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., 11/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote support website and associated services infringe a patent related to systems for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for a user of a wireless device to locate and securely send data to a separate device, such as a printer or display monitor, for rendering.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities related to its patents, but asserts that none of these licenses involved producing a patented article that would trigger marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Priority Date
2017-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Issued
2021-01-02	Date of Archived Webpage for Accused Product
2025-11-07	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285, "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices," issued January 17, 2017 (’285 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, users of handheld wireless devices faced significant limitations in utilizing retrieved data because of small device screens and the lack of convenient options for printing or displaying that data on larger-format devices (e.g., printers or projectors) ('285 Patent, col. 4:35-48).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system to solve this problem by allowing a wireless device (WD) to locate a separate, publicly or privately available "data rendering device" (DRD), such as a networked printer or multimedia projector ('285 Patent, col. 1:41-45). A server often facilitates this connection, managing location information and security protocols, such as requiring a passcode to be entered at the DRD before data is rendered, thereby brokering the data transfer from the wireless device to the rendering device ('285 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between emerging mobile computing and established peripheral hardware, addressing the user's desire for "portability" and "information on the go" by making fixed rendering resources accessible to mobile users ('285 Patent, col. 4:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is excerpted below.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A system for rendering data comprising:
  • a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD),
  • said DRD including a user interface for receiving passcodes,
  • the DRD registered with said server to access and receive data over a data communications network at the request of a wireless device (WD),
  • in response to a passcode associated with said WD being entered at the user interface;
  • memory in said server accessible by said DRD, for securely storing data received by or on behalf of said WD and said passcode associated with said WD; and
  • wherein said server is configured to receive said data and passcode and to render said data after the passcode is entered on the user interface that matches the stored passcode.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "websites, e.g., Defendant's website, that are used by Defendant's customers or in testing" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a "remote-support" website, suggesting a service that provides remote desktop access and control. The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems and "put the inventions claimed by the '285 Patent into service" (Compl. ¶9). The functionality appears to involve a server-mediated system that allows one user to view and interact with another user's computer screen remotely. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused system.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations can be found in a chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶10). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant’s systems and websites, when used by its customers for remote support, directly infringe the claims of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶11). This suggests that the combination of Anydesk's servers and its customers' computers (acting as remote clients) forms the allegedly infringing system.

Identified Points of Contention

• Architectural Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of how the accused remote desktop architecture maps onto the claimed system. A central issue may be whether a user's computer, whose screen is being viewed remotely, constitutes a "data rendering device" (DRD) as claimed, and whether the Anydesk server functions as the claimed "server" that stores both the data and the passcode.
• Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the term "data rendering device," described in the patent with examples like printers, copiers, and projectors ('285 Patent, col. 1:41-45), can be construed to encompass a general-purpose computer screen being controlled in a remote desktop session.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be where and how a "passcode" is entered in the accused system. The claim requires the passcode to be "entered at the user interface" of the DRD. The complaint does not specify what accused functionality meets this limitation, raising the question of whether a login to a remote computer via the Anydesk software satisfies this claim element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed invention. Its construction will determine whether the patent's scope can extend beyond the specific types of hardware listed in the specification to cover the software-based remote viewing of a computer screen. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s examples are hardware-centric, while the accused product is a software service.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a DRD as including "data rendering hardware (e.g., printers, copiers, displays, etc.) and multimedia software adapted for rendering data" ('285 Patent, col. 7:7-10). This linkage to "software" could support an argument that the term is not limited to standalone hardware.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently provides examples of DRDs as networked printers, televisions, monitors, and projectors ('285 Patent, col. 1:41-45). The patent also describes DRDs as "undedicated" or "unassigned" resources that can be located throughout an enterprise or community, a characterization that may not align with a user's personal computer ('285 Patent, col. 5:6-13).

The Term: "a passcode associated with said WD being entered at the user interface [of the DRD]"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a key security step in the claimed method. The dispute will likely center on whether the process of logging into a remote computer via a software client constitutes entry "at the user interface" of the rendering device itself, as opposed to entry through the wireless device or the network.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that a user can provide passcode information "at the UI 22 and/or through a WD 6" ('285 Patent, col. 10:49-51). This might suggest some flexibility in how the passcode is entered into the system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites entry "at the user interface" of the DRD. Figure 8 shows a distinct step where a user must "Enter Passcode at DRD" (83), separate from actions taken at the WD ('285 Patent, Fig. 8). This suggests a direct, physical interaction with the rendering device is contemplated.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant "infringes vicariously by profiting from its customers use of the various Defendant's website" and "controls both the manner and timing of infringement" (Compl. ¶11). This appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of induced infringement, based on Defendant allegedly providing an infringing system for its customers to use.

Willful Infringement

Plaintiff seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages in its prayer for relief (Compl. ¶VI.d). The complaint body, however, does not allege specific facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct by the Defendant.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "data rendering device," which is described in the patent’s specification with examples of physical hardware like printers and projectors from the early 2000s, be construed to cover a modern general-purpose computer whose screen is accessed via a remote desktop service?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused remote support system—involving a client, a server, and a remote host computer—perform the specific sequence claimed in the patent? In particular, the case may turn on whether the defendant's system includes the claimed step of entering a "passcode...at the user interface" of the device that is rendering the data.