DCT

2:06-cv-00072

DataTreasury Corp v. Wells Fargo & Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:06-cv-00072, E.D. Tex., 05/09/2008
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business in the district, have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas, and engage in infringing activities with other defendants in related litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' use of nationwide check imaging, archiving, and electronic exchange services infringes six U.S. patents related to remote data capture, centralized processing, and electronic check clearing systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the modernization of the paper-based check clearing process by employing digital imaging and electronic data exchange, a transition accelerated by the Check 21 Act in the United States.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates this case is part of a broad litigation campaign, referencing other pending lawsuits against many of the same defendants for infringement of the same patents. The complaint also notes that a related case against Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC was previously consolidated into the instant action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1988-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 5,265,007 Priority Date
1993-11-22 U.S. Patent No. 5,583,759 Priority Date
1993-11-23 U.S. Patent No. 5,265,007 Issue Date
1995-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,868 Priority Date
1996-07-11 U.S. Patent No. 5,930,778 Priority Date
1996-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 5,583,759 Issue Date
1997-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 Priority Date
1998-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,868 Issue Date
1998-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 Priority Date
1999-06-08 U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 Issue Date
1999-07-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,930,778 Issue Date
2000-02-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 Issue Date
2006-06-01 Prior case consolidated into instant action (Compl. ¶60)
2008-05-09 Complaint Filing Date

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 section describes the significant challenges of processing and maintaining the "enormous number of paper and electronic records" generated from commercial transactions. It notes that previous approaches involving physical transportation of documents are costly, unreliable, and lack the ability to process paper and electronic records within a single system (’988 Patent, col. 1:16-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a comprehensive, three-tiered architecture to solve this problem. Data is captured at a remote "DataTreasury™ System Access Terminal" (DAT), aggregated at an intermediate "DataTreasury™ System Access Collector" (DAC), and ultimately processed and stored at a "DataTreasury™ System Processing Concentrator" (DPC). This system is designed to retrieve transaction data (e.g., by scanning paper receipts), encrypt it, transmit it to a central location for processing and storage, and generate reports (’988 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28–51; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The described architecture aimed to provide a secure, reliable, and low-cost alternative to the physical transport and manual processing of paper documents, representing a systemic approach to digitizing commercial transaction records for verification and archival purposes (’988 Patent, col. 3:19–24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific claims but makes a blanket assertion against the patent's claims generally (Compl. ¶70). The following is a breakdown of representative independent claim 1:
    • A system for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions.
    • Comprising one or more remote data access subsystems for capturing and sending paper transaction data.
    • Comprising at least one central data processing subsystem for processing, sending, verifying and storing the paper transaction data.
    • Comprising at least one communication network for the transmission of the transaction data between the remote and central subsystems.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 - Remote Image Capture With Centralized Processing And Storage

Issued February 29, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’988 Patent, the background describes the cost, unreliability, and inefficiency of processing large volumes of paper and electronic transaction records using traditional, non-integrated methods (’137 Patent, col. 1:11–65).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a tiered DAT-DAC-DPC system architecture for the remote capture, intermediate collection, and central processing of transaction data. The system is described as a comprehensive solution for handling data from various sources, including paper documents and electronic transactions, through a process of remote capture, encryption, transmission, and centralized storage and reporting (’137 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28–51).
  • Technical Importance: As a continuation of the technology in the ’988 Patent, this invention further elaborated on a systemic framework for replacing physical document transport with a secure and automated electronic alternative for a wide range of commercial applications (’137 Patent, col. 3:19–24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific claims asserted from the ’137 Patent (Compl. ¶74). The following is a breakdown of representative independent claim 1:
    • A system for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions from checks.
    • Comprising one or more remote data access subsystems for capturing and sending paper transaction data from the checks.
    • Comprising at least one central data processing subsystem for processing, sending, verifying and storing the paper transaction data.
    • Comprising at least one communication network for transmitting the data.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 5,265,007 - Central Check Clearing System

Issued November 23, 1993

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in check clearing across different geographic regions and time zones by proposing a centralized clearinghouse system independent of conventional Federal Reserve district boundaries (’007 Patent, col. 1:10–25). The system uses a central computer to electronically receive notifications of check shipments (cash letters) between member banks, track the status of these transfers in real time, and calculate the net settlements to be executed through the Federal Reserve system (’007 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10–18).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’007 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the Defendants' "nationwide check image archive and exchange service[s]" (Compl. ¶¶60, 62, 78).

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: This patent describes a system to expedite check processing for payees that receive a high volume of checks, such as utility companies. The system allows the payee, at its own remote location, to sort checks, apply indorsements on behalf of both itself and its depository bank, and submit the checks and associated electronic data directly into the check payment system (’759 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1–20). This process bypasses the step of physically transporting the paper checks to the payee's own bank for processing, thereby accelerating collection.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’759 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the Defendants' "nationwide check image archive and exchange service[s]" (Compl. ¶¶60, 62, 81).

U.S. Patent No. 5,717,868 - Electronic Payment Interchange Concentrator

Issued February 10, 1998

  • Technology Synopsis: The invention addresses the problem of incompatibility between different electronic data file formats used by financial institutions for check clearing. It discloses a central "concentrator" that acts as a universal translator: it receives data files in a format used by an originating institution, translates the data into a different format required by a receiving institution, and transmits the newly formatted file (’868 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:6–18). The system also provides for data storage and archival.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’868 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the Defendants' "nationwide check image archive and exchange service[s]" (Compl. ¶¶60, 62, 84).

