DCT

2:25-cv-00408

Only Card LLC v. Citizens Bank Of Georgia

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00408, N.D. Ga., 12/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant is a Georgia entity with its principal place of business, bank branches, and registered agent located within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s provision and use of Europay, Master, Visa (“EMV”) chip cards at its ATM machines infringes a patent related to a secure commercial transaction system.
  • Technical Context: The patent-in-suit describes technology for enhancing the physical security of a cardholder during a transaction by incorporating a covert "panic" function into a transaction card.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant rejected or ignored an offer from Plaintiff for a license to the patent-in-suit prior to the lawsuit's filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,152,059 Priority Date
2012-04-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,152,059 Issues
2025-12-22 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,152,059 - “Secure Commercial Transactions System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies personal security hazards for users of transaction cards, such as being forced by a criminal to withdraw money at an ATM, as well as the risks of identity theft from lost, stolen, or counterfeit cards (’059 Patent, col. 1:24-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a transaction card system with two distinct modes of operation, typically activated by two different Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) or two different biometric inputs (e.g., fingerprints). One mode (e.g., a "normal PIN") conducts a standard financial transaction. The second mode (e.g., a "panic PIN") appears to conduct a normal transaction to an observer but simultaneously and covertly triggers a series of protective actions, such as sending an emergency message to police, activating high-resolution cameras at the transaction terminal, or broadcasting the card's location (’059 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:7).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to integrate a cardholder’s physical security and duress signaling into the architecture of the financial transaction itself, moving beyond data security alone.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 12, 14, 15, 16, and 21 (’059 Patent, col. 11:64-col. 13:39; Compl. ¶14).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A transactional device (e.g., a card or key fob) comprising a microprocessor and data memory storage.
    • User identification confirmation is required for operation.
    • The confirmation requires either a first operational signal (compared with first user data) to activate a first operational mode, OR a second operational signal (compared with second user data) to activate a second operation mode.
    • The second operation mode initiates an automated transmission from a transmitter on the device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is identified as a “transactional device in the form of a Europay, Master, Visa card (‘EMV’) for public use, such as at one of Defendant’s publicly available ATM machines” (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant offers, produces, and provides these EMV cards for use in its transaction system (Compl. ¶13).

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused EMV cards or ATM systems beyond their general use for financial transactions (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in claim charts attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶14). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Defendant provides EMV cards for use at its ATM machines (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how the accused EMV card system performs the dual-mode functionality required by the asserted claims of the ’059 Patent. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether a standard EMV card transaction, which typically involves a single mode of authorization for a financial transaction, can be construed to meet the limitations of a "first operational mode" and a distinct "second operation mode" as recited in claim 1.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not identify what feature of the accused EMV system constitutes the claimed "second operational signal" used to activate the "second operation mode," nor what constitutes the "automated transmission" that is initiated by that second mode, separate from a standard transaction data transmission.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: “second operation mode”

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's inventive concept of a covert panic or duress function. The dispute will likely depend on whether the accused EMV system can be shown to have any functionality that meets the definition of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "second operation mode" to a panic function, referring to it only as a mode that "initiates a transmission of an automated transmission from said transmitter" (’059 Patent, col. 12:18-22).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the second mode as a "panic" function triggered by a "panic PIN" or "panic finger print" that initiates emergency notifications to police and other security measures (’059 Patent, col. 1:55-66, col. 7:6-19). This context suggests the "second operation mode" is intended to be a non-standard, emergency-alerting function deliberately activated by the user under duress.

The Term: “automated transmission from said transmitter”

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is tied to the output of the "second operation mode." Its construction will clarify what kind of communication must be sent to satisfy this claim element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any automated electronic signal sent from the device, such as a fraud alert or an error code to the banking network, qualifies as the claimed "automated transmission."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of this transmission, including an "emergency message such as a 911 call to the local police" and a location-tracking signal broadcast from a "cell phone like transmitter" on the card (’059 Patent, col. 2:1-3, col. 7:28-34). This may support an interpretation that the transmission must be an external, non-financial emergency communication rather than an internal system message.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement became willful and deliberate after it declined or ignored Plaintiff’s pre-suit offer to license the ’059 Patent, thereby allegedly acting with knowledge of the patent and its infringement (Compl. ¶17).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of several key questions:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim terms "second operation mode" and "automated transmission," which the patent specification describes as a user-initiated duress-signaling system, be construed to encompass standard operational protocols, error handling, or fraud alerts within a conventional EMV transaction system?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: What evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused EMV cards and associated ATM systems perform the specific two-mode functionality required by claim 1, particularly the activation of a distinct second mode via a second user input that initiates a separate automated transmission? The complaint does not currently provide this factual detail.