DCT

2:06-cv-00072

DataTreasury Corp v. Wells Fargo & Co

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:06-cv-00072, E.D. Tex., 06/03/2009
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants conducting business within the district, having sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Texas, and engaging in infringing activities alongside other defendants in related past and pending litigation within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that check imaging and electronic exchange services owned or used by a consortium of major U.S. financial institutions infringe six patents related to centralized check clearing, remote image capture, and electronic payment interchange systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the electronic processing of financial instruments, a foundational element of the modern banking system that largely replaced the physical transportation of paper checks with the exchange of digital images and data.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the patents-in-suit, the '988 and '137 patents, previously underwent re-examination at the USPTO and were reissued. The complaint also states that this action consolidates claims from three prior lawsuits filed in 2005 against a subset of the current Defendants, which asserted only the '988 and '137 patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1988-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 5265007 Priority Date
1993-11-22 U.S. Patent No. 5583759 Priority Date
1993-11-23 U.S. Patent No. 5,265,007 Issues
1995-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 5717868 Priority Date
1996-07-11 U.S. Patent No. 5930778 Priority Date
1996-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 5,583,759 Issues
1997-02-28 U.S. Patent No. 5910988 Priority Date
1997-02-28 U.S. Patent No. 6032137 Priority Date
1998-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,868 Issues
1999-06-08 U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 Issues
1999-07-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,930,778 Issues
2000-02-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 Issues
2007-10-23 U.S. Patent No. US5910988A Reissued (C1)
2007-12-25 U.S. Patent No. US6032137A Reissued (C1)
2009-06-03 Fourth Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 - "Remote Image Capture with Centralized Processing and Storage," Issued June 8, 1999

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the cost, unreliability, and poor performance associated with the physical transportation of paper documents, such as sales receipts, from numerous customer sites to a central facility for processing and archiving (Compl. ¶38; ’988 Patent, col. 1:17-2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-tiered automated system. At the lowest tier, a remote "Data Access Terminal" (DAT) captures images of paper documents at a customer site. The data is then encrypted and transmitted to a mid-tier "Data Access Collector" (DAC) that aggregates data from multiple remote terminals. Finally, the data is sent to a top-tier "Data Processing Concentrator" (DPC) for centralized processing, storage, verification, and report generation (’988 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:56–4:27).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture describes a framework for replacing localized, physical document collection with a secure, scalable, and networked electronic system, aiming to reduce delays and costs in transaction processing (’988 Patent, col. 1:17-2:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims for the ’988 patent (Compl. ¶45). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.

U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 - "Remote Image Capture with Centralized Processing and Storage," Issued February 29, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses similar problems as the ’988 patent: the inefficiencies and security risks inherent in processing large volumes of paper and electronic transaction records that are generated and stored in a scattered, non-centralized manner (Compl. ¶39; ’137 Patent, col. 1:24-2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’137 patent also describes a tiered system for remote data capture and central processing but details specific applications for financial instruments like checks. It discloses a method where a check image and the payer's biometric data are captured at a remote location, verified against centrally stored data, and used to create an electronic transaction that is then transmitted to the respective payee and payor banks for settlement (’137 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 10).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provided a technical framework for "check truncation" at the point of receipt, a concept that enables the conversion of a physical paper check into a secure digital transaction, thereby eliminating the need for further physical transport of the paper document (’137 Patent, col. 22:7-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims for the ’137 patent (Compl. ¶48). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.

U.S. Patent No. 5,265,007 - "Central Check Clearing System," Issued November 23, 1993

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system to overcome inefficiencies in check clearing caused by geographic and institutional boundaries, such as Federal Reserve districts and time zones (’007 Patent, col. 1:29-37). The patented solution is a centralized clearinghouse association with a "central control means" (a computer system) that receives electronic advice from member banks, calculates net settlements between them, and initiates the corresponding debit and credit entries through the Federal Reserve settlement system (’007 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-54).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶51).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' use of nationwide check image exchange and archive services (Compl. ¶¶ 34-37, 51).

U.S. Patent No. 5,583,759 - "Mechanism for Expediting the Deposit, Transport and Submission of Checks into the Payment System," Issued December 10, 1996

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the multi-step, duplicative process where a payee receiving many checks must first process them internally, then physically transport them to its depository bank, which then re-processes them for entry into the payment system (’759 Patent, col. 1:11-51). The invention is a system where the payee, at its own remote location, sorts the checks and applies indorsements on behalf of both itself and its depository bank, allowing the checks and associated electronic data to be submitted directly into the check payment system while bypassing physical delivery to the depository bank (’759 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-32).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶54).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' use of nationwide check image exchange and archive services (Compl. ¶¶ 34-37, 54).

