DCT

1:25-cv-05169

DataCloud Tech LLC v. Fifth Third Bank National Association

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05169, N.D. Ga., 09/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant conducts substantial business in the district, including operating at least 30 physical bank locations, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infrastructure and its mobile banking application infringe four patents related to disambiguating file types, organizing and managing data packets, providing anonymous network communication, and remotely managing access to data directory structures.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address foundational technologies in computer operating systems, network architecture, and data management that are central to the delivery of secure and organized digital services, such as online and mobile banking.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Certificates of Correction were issued for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,560,613 and 6,651,063, which may clarify or correct minor errors in the issued patents but typically do not alter the substantive scope of the claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Priority Date
2000-02-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Priority Date
2000-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Priority Date
2002-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 Priority Date
2003-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Issued
2003-08-26 U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Certificate of Correction Issued
2003-11-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Issued
2004-02-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Certificate of Correction Issued
2007-04-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Issued
2008-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 Issued
2025-09-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 - "Disambiguating File Descriptors"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613, "Disambiguating File Descriptors," issued May 6, 2003 (Compl. ¶18).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a shortcoming in operating systems like UNIX®, which often treat different types of system objects—such as a file stored on a hard disk and a network communication channel—identically, referring to both via a generic "file descriptor" ('613 Patent, col. 2:27-32). This ambiguity makes it difficult to selectively intercept system calls for one type of object without also intercepting them for the other, limiting the implementation of enhanced security or custom functionality (col. 2:54-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to distinguish between these file types by intercepting the system calls that first create a file descriptor ('613 Patent, col. 4:10-18). When a descriptor is created, the system stores an "indicator" in a dedicated table that flags its specific type (e.g., "communication channel"). Subsequently, when a process attempts to access a file via a descriptor, a system call "wrapper" can first check the indicator table to determine the file type and decide whether to allow the standard operation or perform an alternative action ('613 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:30-50).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for adding a granular layer of control and security to an operating system without modifying its core code, which was significant for safely executing remote programs that required network access but should be denied access to the local file system (col. 2:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶24).
  • The essential elements of claim 11 are:
    • intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media;
    • intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor;
    • storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media;
    • storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor; and
    • examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 - "Data Organization And Management System And Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063, "Data Organization And Management System And Method," issued November 18, 2003 (Compl. ¶29).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge consumers and businesses face in organizing a proliferation of information, such as product manuals, warranties, and service updates, which are often stored in decentralized, inefficient formats (e.g., paper files) or discarded, only to be needed later ('063 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where "providers" (e.g., manufacturers, retailers) send "information packs" to a user's centralized "User Data Repository." Critically, the provider pre-tags the information pack with a generic category identifier, relieving the user of the initial organizational burden ('063 Patent, col. 2:38-44). The user can then place the information into a "custom location" and send a "custom category signal" back to a processing station. This signal associates the provider with the user's custom category, so that all subsequent information packs from that same provider are automatically routed to the user's preferred custom location ('063 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-53).
  • Technical Importance: The system automated information management for end-users by shifting the initial categorization task to the information provider while giving the user ultimate control over final placement and a mechanism to automate the sorting of future communications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of claim 4 are:
    • storing information in an information pack;
    • associating the pack with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier;
    • communicating the pack to a user data repository and placing it in a location corresponding to the category identifier;
    • after said communication, creating a custom location in the repository and placing the pack there;
    • associating a custom category identifier with the pack;
    • sending a custom category signal to a processing station, which stores the custom category identifier with the provider identifier; and
    • the processing station using this stored association to automatically place subsequent information packs from the same provider into the custom location.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 - "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959, "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network," issued April 24, 2007 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system for anonymizing a client's network activity. It uses a "deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder" architecture to establish a communication session where neither the client nor the destination server is aware of the other's true identity; the client communicates with the forwarder thinking it is the destination, while the destination server communicates with the forwarder thinking it is the client, effectively cloaking both parties ('959 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Fifth Third Bank's website infrastructure, alleging it performs the claimed method by using an architecture where network packets are handled by intermediary components in a way that is not apparent to the end-user's client or the destination server (Compl. ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 - "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298, "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files," issued July 8, 2008 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for providing remote management of data directory structures. The system receives a request from a user for control over remote directories and processes it by querying a "profile store" that contains information about the user's access permissions. Based on this profile, the system provides the user with remote control over the specific directory structures they are authorized to modify and provides confirmation of data delivery ('298 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Fifth Third Bank's use of cloud services, including a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), where system administrators are able to assign specific roles and permissions to users to control access to network resources, which allegedly corresponds to the claimed method of using a "profile store" to manage remote access (Compl. ¶58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two accused instrumentalities: (1) Fifth Third Bank's website infrastructure, including its internal cloud platform (Compl. ¶25, ¶47); and (2) the "Fifth Third: 53 Mobile Banking App" for Android devices (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the website infrastructure operates on an internal cloud platform using KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization, which creates the technical conditions for the infringement alleged under the ’613 patent (Compl. ¶25). For the ’959 and ’298 patents, the complaint alleges the website infrastructure uses a network architecture with intermediary forwarders and a permission-based access control system managed through a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) (Compl. ¶47, ¶58).
  • The infringement allegations against the mobile app focus on its distribution and installation as an Android Application Package (APK) file. The complaint alleges that the APK file itself functions as the claimed "information pack," the user's IP address as the "user destination address," the APK's certificate as the "provider identifier," and the device's application-specific subdirectory as the "custom location" (Compl. ¶36). These instrumentalities represent the core platforms through which Defendant provides digital banking services to its customers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,560,613 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media; Performing a method for disambiguating file descriptors by using KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization, which creates ambiguity between host and guest file descriptors (Compl. ¶25). ¶25 col. 4:10-18
intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor; The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element beyond the general allegation regarding KVM virtualization (Compl. ¶25). ¶25 col. 4:26-33
storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor...is associated with a file... The complaint does not allege a specific "indicator" is stored but relies on the alleged ambiguity of file descriptors in the accused virtualized system (Compl. ¶25). ¶25 col. 4:18-24
storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor; The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. ¶25 col. 4:34-40
examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. ¶25 col. 5:30-41

