DCT
1:25-cv-08871
Trustybell GmbH v. Bluenotary LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Trustybell, GmbH (Germany) and Schean, GmbH (Switzerland)
- Defendant: BlueNotary, LLC (Illinois and Wyoming)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Murphy Law Group, LLC (Local Counsel)
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08871, N.D. Ill., 10/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant BlueNotary is incorporated in Illinois and maintains its principal place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s remote online notarization platform infringes a patent related to methods for verifying a participant's identity prior to conducting a secure videoconference.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for secure and reliable identity authentication for remote interactions, a market that gained significance with the rise of remote work and transactions requiring high levels of trust.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with written notice of the patent-in-suit and the alleged infringement on two separate occasions, April 22, 2025, and May 22, 2025, prior to filing the lawsuit. These allegations form the basis of the willfulness claim. The complaint also notes the patent was transferred from Trustybell to Schean on September 26, 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-11-10 | ’274 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-01-01 | Accused BlueNotary RON Services Allegedly Began (approx.) |
| 2023-02-14 | ’274 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-04-22 | First Written Notice of Infringement Sent to Defendant |
| 2025-05-22 | Second Written Notice of Infringement Sent to Defendant |
| 2025-09-26 | ’274 Patent Transferred from Trustybell to Schean |
| 2025-10-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,582,274 - "Videoconferencing System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that conventional videoconferencing applications lack a trustworthy method for verifying a participant’s true identity. This prevents their use for appointments or transactions where certified identity verification is indispensable, such as interactions with government authorities or other matters requiring a high degree of legal security (’274 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by integrating a technical verification step that occurs "in advance of setting up the video call" (’274 Patent, Abstract). The system captures a real-time image of the first participant's face and a second image of their official photo ID. It then uses "technical image analysis" to compare the face from the live image with the face photo on the ID (’274 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:5). If the identity is successfully verified, a signal containing verified data (e.g., name and other information from the ID) is generated and transmitted to the second participant's device, where it is displayed before and during the call, providing legal certainty about the counterparty's identity (’274 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 2:5-16).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide remote video communications with the same level of legal security and trustworthiness as an in-person meeting where an ID would be presented physically (’274 Patent, col. 1:41-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 6-9, and 11 (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- A method of conducting a video or telephone call between at least two participants.
- Verifying the identity of a first participant.
- After successful verification, providing information indicating the verified identity to a second participant before and during the call.
- The verification step includes capturing a face image of the first participant (first image) and an image of an official document with a face image (second image).
- The two images are captured "immediately before the setup of the video or telephone call."
- The verification is done by comparing the first image with the face image in the second image via "technical image analysis."
- The providing step includes generating a signal with verified data from the second image, transmitting the signal to the second participant, and displaying the data on the second participant's device.
- The displayed data includes the first participant's name and other information extracted from the official document.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant BlueNotary's Remote Online Notarization (“RON”) platform and associated services (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that BlueNotary provides an online platform that connects participants with notaries for RON sessions (Compl. ¶¶25, 36). Before a participant can connect with a notary, the platform allegedly requires them to perform an identity verification process (Compl. ¶30). This process is alleged to involve "biometric scanning" to capture an image of the participant (e.g., a "selfie") and scanning of the participant's official photo ID (Compl. ¶¶37, 39, 40). A promotional image provided in the complaint describes this as a process where the user's "ID gets auto verified" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint further alleges that after this comparison, verified identity information is transmitted to and displayed for the notary prior to and during the video session (Compl. ¶¶38, 44, 46). A screenshot from the accused service shows the notary's view, which includes the participant's name, address, and the results of the "Document Verification" (Compl. p. 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’274 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of conducting a video or telephone call between at least two participants... | BlueNotary provides a platform for a video call between a participant and a notary. A screenshot shows a user interface for connecting to a notary via a "video/audio session" (Compl. p. 10). | ¶36 | col. 13:46-48 |
| verifying the identity of a first participant... | BlueNotary's platform uses an authentication system that incorporates "knowledge-based identification or biometrics scanning with live credential evaluation" to verify a participant's identity. | ¶37 | col. 13:49-51 |
| capturing a face image of the first participant, as a first image; | The platform allegedly uses "biometric scanning" to check the "liveness" of the participant by capturing images from various "'selfie' angles via video." | ¶39 | col. 13:55-57 |
| capturing an image of an official document identifying the first participant, as a second image... | The platform, allegedly in partnership with a third party, captures a picture of the participant's photo ID. A screenshot shows a user prompt to "[t]ake a clear photo of the front of your driver license" (Compl. p. 17). | ¶40 | col. 13:58-63 |
