DCT
8:17-cv-02790
Finnavations LLC v. First Financial Merchant Services LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Finnavations LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: First Financial Merchant Services, LLC d/b/a Payscape (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson LLP
- Case Identification: 8:17-cv-02790, M.D. Fla., 11/17/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is deemed to reside in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Tampa, Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BillingOrchard online invoicing and payment platform infringes a patent related to a financial management system that captures and processes online transaction data.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for enhancing the data captured during online financial transactions, moving beyond simple total amounts to include item-level details for improved financial tracking.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was issued after overcoming an examiner's rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which pertains to patent-eligible subject matter. This history may be relevant to future validity challenges, as § 101 is a common defense against software patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-22 | ’755 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-06-14 | Examiner's non-final rejection of '755 Patent application |
| 2017-02-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,569,755 Issued |
| 2017-11-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,569,755 - "Financial Management System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,569,755, "Financial Management System", issued February 14, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of then-current financial management systems, which failed to capture detailed, item-level information from online transactions, often only storing the total transaction amount. This made it difficult for users to create detailed financial records, track specific purchases, or create reminders for future transactions without significant manual data entry (’755 Patent, col. 1:52-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Financial Assistant," a software component operating on a network that automatically intercepts, copies, and augments transaction data transmitted between a user's device and a commercial web server during an online purchase. This assistant can add details like product categories or user notes and then transmit the enriched data to a personal financial management program, creating a more complete and useful record of the transaction (’755 Patent, col. 3:12-19, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described system aimed to automate and enrich the data-gathering process for online purchases, providing users with more granular control and insight into their spending than was typically available from standard credit card statements or e-commerce receipts of the era (’755 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10, 14, and 17 (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 9 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- Using a network device to conduct an online financial transaction with a commercial web server.
- Searching, by a "financial assistant" on the network device, a set of transmitted data related to the transaction.
- Determining, by the financial assistant, if the searched data comprises transaction data.
- When transaction data is found in a "first data structure," the financial assistant copies and stores that transaction data, plus additional data, into a "second data structure" compatible with a financial management program.
- The second data structure must differ from the first data structure.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "BillingOrchard web application and system, the BillingOrchard mobile apps, and any similar products and/or services" (collectively, the "Product") (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Product as a "cloud-based, SaaS solution for the accounts receivables process" (Compl. p. 4). It enables users to create and send invoices, accept online payments from customers via integrations with payment processors like Payscape, and track payment status on a dashboard (Compl. ¶¶14, 15). The complaint includes a screenshot describing how the Product integrates with payment gateways to allow a user's clients to pay invoices using a "Pay Now" link (Compl. p. 6). The system is alleged to analyze data from these payments to update the status of invoices, for example, by categorizing an invoice as "paid" (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’755 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of delivery of transaction data to a financial management program comprising: using a network device to conduct an online financial transaction with a commercial web server; | The Product allegedly uses a network device (e.g., laptop, smartphone) to send invoices and receive payments via a commercial web server (e.g., a credit card processing server). The complaint provides a screenshot showing a "Pay Now on our Secure Server" button to illustrate this functionality (Compl. p. 5). | ¶14 | col. 8:36-38 |
| searching, by a financial assistant on the network device, a set of transmitted data related to the online financial transaction; | The complaint alleges the BillingOrchard application acts as the "financial assistant" and must "analyze the data transmitted during an invoice payment" to determine and display the invoice's status on a dashboard. | ¶15 | col. 8:39-42 |
| determining, by the financial assistant on the network device, whether the searched data comprises transaction data for the online financial transaction; | The BillingOrchard application allegedly "must determine if particular invoice payment data is related to a particular invoice so that it can correlate a particular payment to particular invoice and categorize that invoice as paid". A screenshot shows various invoice statuses including DRAFT, UNPAID, and PAID (Compl. p. 8). | ¶16 | col. 8:43-46 |
| when the searched data comprises transaction data in a first data structure compatible with conducting the online financial transaction, copying and storing, by the financial assistant...the transaction data and additional transaction data...into in a second data structure...; | Plaintiff alleges that when invoice payment data is found in a first data structure (e.g., used by the processing server), the BillingOrchard application copies that data (e.g., payment amount) and adds other data (e.g., client name, invoice status) into a second data structure used by the BillingOrchard platform for storage and display. | ¶17 | col. 8:47-57 |
| wherein the second data structure differs from the first data structure. | The complaint alleges the second data structure (used by the BillingOrchard platform) is different from the first data structure (utilized to consummate the credit card payment) and is used "to allow for the storing and display of compiled invoice data." | ¶17 | col. 8:58-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent describes a "financial assistant" that "intercepts" transaction data transmitted between a terminal device and a commercial web server, with one embodiment placing it on an ISP's server (’755 Patent, col. 3:12-24, 4:46-48). The complaint alleges the accused "BillingOrchard application" itself is the "financial assistant" (Compl. ¶15). A central dispute may be whether an integrated accounts-receivable application that processes its own payment data falls within the scope of a "financial assistant" that "searches" and "intercepts" data, or if the claim requires a separate, intermediary component.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused product performs an active "searching" of "transmitted data" as required by the claim? The complaint alleges the product "must analyze the data transmitted" (Compl. ¶15), but the court may need to decide if this "analysis" of data within an integrated application is technically equivalent to the patent's description of an assistant searching a broader set of data passing over a network.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "financial assistant"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central actor in the asserted claims. Its definition will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's description of an intermediary component that "intercepts" data may be at odds with the complaint's allegation that an integrated, end-point application is the "financial assistant."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term in the specification. A party could argue that any software component that performs the claimed functions (searching, determining, copying, storing) is a "financial assistant," regardless of its location or architecture. The patent states the assistant "could reside either on the terminal device, or on a server" (’755 Patent, col. 3:17-19), potentially supporting a broader application.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the assistant's function as "intercepting" transaction data on its path between a user device and a merchant server (’755 Patent, col. 4:46-48). One embodiment describes it as residing on an Internet Service Provider (ISP) server, acting as a "conduit" (’755 Patent, col. 3:20-24, 4:39-43). This language may support a narrower construction requiring the "financial assistant" to be an intermediary component that monitors data traffic, rather than an application that simply processes data directed to it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patent and specific intent to encourage infringement by third parties.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent or any facts that would support a claim of willful infringement beyond the general allegation of infringement itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court’s interpretation of several key issues:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Does the term "financial assistant," as used in the patent, require an intermediary software component that "intercepts" data, or can it be construed to cover an integrated, end-point software platform, like the accused BillingOrchard application, that processes its own transaction data?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused Product's internal processing of payment information constitute "searching...a set of transmitted data" and "copying" data from a "first data structure" to a "second," as claimed in the patent? Or does the evidence show a single, integrated data flow that does not map onto the distinct steps and components recited in the claim?