Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Frederick Foster (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Pitney Bowes, Inc. (Connecticut); U.S. Postal Service (District of Columbia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:11-cv-07303, E.D. Pa., 11/23/2011
• Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct sufficient business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pitney Bowes's "Volly.com" digital mail service infringes a patent related to a multi-factor secure purchasing system, which Plaintiff claims he invented and disclosed to both Pitney Bowes and the U.S. Postal Service before the accused service was launched.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to methods for securing electronic transactions by using multiple, distinct factors of authentication to verify a user's identity without exposing personal information to a merchant.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff disclosed his patented concept, termed "Virtual Post Office Box/Internet Passport" (VPOBIP), to the U.S. Postal Service starting in 2007 and to Defendant Pitney Bowes in 2009, prior to the 2011 launch of the accused Volly.com service.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-06-19	U.S. Patent No. 7,707,119 Priority Date
2007-05-25	Plaintiff allegedly introduced VPOBIP concept to USPS
2009-10-01	Plaintiff allegedly communicated with Pitney Bowes regarding VPOBIP concept
2010-04-27	U.S. Patent No. 7,707,119 Issued
2011-03-01	Defendant Pitney Bowes launched "Volly.com" (approx. date per complaint)
2011-11-23	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,707,119 - "System and Method for Identity Protected Secured Purchasing"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of conventional credit card transactions, which expose a purchaser's identity to merchants and rely on signature verification that is often difficult for merchants to perform accurately, creating opportunities for fraud (ʼ119 Patent, col. 1:21-31). Existing secure payment methods are described as "cumbersome" with "slow" response times (ʼ119 Patent, col. 1:40-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for secure purchasing that separates the user's identity from the transaction details presented to the merchant. The system relies on three factors for authentication: (1) a physical "blank card" containing encoded information unique to the user; (2) a specific wireless communication device (e.g., a cell phone) with a unique electronic identification number; and (3) a secret password or PIN known only to the user ('119 Patent, col. 2:24-64). A central "validation server" coordinates the process by receiving a purchase request initiated by the card, contacting the user's wireless device for PIN entry, and matching all three factors before sending an authorization back to the merchant ('119 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method seeks to enhance transaction security by requiring authentication across multiple independent channels, a concept central to modern multi-factor authentication, while preventing the merchant from ever accessing the customer's identity ('119 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’119 Patent are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method and includes the following essential elements:
  • Entering a "purchaser's key" at a service provider by swiping a "blank card" at a card reader.
  • Transmitting the key and purchase information to a "validation server."
  • The validation server establishing a connection with a "wireless device."
  • The validation server sending a purchase approval request to the wireless device.
  • Receiving "confirmation information" from the wireless device at the validation server.
  • Verifying the confirmation information to determine if the purchase is approved.
  • Sending an indication to the service provider whether the purchase was approved or denied.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Volly.com" service launched by Defendant Pitney Bowes (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Volly.com is a program containing "virtually identical elements to the VPOBIP System" conceived by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶34). The VPOBIP system was envisioned as an "Internet environment where citizens and businesses could function virtually without fear of cyber predators" by having their identities verified by the USPS (Compl. ¶21-22). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the Volly.com service itself, instead focusing on its alleged origins in Plaintiff's disclosed concept.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or allege how the accused Volly.com service meets specific limitations of any asserted claim. The infringement theory is presented in a narrative fashion, alleging that because Defendant Pitney Bowes had access to Plaintiff's concept for the VPOBIP system, and because Volly.com allegedly contains "virtually identical elements," its implementation constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶30, ¶34).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's claims and the complaint's allegations, several key questions for the infringement analysis emerge:

• Scope Questions: The patent claims are directed to a method for "secured purchasing" involving a service provider, purchase information, and transaction approval. A central question will be whether the accused Volly.com service, described contextually as a digital mail platform, performs the steps of a purchasing method as required by the claims.
• Technical Questions: A primary issue will be whether the accused Volly.com service implements the specific three-part architecture of the patent. What evidence does the complaint provide that Volly.com uses a "blank card" that is "swiped at a card reader" to initiate a process, or that it uses a "wireless device" to receive "confirmation information" for transaction approval in the manner claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"blank card"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a critical element of the claimed invention, serving as the physical token that initiates the transaction at a service provider. The construction of this term will be central to determining whether a purely digital service could infringe claims that appear to require a physical object.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer a basis for a broad interpretation. A defendant in a similar case might argue that "card" could be a shorthand for any user token, but the specification provides little support for this.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the term in a physical context, stating the key is entered "by swiping said blank card at a card reader" ('119 Patent, col. 6:55-56) and that the card is "presented at interface 13 at service provider 14" ('119 Patent, col. 2:32-34). This language suggests a physical object is required.

"purchaser's key"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the data that is transmitted from the point of sale to the validation server. Its scope will determine whether standard user credentials (e.g., a username) for an online service could meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the term functionally as a "token unique to purchaser" ('119 Patent, col. 6:51-52), which could potentially be read on various forms of digital identifiers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same claim element specifies that this key "is encoded on a blank card" ('119 Patent, col. 6:53-54), tying it directly to the physical "blank card" element and suggesting it is not a standalone digital credential.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges facts that could support a claim for indirect infringement. It states Plaintiff communicated with Defendant PBI in 2009, providing "introductory documents describing the VPOBIP idea" and "notice of patent rights" (Compl. ¶29). It further alleges PBI partnered with the USPS to implement the accused program (Compl. ¶34).

Willful Infringement

The complaint seeks "exemplary relief including treble and punitive damages" (Compl. p. 14). The factual basis for willfulness rests on the allegation of pre-suit knowledge, specifically that PBI was made aware of Plaintiff's concept and patent rights in 2009, well before the alleged infringement began in 2011 (Compl. ¶29-30).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's claims, which are consistently directed to a method of "secured purchasing" initiated by a physical "blank card," be construed to cover a digital mail service that may not involve commercial transactions or physical tokens?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: beyond the allegation that the accused service is a "copy" of the plaintiff's concept, what factual evidence demonstrates that the Volly.com platform actually operates using the specific three-factor authentication architecture recited in the patent's claims?
• A threshold issue will concern the level of factual detail provided in the complaint, specifically whether its narrative allegations are sufficient to establish a plausible claim for infringement without identifying which claims are asserted or how the accused service meets specific claim limitations.