| wherein the two images are captured immediately before the setup of the video or telephone call; | The complaint alleges the identity verification (image capture) occurs as "step 2" of the process, immediately preceding "step 3," which is "Meet The Notary." | ¶41 | col. 13:60-63 |
| and verifying the identity at least by comparing the first image with the face image included in the second image, by means of technical image analysis... | The service allegedly "[a]utomatically compares the ID portrait to a previously captured selfie." | ¶42 | col. 13:64-67 |
| generating a signal including verified data identifying the first participant on the basis of data extracted from the second image; | The service allegedly uses its partner to "[a]utomatically extract data of government IDs, then verify the data," which is then used to generate a signal for the notary. | ¶43 | col. 14:1-4 |
| transmitting said signal to the site of the second participant; | It is alleged that after the ID is verified, the resulting "verification data is shown to the notary during the live session." | ¶44 | col. 14:5-6 |
| and displaying said verified data identifying the first participant on a terminal device of the second participant... | The complaint alleges the notary is provided with the participant's verified information, including name, address, and verification status. A screenshot shows the notary's interface displaying "Processing Outcome: Pass" and "Document Verification Result : Pass" alongside an image of the participant's ID (Compl. p. 13). | ¶¶38, 45-46 | col. 14:7-12 |
| wherein said verified data ... includes the name of the first participant and further information that has been extracted from the official document. | The complaint alleges that the notary is provided with the participant's name and address before the call and can access the full photo ID and verification results during the call. | ¶46 | col. 14:13-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "immediately before the setup of the video or telephone call." A question for the court will be whether the accused multi-step, user-driven onboarding workflow qualifies as "immediately before" the final connection to the notary, or if that temporal gap negates infringement of this element.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that BlueNotary's service "automatically compares the ID portrait to a previously captured selfie" (Compl. ¶42). A central evidentiary question will be whether the specific comparison performed by the accused service, which allegedly uses a third-party vendor, meets the "technical image analysis" limitation as described in the patent, which involves comparing biometric features like the shape of and distances between facial features (’274 Patent, col. 9:16-20).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "immediately before the setup"
- Context and Importance: This temporal limitation is central to the claimed method's structure. Its definition will determine whether the accused product's workflow, which involves a sequence of user actions (uploading documents, identity check, payment, then meeting the notary), infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the separation of the verification step from the call initiation in the accused product could be a key non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's objective is to "guarantee that the person initiating and conducting the video call is indeed present at the respective terminal equipment at this particular time" (’274 Patent, col. 3:20-24). Language describing the image capture as being in "close temporal proximity" could support an interpretation where the steps are part of a single, continuous session, even if not simultaneous (’274 Patent, col. 3:19-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "immediately before" is facially more restrictive than "in close temporal proximity." A defendant may argue that the plain meaning requires the verification and call setup to be contiguous, automated steps without intervening user actions like payment, as depicted in the accused workflow (Compl. p. 18).
The Term: "technical image analysis"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core of the patented verification process. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's comparison method falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a general description, stating that "Respective procedures of technical image analysis are well known to a skilled person" (’274 Patent, col. 9:13-15). This could support a broad construction encompassing any automated, software-based image comparison for identity verification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example of what this analysis entails: extracting and comparing "certain biometric data such as shape of and distances between predetermined features of the human face," including "the eyes, mouth and nose" (’274 Patent, col. 9:16-20). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this specific type of biometric feature-point analysis, and that the complaint lacks sufficient factual detail to allege the accused product performs this specific function.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that BlueNotary encourages and facilitates infringement by end users and notaries through "publishing user manuals, website descriptions, software interfaces, and tutorials that instruct users" to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶¶52-53). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the RON services are especially adapted for practicing the patented method and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶56-58).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit, actual knowledge of the ’274 Patent. The complaint cites two specific written notice letters sent to BlueNotary's CEO on April 22, 2025, and May 22, 2025, and alleges that BlueNotary continued its infringing conduct without responding to the notices (Compl. ¶¶63-65).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of temporal scope: Can the phrase "immediately before the setup," which suggests a tight coupling of verification and call initiation, be construed to cover the accused product's multi-stage onboarding process where user actions may separate the identity check from the start of the notarization call?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Does the automated comparison performed by the accused service, particularly through its use of a third-party analysis tool, perform the specific "technical image analysis" of biometric facial features as required by Claim 1, and what evidence does the complaint provide to support this technical allegation beyond marketing descriptions?