U.S. Patent No. 5,717,868 - "Electronic Payment Interchange Concentrator," Issued February 10, 1998

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the technical problem of incompatibility between the different electronic data file formats (e.g., ECP, ACH) used by financial institutions, which prevents them from exchanging financial data electronically (’868 Patent, col. 1:42-2:15). The solution is a central "concentrator" system that acts as a universal translator: it receives a data file in an originating institution's format, translates it into a second format selected by the receiving institution, and transmits the newly formatted file, thereby enabling communication between otherwise incompatible systems (’868 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:49-4:7).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶57).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' use of nationwide check image exchange and archive services (Compl. ¶¶ 34-37, 57).

U.S. Patent No. 5,930,778 - "System for Expediting the Clearing of Financial Instruments and Coordinating the Same with Invoice Processing at the Point of Receipt," Issued July 27, 1999

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of "float" and the process disconnect between a payee's internal accounting for an invoice and the separate, subsequent process of clearing the associated payment check (’778 Patent, col. 1:20-30). The invention is an integrated system where a check and its accompanying payment stub are processed together at the point of receipt; electronic information is extracted from both documents simultaneously to update the payee's internal accounts and to begin the electronic clearing process through the depository bank (’778 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-17).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶60).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' use of nationwide check image exchange and archive services (Compl. ¶¶ 34-37, 60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses services provided by two entities: 1) Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC, and 2) Small Value Payments Company, LLC and/or The Clearing House Payments Company, L.L.C. (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36). The defendant banks are identified as "owners or current users" of these services (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as "nationwide check image archive and exchange service[s]" that operate throughout the country, including within the judicial district (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the architecture or operational methods of these services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or map specific functionalities of the accused services to any patent claim elements. The infringement allegations are made generally, stating that Defendants' products and services "fall within the scope of the claims" of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60). Consequently, a detailed claim-by-claim analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’988 Patent: A primary question for litigation will be evidentiary: What specific components and processes within the accused Viewpointe and SVPCo/Clearing House services correspond to the three-tiered "remote data access subsystem," "data collecting subsystem," and "central data processing subsystem" architecture required by the patent? The dispute may focus on whether the defendants' system for collecting, aggregating, and processing check images from member banks maps onto this specific claimed structure.
    • ’137 Patent: A central question will be functional: Does the process flow within the accused services for receiving and settling check images constitute the claimed method of capturing check data, creating a distinct "electronic transaction," and transmitting it to payor and payee banks for settlement? The analysis may turn on what evidence shows that the accused services perform the specific verification and transaction creation steps required by the claims, as opposed to merely routing image data.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not assert specific claims, the following analysis is based on representative terms from the patents that appear central to the technology.

  • Term: "remote data access subsystem" (from the ’988 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the point-of-capture component in the claimed three-tiered architecture. The infringement analysis may depend on whether the various endpoints utilizing the Defendants' services—such as individual bank branches, ATMs, or merchant locations—can be defined as constituting this "subsystem."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope by stating that such subsystems (DATs) are located at "customer sites" which include "merchants, consumers and bankers" (’988 Patent, col. 5:29-31).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a detailed description of the components of a DAT, including a "scanner," "modem," "digital storage," a "controller (workstation)," and a "card interface" (’988 Patent, col. 5:35-42). This enumeration of specific hardware could support an argument that the term requires an integrated device with these particular components.

  • Term: "creating electronic transaction" (from the ’137 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented method. The dispute may turn on what specific actions constitute "creating" a new transaction, as distinguished from merely transmitting, reformatting, or storing pre-existing data derived from a check image.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process as assembling various data points (payer information, payee information, amount) into a new data structure for settlement, which could be construed to cover a range of data aggregation and formatting activities (’137 Patent, col. 22:7-22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 10 of the patent details a specific sequence that includes verification steps (1008, 1010) that precede the "create electronic transaction" step (1014). This could support an interpretation that "creating" requires this specific verification-dependent process and is not merely a data conversion step.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Defendants are "actively inducing and/or contributing to the infringement...among themselves and by others" (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims, such as by citing instructional materials or specific agreements directing infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that infringement "has been and is willful" for each patent count (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62). It does not provide a factual basis to suggest pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A core issue will be whether discovery can substantiate the complaint's generalized allegations. The case will likely depend on Plaintiff's ability to map the specific, complex operations of the accused nationwide check exchange platforms onto the particular architectural and method limitations recited in the patent claims, moving beyond high-level descriptions of "check imaging."
  • Architectural Correspondence: A central technical question will be one of structural and functional mapping: Do the Defendants' distributed check processing systems, which interconnect numerous financial institutions, practice the specific three-tiered "remote subsystem -> collecting subsystem -> central processing subsystem" architecture claimed in the ’988 and ’137 patents, or do they operate on a fundamentally different model, such as a peer-to-peer or a distinct hub-and-spoke architecture?
  • Claim Scope vs. Industry Practice: A key legal question, particularly for the older patents asserted, may concern the proper scope of the claims in light of established banking practices and industry standards development. The litigation may raise the question of whether the claims read on the specific systems disclosed in the patents or are broad enough to cover more fundamental concepts of electronic inter-bank settlement.