6,651,063 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
storing information to be provided in an information pack; Providing the Fifth Third Mobile Banking App as an APK file (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 6:20-27
associating with said information pack at least a user destination address...and a category identifier; Associating the APK file with a user's IP address ("user destination address"). The complaint does not identify a corresponding initial "category identifier" (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 3:12-16
associating with said information pack a provider identifier; The APK certificate containing the organization name "Fifth Third Bank, National Association" acts as the provider identifier (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 3:25-29
communicating said information pack...to said user data repository...locating said information pack in a location...reserved for information corresponding to a category... Communicating the APK over a network to the user's device (the "user data repository") (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 6:53-60
creating a custom location in said user data repository; Creating a directory for the app within the device's subdirectories for applications (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 4:8-12
associating a custom category identifier with said information pack; The digital signature or modulus of the APK file acts as the custom category identifier (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 9:50-55
sending a custom category signal to a processing station... The process of updating the app is alleged to be an example of sending a custom category signal (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 9:56-61
said data processing means analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent of said information packs...placing said one of the subsequent information packs in said custom location. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how a processing station automatically sorts subsequent information packs based on the provider identifier (Compl. ¶36). ¶36 col. 9:61-67

Identified Points of Contention

  • ’613 Patent: A primary question will be whether the complaint’s allegation of "ambiguity in file descriptors" within a KVM virtualized environment meets the claim's requirements for actively "intercepting" system calls and "storing" and "examining" specific "indicators". The analysis may turn on whether the passive state of a virtual machine constitutes the active method steps recited in the claim.
  • ’063 Patent: The infringement theory rests on mapping the standard installation and update process of an Android application to the specific elements of the claimed data management system. Key questions will be whether an APK file is an "information pack," whether an IP address is a "user destination address," and whether a software update functions as the claimed "custom category signal" for the specific purpose of automating the categorization of future, separate information packs from the same provider.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’613 Patent:

    • The Term: "intercepting system calls"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental action of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the alleged "ambiguity" in Defendant's KVM environment constitutes "intercepting," or if the term requires an affirmative modification of the operating system's execution path, such as inserting a system call wrapper.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify a particular mechanism for interception, which may support an argument that any process that diverts or alters the normal handling of a system call meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention's implementation as replacing a pointer in a system call vector table with a pointer to "alternative object code," also known as a "system call wrapper" ('613 Patent, col. 2:2-7). This description of a specific mechanism may support a narrower construction.

  • For the ’063 Patent:

    • The Term: "custom category signal"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it links the user's act of creating a custom category to the system's ability to automate future organization. The complaint alleges that "updating the app" meets this limitation. The dispute will question whether a standard application update performs the claimed function of communicating a user's categorization choice to a processing station for the purpose of automatically sorting subsequent information packs.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "signal" itself is broad and could be argued to encompass any form of communication that carries information related to the custom category.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 4 requires that the "custom category signal" be sent to a "processing station" that "stores together said custom category identifier and said provider identifier" and uses that association to place "subsequent of said information packs" in the custom location. This functional language suggests the "signal" is not a generic communication but one that specifically enables future, automated categorization.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of inducement (Compl. ¶13) but does not plead specific facts, such as identifying instructions in user manuals or advertising, that would allegedly encourage third parties to perform the claimed methods.

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

This case presents foundational questions of how established patent claims apply to modern, complex software and cloud environments. The outcome will likely depend on the resolution of two or three central issues:

  1. A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can the ordinary and generalized functions of the accused instrumentalities—such as the inherent behavior of a virtual machine or the standard process for installing a mobile app—be shown to meet the specific, multi-step methods required by the patent claims?
  2. A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Will claim terms rooted in a specific technical context, such as "intercepting system calls" (implying active intervention) or "custom category signal" (implying a specific feedback function for future sorting), be construed broadly enough to read on the accused functionalities?
  3. A central evidentiary question, particularly for the claims against the website infrastructure, will be transparency: What level of evidence can Plaintiff discover and present regarding the internal workings of Defendant's proprietary cloud and network architecture to prove that the specific, granular steps of the asserted method claims are actually being performed?