Stampede Presentation Products Inc v. Landmark Technology LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stampede Presentation Products, Inc. (Delaware corporation, principal place of business in New York)
  • Defendant: Landmark Technology, LLC (Delaware LLC, principal place of business in California) and Lawrence B. Lockwood (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Colligan Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01121, W.D.N.Y., 11/02/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of New York because it has its principal place of business there. Plaintiff alleges personal jurisdiction over Defendants based on their "numerous and notorious contacts with the State of New York," including prior litigation and licensing activities directed at New York-based companies.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its products and services do not infringe Defendant Landmark’s U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
• Technical Context: The patent at issue relates to automated systems for processing business and financial transactions, such as loan applications, using remote terminals connected to central computer systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319, was subject to two ex parte reexaminations, resulting in certificates issued in 2007 and 2013. The complaint alleges that Defendant Landmark is a non-practicing entity that has filed over 100 lawsuits asserting the patent and engages in a business model of sending demand letters to "extort nuisance licensing fees." This action was prompted by a demand letter from Landmark to Stampede dated October 13, 2017.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319 - Automatic Business and Financial Transaction Processing System

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional loan processing as a "labor-intensive business" that requires significant paperwork, time, and face-to-face interaction between applicants and loan officers, a process the patent characterizes as complex and inefficient ('319 Patent, col. 1:23-34). It notes that a high percentage of applicants fail to qualify, meaning significant labor is expended on unsuccessful applications ('319 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked system to automate this process. It comprises remote self-service terminals linked to a central processor at a financial institution and, separately, to a credit reporting service ('319 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 1). At the terminal, a user interacts with a "fictitious loan officer" on a video screen who guides them through an application, automatically obtains the applicant's credit data, determines creditworthiness, and approves a loan amount without human intervention from the financial institution ('319 Patent, col. 2:61-col. 3:4).
• Technical Importance: The system was designed to standardize the reporting and interpretation of credit data for loan applications and to reduce the labor, paperwork, and time required for financial institutions to screen and process them ('319 Patent, col. 1:49-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted by Landmark (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 (as amended by the 2007 Reexamination Certificate) include:
  • A central processor programmed to process inquiries and orders from remote sites.
  • At least one terminal at each remote site, with its own data processor.
  • A remote link for data transmission between the terminal and the central processor.
  • The terminal further comprises a video screen and numerous "means for" performing specific functions, including:
    • "means for holding operational data"
    • "means for manually entering information"
    • "means for storing" information entered by a user and received from the central processor
    • "on-line means for transmitting" information to the central processor
    • "on-line means for receiving" data from the central processor
    • "means for outputting" information on the video screen
    • "means for controlling" the storing, outputting, and transmitting means
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the declaratory judgment action seeks non-infringement of "any claim of the ‘319 Patent" (Compl. ¶49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint seeks a declaration that "Stampede's services, systems, and practices" do not infringe the '319 Patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific details about the technical functionality or operation of the accused Stampede "services, systems, and practices." It only states that Landmark's demand letter accused Stampede of infringement (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, does not contain a detailed claim chart or a specific theory of infringement. It makes broad, conclusory denials of infringement (Compl. ¶44). It further raises several defenses, including that one or more components of the allegedly infringing system are not manufactured, used, sold, or imported by Stampede (Compl. ¶45); are not owned, operated, or controlled by Stampede (Compl. ¶46); and are not located in the United States (Compl. ¶47). Without the demand letter or a responsive pleading from the patentee, there is insufficient detail to construct a meaningful claim chart analysis.

• Identified Points of Contention: The primary point of contention raised by the complaint is a categorical denial of infringement. The pleading suggests potential disputes may arise over:
  • Scope Questions: Whether all claimed components of the system (e.g., a "central processor" and a "terminal") are made, used, sold, or controlled by Stampede, or whether some components are operated by third parties, potentially defeating a direct infringement claim.
  • Technical Questions: The fundamental, though unstated, question is whether Stampede's technology performs the numerous functions recited in the patent's "means-plus-function" claim limitations. The complaint provides no factual basis to evaluate this.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The construction of the numerous "means-plus-function" limitations will be central to resolving both infringement and validity.

• The Term: "means for [performing a function]" (e.g., "means for controlling", "means for remotely linking", etc.).
• Context and Importance: Claim 1 is composed almost entirely of means-plus-function limitations. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the scope of such limitations is restricted to the specific "structure, material, or acts" described in the patent's specification that perform the recited function, and their equivalents. The complaint explicitly alleges that the '319 Patent is invalid for indefiniteness because the specification "does not describe any structure corresponding to the functions recited" and instead discloses only "generic computer components" (Compl. ¶25, ¶39). Practitioners may therefore focus on whether the patent discloses sufficient structure—such as a specific algorithm—to support each claimed function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (supporting patentability): Landmark may argue that the specification's block diagrams and accompanying text provide adequate structural support. For example, it may point to the disclosure of a "central processor 4," "data processor 13," "modem 15," and "communication control unit 6" as the structures corresponding to the various processing and linking functions ('319 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 2; col. 2:22-43).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (supporting indefiniteness): Stampede will likely argue that describing generic components like a "data processor" or "modem" without a corresponding algorithm for performing the specific claimed functions (e.g., the function of "controlling" or "fetching additional inquiring sequences") fails to meet the definiteness requirement of § 112. The complaint’s argument that the patent recites only "generic computer parts" directly supports this position (Compl. ¶39).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint broadly denies any indirect infringement (contributory or by inducement) but does not describe any specific allegations made by Landmark that would form the basis of such a claim (Compl. ¶¶44-47).
• Willful Infringement: This action is for declaratory judgment, so there is no allegation of willfulness against the plaintiff, Stampede. However, Stampede alleges that it had no knowledge of the patent prior to receiving Landmark's demand letter (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges that Landmark's assertion of the patent constitutes a "deceptive trade practice" (Compl. ¶51) and was "wanton, malicious and morally reprehensible" (Compl. ¶57), which forms the basis for Stampede's request for attorney's fees and exemplary damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C, D).

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

• A primary issue for the court will be one of patent validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112: are the numerous "means-plus-function" limitations in Claim 1 indefinite because the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, such as a specific algorithm, for performing the recited functions? The complaint’s focus on this issue suggests it will be a central battleground.
• A second critical validity question will be one of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101: is Claim 1 directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of "automated data processing of business transactions," as the complaint alleges, and if so, does it contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform it into patent-eligible subject matter?
• Should the patent survive these validity challenges, a key evidentiary question will be one of factual infringement: does Stampede's technology, which is not described in the complaint, actually contain components that perform the specific functions recited in each of the patent's "means-plus-function" limitations, as construed by the court?