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 discloses a system for coordinating a payee's internal accounting with the electronic submission of checks into the payment system. At a remote "item capture facility," the system electronically scans check information (e.g., MICR line data) and associates it with internal accounting records, such as payment stubs (’778 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This integration allows for expedited clearing while simultaneously updating the payee's own records.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’778 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the Defendants' "nationwide check image archive and exchange service[s]" (Compl. ¶¶60, 62, 87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly accuses the Defendants' "products and services" related to check processing (Compl. ¶70). It specifically identifies systems operated by Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC, Small Value Payments Co LLC, and The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC as infringing instrumentalities used by the defendant banks (Compl. ¶¶59, 61).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are described as "nationwide check image archive and exchange service[s]" (Compl. ¶¶60, 62). These services allegedly perform the function of creating digital images of paper checks at various locations, electronically archiving those images, and facilitating the electronic exchange of the images and associated data between financial institutions for clearing and settlement. The complaint alleges these services operate in or through the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. ¶¶60, 62). These services are central to the modern U.S. banking infrastructure for processing check payments. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of accused products to specific claim elements or include a claim chart. The infringement theory must be inferred from general allegations. The following tables summarize the apparent core of the infringement allegations for the two lead patents based on the complaint's description of the accused services.

'988 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
one or more remote data access subsystems for capturing and sending paper transaction data Use of nationwide check image exchange services that capture check images and data at distributed locations (e.g., bank branches) remote from a central processing or archival site. ¶60, ¶62 col. 4:25–28
at least one central data processing subsystem for processing, sending, verifying and storing the paper transaction data The centralized "check image archive" functionality of the accused services where check images and data are stored and managed. ¶60, ¶62 col. 4:29–32
at least one communication network for the transmission of the transaction data within and between said at least one data access subsystem and said at least one data processing subsystem The network infrastructure of the accused nationwide services that facilitates the electronic "exchange" of check images and data between capture points and the central archive. ¶60, ¶62 col. 4:46–51

'137 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
one or more remote data access subsystems for capturing and sending paper transaction data from the checks Use of nationwide check image exchange services that capture check images and data at distributed locations remote from a central processing or archival site. ¶60, ¶62 col. 4:25–28
at least one central data processing subsystem for processing, sending, verifying and storing the paper transaction data The centralized "check image archive" functionality of the accused services where check images and data are stored and managed. ¶60, ¶62 col. 4:29–32
at least one communication network for transmitting the data The network infrastructure of the accused nationwide services that facilitates the electronic "exchange" of check images and data between capture points and the central archive. ¶60, ¶62 col. 4:46–51

Identified Points of Contention

  • Architectural Questions: A primary question will be whether the architecture of the accused services (e.g., Viewpointe) maps onto the specific three-tiered DAT-DAC-DPC hierarchy described in the specifications of the ’988 and ’137 Patents. The complaint does not provide evidence to suggest the accused services utilize the claimed intermediate "data collecting subsystem" (DAC).
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the term "remote data access subsystem" can be construed to cover standard bank branch scanners or remote deposit capture equipment, or if it is limited by the specification to the more complex embodiment described as the "DAT" (’988 Patent, col. 5:31–40).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint’s lack of specificity on asserted claims requires focusing on terms from representative independent claims that appear central to the dispute.

"remote data access subsystem"

  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical to determining infringement. The dispute may center on whether a standard check scanner at a bank branch or customer location constitutes a "subsystem" as claimed, or if the term requires the more integrated set of components (controller, storage, modem, etc.) described in the patents' preferred embodiments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, referring simply to a "subsystem for capturing and sending" data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "DAT" embodiment in detail, comprising a scanner, modem, digital storage, controller, card interface, and signature pad, suggesting a more complex and integrated unit than a simple peripheral scanner (’988 Patent, col. 5:31–40).

"central data processing subsystem"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because modern financial systems often use distributed or cloud-based architectures rather than a single, monolithic central computer. The key question is whether "central" implies a single physical location or a functional role of centralized control and storage, regardless of physical implementation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted functionally to mean the logical hub for data processing and storage in the accused network, even if physically distributed.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "central location" and a "DPC" that actively "polls the DACs," which may support an argument for a more specific, geographically centralized hub-and-spoke architecture (’988 Patent, col. 5:5–9).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that the Defendants are "actively inducing and/or contributing to the infringement... among themselves and by others" (Compl. ¶¶71, 75). The factual basis appears to be the relationship between the defendant banks and the central service providers (Viewpointe, The Clearing House), where the banks' use of the services allegedly constitutes direct infringement that is induced or contributed to by the service provider, and vice versa.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all infringement counts (Compl. ¶¶72, 76, 80, 83, 86, 89). The complaint specifically notes that several defendants, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Wachovia, were "already being sued for willfully infringing" the ’988 and ’137 patents in other court proceedings (Compl. ¶¶73, 77). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge from prior litigation may provide a basis for the willfulness claim against those specified defendants.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the allegedly distributed and collaborative architecture of the accused check imaging and exchange services be shown to meet the limitations of the more hierarchical, three-tiered system described in the '988 and '137 patents, particularly the role of the intermediate "data collecting subsystem"?
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: Will the claim term "remote data access subsystem" be construed broadly enough to cover standard bank office equipment, or will it be limited to the more complex, multi-functional terminal described in the patent specifications? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for infringement.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge: For the willfulness allegations, the court will likely examine the extent to which prior lawsuits provided specific defendants with actual notice of their allegedly infringing activities with respect to the patents-in-suit.