by reducing the number of steps a consumer must take to complete a common combined transaction. (’701 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s allegations track the elements of independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A point-of-sale terminal comprising:
- a financial information reader configured to receive financial information from a card associated with an account, in connection with requesting authorization of a purchase transaction;
- an input device configured to receive a request for a select cash amount in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction; and
- a control system configured to request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount on the account.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its allegations reference features covered by dependent claims 3 (graphical user interface), 4 (communication device), and 5 (display).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses "Equinox POS Terminals," including but not limited to models T4205, T4210, T4230, M4230, M4240, L4200, L5000, L5200, and L5300. (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused terminals are configured to perform financial transactions by reading information from a credit or debit card. (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges they include an input device, such as a button pad, that allows a user to request a "cash amount in excess of the amount of a purchase transaction (e.g., tip or cash back)." (Compl. ¶22).
- The system is alleged to be configured to request authorization for the combined total of the purchase and the excess cash amount from remote financial service providers. (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).
- The complaint asserts that Defendant makes, sells, imports, offers for sale, and uses these POS terminals in the United States. (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’701 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a financial information reader configured to receive financial information from a card associated with an account... | Equinox POS Terminals are configured to receive financial information from a credit or debit card to authorize a purchase transaction. | ¶21 | col. 5:5-7 |
| an input device configured to receive a request for a select cash amount in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction; | Equinox POS Terminals have an input device (e.g., button pad) to receive a request for a cash amount such as a "tip or cash back." | ¶22 | col. 9:60-65 |
| and a control system configured to request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount... | Equinox POS Terminals are configured to request authorization for the combined payment of the purchase and the selected cash amount. | ¶23 | ’701 Patent, Abstract |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that a "tip or cash back" satisfies the claim limitation of a "select cash amount in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction." (Compl. ¶22). This raises the question of whether a "tip," which is typically for service and not dispensed as physical currency, falls within the scope of a "select cash amount." The patent’s focus on ATM-like functionality and a dependent claim that recites dispensing cash may inform this analysis. (’701 Patent, col. 20:22-24).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused terminals' "control system" performs a single, combined authorization request for both the purchase and the excess amount, as required by the claim? The complaint alleges this functionality but does not offer technical details on how the accused system architecture achieves it. (Compl. ¶23).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a select cash amount in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the dispute, as it defines the core functionality of the invention. The complaint’s assertion that this language reads on both "tip" and "cash back" functions suggests this term will be a primary focus of claim construction. (Compl. ¶22). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent covers common tipping features or is limited to transactions where physical cash is dispensed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not explicitly require that physical cash be dispensed. The term "cash amount" could be argued to refer to a monetary value. The specification also refers more broadly to various transaction types, including paying for goods or services. (’701 Patent, col. 5:44-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification frequently uses ATM-style "cash back" as its primary example, using phrases like "withdraw cash" and "Receive $50 Cash Back." (’701 Patent, col. 2:29; col. 9:65). Furthermore, dependent claim 2 adds the limitation of a device to "dispense the select cash amount," which a party could argue implies that the context of the invention is physical cash dispensing. (’701 Patent, col. 20:22-24).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "select cash amount," which is described in the patent's specification primarily in the context of ATM-like "cash back" features, be construed broadly enough to cover the "tip" functionality allegedly present in the accused POS terminals?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What evidence will be presented to establish whether the accused Equinox terminals' software architecture requests a single, combined authorization for a purchase and an excess amount, as required by the claim, versus processing them as distinct operations within the same user session?