DCT
1:22-cv-01061
Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Amazon.com Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wepay Global Payments LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WAWRZYN LLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01061, N.D. Ill., 03/01/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon mobile application infringes a design patent for an animated graphical user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the ornamental design of animated graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for mobile applications, particularly those involving payment or transaction workflows.
- Key Procedural History: Post-filing events significantly impact this case. Two Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) were initiated against the asserted patent in April and June 2022. Subsequently, in September 2022, the Plaintiff filed a terminal disclaimer for the entire remaining term of the patent. In May 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate cancelling the patent's sole claim as a result of the PGR proceedings. The cancellation of the claim raises fundamental questions about the viability of an infringement action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-09-03 | Priority Date (D'702 Patent) |
| 2021-09-14 | Issue Date (D'702 Patent) |
| 2022-03-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2022-04-05 | Post-Grant Review (PGR2022-00031) filed against D'702 Patent |
| 2022-06-09 | Post-Grant Review (PGR2022-00045) filed against D'702 Patent |
| 2022-09-20 | Terminal Disclaimer of D'702 Patent filed by Plaintiff |
| 2023-05-01 | USPTO issues certificate cancelling the claim of the D'702 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702 - "Display screen portion with animated graphical user interface"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702, "Display screen portion with animated graphical user interface", issued September 14, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '702 patent does not articulate a technical problem to be solved, but rather seeks to protect a "new, original and ornamental design" for an article of manufacture (35 U.S.C. § 171). The subject is the unique visual appearance of an animated user interface.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design of an animated graphical user interface for a display screen portion, presented in two embodiments. The design is defined by the sequence of images shown in the patent's figures. The first embodiment shows a transition from an initial state with a square containing three smaller solid blocks (FIG. 1) to a final state with an empty square and the word "CANCEL" (FIG. 2) (D'702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The second embodiment depicts a three-stage transition: from the initial state (FIG. 3), through an intermediate state showing a grid of circles (FIG. 4), to the final state (FIG. 5) (D'702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The claimed design consists only of the features shown in solid lines; all elements in broken lines, such as the mobile device outline and certain text, are disclaimed as environmental subject matter (D'702 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The design pertains to the creation of a specific visual user experience within a mobile application, a key area of differentiation in the software market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described" (D'702 Patent, CLAIM). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-5.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Amazon app for iOS and Android mobile devices" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are "mobile computer products, which embodies the design covered by the '702 patent" (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific details or visual evidence of the accused interface's functionality or appearance, instead incorporating by reference an "Exhibit B" containing a side-by-side comparison which was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit that is not provided; therefore, the specific infringement allegations cannot be charted. The narrative theory alleges that the Amazon mobile app embodies both the first and second embodiments of the design claimed in the '702 patent (Compl. ¶¶12, 14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Substantive Question: The central infringement question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused Amazon app's design is the same as the design claimed in the '702 patent. This analysis would depend entirely on a visual comparison of the accused product and the patent figures.
- Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the court would be to determine the actual appearance and animation of the accused Amazon app interface, as the complaint itself provides no such evidence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As a design patent, the '702 patent does not contain textual claim terms that require construction in the manner of a utility patent. The analysis centers on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, which is determined by the patent's drawings.
- The "Claim": The visual design as depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1-5.
- Context and Importance: The key interpretive task is not defining words, but rather discerning the boundaries of the claimed ornamental design from the unclaimed functional elements and environmental context shown in broken lines (D'702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The court's analysis would focus on the overall visual impression created by the claimed animated sequence.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties might argue about the level of abstraction at which the design should be viewed. For example, a focus on the general concept of a multi-stage animation involving a central square element could support a broader scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual details shown in solid lines—such as the three distinct corner blocks in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3 and the specific grid of circles in FIG. 4—provide a basis for a narrower interpretation limited to designs that are visually very close to the drawings.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a judgment of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 4(a)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint do not mention inducement or contributory infringement, nor do they plead specific facts concerning Defendant's knowledge or intent, which are required elements for such claims.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The viability of this case appears to hinge on the dispositive effect of post-filing administrative proceedings at the USPTO.
- A threshold question of mootness: Given that the sole claim of the '702 patent was formally cancelled by the USPTO in post-grant review proceedings, what legal basis, if any, remains for the infringement action? A claim cancelled in a PGR is typically considered void ab initio, which would likely preclude any recovery of damages and render the entire case moot.
- An alternative question of damages limitation: If the claim were not deemed void for the entire period, what is the legal effect of the Plaintiff's September 2022 terminal disclaimer? This action would independently cap any potential damages period to the approximately one-year window between the patent's issuance and the filing of the disclaimer.
- A now-hypothetical question of substantial similarity: Assuming the patent were valid and enforceable, the core dispute would be whether the ornamental design of the accused Amazon app is substantially the same as the animated GUI claimed in the '702 patent's figures in the eyes of an ordinary observer.