Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Diebold Nixdorf Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-02096, N.D. Ohio, 12/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Opteview remote services platform infringes a patent related to systems for brokering data between a wireless device and a separate data rendering device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for a user with a wireless device to securely send data for display or printing on a networked device, such as a public kiosk or office printer.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity (NPE) and notes that it and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses. The complaint preemptively argues that these prior licenses did not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they were entered into to terminate litigation and did not involve an admission of infringement or a license to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Priority Date
2017-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Issued
2024-12-02	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285, "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices," issued January 17, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention's priority date (June 2000), users of handheld wireless devices were constrained by small screens and limited means to print or display data retrieved over wireless networks. The patent notes that solutions for rendering data on external devices were "severely limited, or practically nonexistent" (’285 Patent, col. 4:38-42).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system architecture that allows a user of a wireless device (WD) to send data to a separate, networked "data rendering device" (DRD), such as a printer or multimedia projector (’285 Patent, Abstract). The system is brokered by a central server that can locate an appropriate DRD, manage the data transfer, and secure the transaction through a passcode entered at the DRD, which authenticates the user's request from the WD (’285 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 12:1-8).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for "information on the go" by allowing portable, low-capability devices to leverage more powerful, stationary rendering resources in the user's vicinity, a precursor to modern "casting" and remote printing technologies (’285 Patent, col. 4:50-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is central to the asserted system.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising three key components:
  • A server in communication with a data rendering device (DRD).
  • A data rendering device (DRD) that is registered with the server, has a user interface for receiving passcodes, and renders data at the request of a wireless device (WD).
  • Memory in the server that securely stores data and a passcode associated with the WD.
• The claim requires the server to be configured to render the data at the DRD only after a passcode entered on the DRD's user interface matches the passcode stored in the server's memory (’285 Patent, col. 14:1-19). The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-13, which add further limitations related to the type of DRD and the method of passcode transfer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "systems, products, and services" related to "Opteview" (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the Opteview system, which performs an infringing method (Compl. ¶8). It is alleged that Defendant's customers use Opteview to practice the claimed methods and that Defendant controls this use by providing the services, remote support, and by defining "Client Responsibilities" (Compl. ¶¶10-12). The complaint does not describe the specific technical operation of Opteview, instead referencing marketing materials for "opteview_remote_services" (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core allegation is that Defendant's Opteview system, when used by Defendant's customers or in testing, constitutes an infringing system under claim 1 of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶10). The theory appears to be that the Opteview platform functions as the claimed "server," and that customer-side equipment (such as ATMs or other financial terminals, given Defendant's business) functions as the "data rendering device" (DRD). The complaint alleges that Defendant's control over its customers' use of Opteview establishes infringement (Compl. ¶10).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: A primary issue will be whether the architecture of the Opteview platform maps onto the specific three-part system (WD, Server, DRD) recited in the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence detailing how Opteview is structured.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations explaining how the Opteview system meets key claim limitations. A central question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the accused system uses a "passcode" entered at the DRD that is then matched against a passcode "associated with said WD" and stored in a server's memory, as explicitly required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "passcode associated with said WD"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the security and authentication mechanism at the heart of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the "passcode" must originate from or be stored on the wireless device itself, or if it can be any code that the server links to a specific transaction initiated by a wireless device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific method of association and matching is a potential point of distinction between the patent and the accused system's security protocol.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "associated with" is broad and does not explicitly require the passcode to be generated by or stored on the WD, only that the server links them. This could support an interpretation where any session-specific code or user credential qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where a user's WD is involved in passcode management, suggesting a tighter link. For example, Figure 3 shows the WD (6) containing "Passcode" data in its memory (36) (’285 Patent, Fig. 3). This may support an argument that the association must be more direct than a transient, session-based link.

• The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: The definition of a "DRD" determines the scope of applicable hardware. The patent lists examples like networked printers, monitors, and projectors (’285 Patent, col. 5:25-28). The accused "Opteview" product line appears to relate to financial services technology, such as ATMs. The case may turn on whether an ATM or a similar terminal can be considered a "DRD" within the meaning of the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a DRD functionally as including "data rendering hardware (e.g., printers, copiers, displays, etc.) and multimedia software adapted for rendering data" (’285 Patent, col. 7:6-9). This functional definition could be argued to encompass any device with a screen and software capable of displaying data from a network.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently frames the DRD as a device whose primary purpose is to overcome the limitations of the small WD, for tasks like printing documents or displaying video for a conference (’285 Patent, col. 4:35-53; col. 11:1-7). This context could support a narrower construction that excludes specialized-purpose devices like ATMs, which have their own integrated functions beyond simple data rendering.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "infringes vicariously by profiting from its customers use" of Opteview (Compl. ¶10). It alleges Defendant controls its customers' actions by providing the necessary services, offering remote support, and selling service plans, thereby controlling the "manner and timing of infringement" (Compl. ¶¶10-12). These allegations form the factual basis for a potential claim of induced infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, it includes a prayer for the court to declare the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a request for an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 6, ¶d).

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

1. A core issue will be one of "architectural mapping": Does the technical architecture of Defendant's multi-component "Opteview" platform align with the specific three-element system (WD, server, DRD) recited in claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the components are organized and interact?
2. A key evidentiary question will concern "functional security": Does the authentication method used in the Opteview system perform the specific function required by the claims—matching a passcode physically entered at the rendering device with a pre-associated passcode stored in a server's memory—or does it rely on a different security paradigm that falls outside the claim's scope?
3. The dispute may also center on a "definitional question": Can the term "data rendering device," which the patent illustrates with general-purpose displays and printers, be construed to cover the specialized financial terminals, such as ATMs, where the accused Opteview services are allegedly deployed?