Fintech Innovations Associates LLC v. Bank Of America

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fintech Innovation Associates LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Bank of America, NA. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: WAWRZYN LLC
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01215, N.D. Ill., 03/08/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining over 45 regular and established places of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the user interface in Defendant’s mobile banking application infringes a design patent for an animated graphical user interface.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of financial technology (FinTech), specifically concerning the ornamental design of user interface elements for mobile payment applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on March 8, 2022, the same day the patent-in-suit was issued. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the patent owner filed a disclaimer on October 10, 2022, dedicating the entire patent to the public. This action was noted in a Post-Grant Review (PGR) certificate issued on May 18, 2023, which states, "The claim is disclaimed." The disclaimer and subsequent unenforceability of the patent raise fundamental questions about the viability of the ongoing litigation, particularly regarding claims for future damages or injunctive relief.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-09-16	'453 Patent Application Filing Date
2022-03-08	'453 Patent Issue Date
2022-03-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D945,453

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D945,453, “DISPLAY SCREEN PORTION WITH ANIMATED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE,” issued March 8, 2022. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not contain a background section detailing a technical problem. The patent implicitly addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a graphical user interface element within a software application. (D'453 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a sequence of four static images that constitute an animated graphical user interface. The design consists of a rectangular shape that changes its size, aspect ratio, and position across the four depicted states. (D'453 Patent, Figs. 1-4). Critically, the patent explicitly disclaims specific elements as not being part of the protected design, including the text shown in Figure 4 ("Enter Amount", "$0"), the display screen and computer device shown in broken lines, and the "process or period in which one image transitions to another." (D'453 Patent, Description). The claimed design is therefore limited to the appearance of the solid-line boxes in the figures.
• Technical Importance: The patent sought to protect a specific visual appearance for a user interface, a common method for protecting aspects of the user experience in competitive software markets. (D'453 Patent, Title; Field of Classification Search).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described." (D'453 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements are the appearance of the claimed portion across four figures:
  • Figure 1: A set of corner brackets in the upper-right portion of the screen.
  • Figure 2: A vertically oriented, centered rectangle.
  • Figure 3: A horizontally oriented, centered rectangle.
  • Figure 4: A larger, centered rectangle.
• The complaint alleges infringement of the "second embodiment" of the patent, an ambiguous assertion for a single-claim design patent that may require clarification. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "BofA app for iOS and Android mobile devices," specifically implicating the user interface associated with the Zelle® payment service. (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the BofA mobile products embody the design covered by the ’453 patent. (Compl. ¶12). It provides a promotional URL but does not include further technical details or descriptions of the accused user interface's specific operation or visual components. (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that was not included in the provided court filing. (Compl. ¶10). In the absence of the chart, the infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint’s narrative theory is that BofA’s mobile app infringes the ’453 patent because it "embodies the design covered by the '453 patent." (Compl. ¶12). The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint repeatedly specifies that it is the "second embodiment" of the patent that is infringed. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14). In its prayer for relief, the plaintiff seeks a judgment of infringement under the standard of "substantial similarity." (Compl. p. 4, ¶(a)).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on whether an ordinary observer would find the overall visual appearance of the accused BofA interface to be substantially similar to the claimed design. A central question is how the patent’s explicit disclaimers of text, the surrounding device, and the animation between frames affect this comparison.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the visual appearance of the BofA interface's unadorned graphical elements is substantially similar to the specific sequence of boxes shown in the patent's figures. Differences in shape, proportion, color, and the presence of BofA's branding or other unclaimed elements in the accused product could be central to the infringement analysis. The ambiguity of the "second embodiment" allegation will need to be resolved to determine the precise design being compared. (Compl. ¶12).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed visual design as a whole, rather than the construction of individual text terms.

• The Term: "The ornamental design ... as shown and described." (D'453 Patent, Claim).
• Context and Importance: The entire dispute hinges on the scope of this claimed design. The core question is what visual features are included in the legally protected design. Practitioners may focus on the patent’s explicit disclaimers, as they strictly define the boundaries of the claimed design and are critical to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims an "animated graphical user interface," which could suggest the design's scope should be viewed as a sequential whole rather than four disconnected images. (D'453 Patent, Title).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description provides significant evidence for a narrow interpretation. It states that broken lines (text, device, screen) are "environmental subject matter and form no part of the claimed design." (D'453 Patent, Description). It further disclaims "[t]he process or period in which one image transitions to another." (D'453 Patent, Description). This language strongly supports a finding that the protected design is limited to the precise appearance of the solid-line rectangular shapes in the four static figures, and nothing more.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request for judgment on indirect infringement. (Compl. p. 4, ¶(a)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of BofA's knowledge and specific intent to cause infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or plead facts indicating that Defendant had knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit. The filing of the suit on the same day the patent issued makes any allegation of pre-suit knowledge highly improbable.

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

1. Viability of the Action: The foremost issue is the legal effect of the plaintiff's post-filing disclaimer and dedication of the ’453 patent to the public. This action, confirmed by a PGR certificate, likely renders claims for ongoing infringement and injunctive relief moot and confines any potential recovery to damages accrued during the brief period between the patent’s issuance and the disclaimer's effective date. The viability of pursuing such limited damages will be a central strategic question.

2. Scope of the Claimed Design: Should the case proceed, a core issue will be one of design scope: is the accused BofA interface substantially similar to the patented design when the patent's explicit disclaimers are properly applied? The analysis will likely turn on whether the claimed sequence of simple geometric shapes is separable from the disclaimed text and transitional animations in the mind of the ordinary observer.

3. Ambiguity of the Infringement Allegation: The complaint's repeated and exclusive focus on the "second embodiment" of a single-claim design patent is ambiguous. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14). A threshold question will be for the plaintiff to clarify the precise design it accuses of infringement—whether it is a single figure, the entire sequence, or another interpretation—as this is fundamental to any infringement comparison.