Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Anydesk Americas Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Anydesk Americas, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant, P.A.
• Case Identification: 8:25-cv-03069, M.D. Fla., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because Defendant has a "regular and established place of business" in Tampa and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote support software and services infringe a patent related to systems for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and separate data rendering devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for a user of a mobile wireless device to locate and securely send data to a networked output device, such as a printer or projector, for rendering.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has entered into prior "settlement licenses" with other entities. It asserts these licenses did not involve admissions of infringement and thus did not create an obligation to mark products under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 - "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, users of handheld wireless devices were constrained by small screens and limited functionality, making it difficult to utilize data retrieved over wireless networks on more capable output devices (e.g., printers or large displays) ('285 Patent, col. 4:38-47). There was a need for improved methods to render data retrieved by a wireless device on a separate, conveniently located rendering device ('285 Patent, col. 4:48-54).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system architecture where a server acts as an intermediary between a wireless device (WD) and a data rendering device (DRD). A user with a WD can request that data, stored on or accessible by the server, be sent to a specific DRD (e.g., a networked printer or projector) for output ('285 Patent, Abstract). The system includes features for locating a nearby DRD and using a passcode, often entered at the DRD itself, to authorize the secure rendering of the user's data ('285 Patent, col. 5:39-44; Fig. 11).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to bridge the gap between mobile data access and fixed, high-quality output, allowing a user "on the go" to leverage networked infrastructure like office printers or conference room projectors from their personal device ('285 Patent, col. 4:48-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 appear to be the focus.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • A server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD).
  • The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
  • The DRD is registered with the server to access and receive data.
  • Memory in the server for "securely storing data received by or on behalf of said WD and said passcode associated with said WD."
  • The server is configured to receive the data and passcode and to render the data at the DRD after a matching passcode is entered on the DRD's user interface.
• Independent Claim 5 adds a limitation where the server enables the WD to select a DRD "from more than one DRD registered with said server."
• Independent Claim 9 adds a limitation where the server is configured to receive a "DRD locator request from said WD" to find a nearby DRD.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-13 implicitly includes the dependent claims within that range.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's remote support services and associated "websites, e.g., Anydesk remote support" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentality is a remote desktop application that allows a user on one computer to view and control the screen of another computer over a network. The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems and "controls both the manner and timing of infringement" by its customers (Compl. ¶9, ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused service operates beyond identifying the product category. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not attach it (Compl. ¶10). In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint’s narrative allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's remote support system directly infringes the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶11). This theory appears to map the user initiating a remote session to the patent's "wireless device" (WD), the remote computer being viewed to the "data rendering device" (DRD), and Defendant's servers to the claimed "server." The core allegation is that this system provides data from one device to another for display, brokered by a central server.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether a general-purpose computer running remote desktop host software constitutes a "data rendering device" as contemplated by the patent. The patent specification consistently provides examples such as printers, copiers, video monitors, and projectors ('285 Patent, col. 5:24-28). This raises the question of whether the claim term can be construed to cover an instrumentality that is not primarily a dedicated output device.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be how the operation of the accused Anydesk service maps to the specific steps recited in the claims. For example, Claim 1 requires a passcode to be "entered at the user interface" of the DRD to trigger rendering. The complaint does not allege facts explaining where, in the Anydesk workflow, a passcode is entered on the device being viewed (the alleged DRD) to authorize the session. It also raises the question of whether Anydesk's servers perform the claimed function of "securely storing data received by or on behalf of said WD" for later rendering, or if they primarily facilitate a real-time data stream, which may represent a different technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the dispute. Plaintiff's case requires the host computer in an Anydesk remote session to be a DRD. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent reads on the entire category of remote desktop software.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes DRDs as including "multimedia devices used for rendering data by...displaying video data (e.g., televisions, video monitors, and projectors)" ('285 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff may argue that a computer monitor displaying a remote session falls within the general category of a "video monitor."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes DRDs as "generally... 'undedicated' rendering devices (e.g., 'unassigned' as a resource and/or generally available...)" located throughout an enterprise or public spaces ('285 Patent, col. 5:6-12). Defendant may argue this language, combined with the consistent examples of printers and projectors, limits the term to specialized, often publicly accessible, output-only devices rather than a user's personal computer.

The Term: "a passcode...being entered at the user interface [of the DRD]"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the claimed security and authorization mechanism. The physical location of the passcode entry is a specific limitation that the accused system must meet.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "at the user interface" does not strictly require physical interaction with the DRD, but could encompass any authentication action that is logically associated with the DRD before rendering can occur.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures appear to provide strong evidence for a narrower reading. Flowcharts in Figure 8 and Figure 11 explicitly depict a step to "Enter Passcode at DRD" as a distinct action occurring at the rendering device itself, separate from actions taken at the WD or on the network ('285 Patent, Fig. 8, element 83; Fig. 11, element 113). This suggests the patent contemplates a user physically authenticating at the target output device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges Defendant "infringes vicariously by profiting from its customers use" and that "Defendant controls both the manner and timing of infringement," language that may suggest an unpled theory of inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests a declaration that Defendant's "pre-lawsuit infringement" was willful (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d). However, the complaint pleads no specific facts to support this allegation, such as Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the ’285 Patent.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "data rendering device," which the patent illustrates with examples like public printers and projectors, be construed to cover a private, general-purpose computer that is the host in a remote desktop session?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of mechanistic correspondence: Does the accused Anydesk service practice the specific user workflow required by the claims? In particular, what evidence will show that the system requires a "passcode...being entered at the user interface" of the remote computer being viewed, as opposed to on the controlling device, to authorize the data rendering?
3. A third question relates to pleading sufficiency: Given the absence of a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, the initial focus of the case may be on whether the complaint provides sufficient detail to state a plausible claim for infringement under the standards set by Iqbal and Twombly.