DCT
2:17-cv-00250
Millennium Commerce LLC v. Ingenico Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Millennium Commerce, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Ingenico, Inc. (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch, PC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00250, E.D. Tex., 03/31/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, having transacted business there, and having committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s point-of-sale (POS) terminals infringe a patent related to combining a purchase transaction with a cash-back request.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns user interfaces for electronic fund transfer systems, specifically streamlining the process for obtaining cash back during a retail purchase at a POS terminal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit, the applicant distinguished a prior art reference (Lapsley) by arguing that its description of "cash back" was not prior art because it was introduced in an application filed after the patent's priority date. This suggests the timing and specific functionality of cash-back systems may be a point of focus.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-04-13 | ’701 Patent Priority Date |
| 1996-08-29 | Filing date of application leading to Lapsley prior art reference |
| 2011-06-07 | ’701 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-03-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,954,701 - "Electronic Fund Transfer or Transaction System," issued June 7, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art electronic fund transfer (EFT) systems, such as ATMs and POS terminals, as inefficient and time-consuming, often requiring a user to navigate through multiple consecutive menu screens to select a transaction type and its various parameters (e.g., account, amount) (’971 Patent, col. 2:11-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a POS terminal that streamlines transactions by integrating multiple functions. As described in the claims and abstract, the terminal features a financial information reader, an input device, and a control system specifically configured to request authorization for both a purchase amount and an additional "select cash amount" (i.e., cash back) from a customer's account in a unified process (’971 Patent, Abstract). The complaint asserts this improves the functioning of the POS system user interface (’Compl. ¶5).
- Technical Importance: This approach simplifies the checkout process by reducing the number of user inputs required to perform two common, related financial actions: paying for goods and withdrawing cash (’971 Patent, col. 2:59-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and its allegations track the language of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A point-of-sale terminal comprising:
- a financial information reader configured to receive financial information from a card associated with an account, in connection with requesting authorization of a purchase transaction;
- an input device configured to receive a request for a select cash amount in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction; and
- a control system configured to request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount on the account.
- The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's POS terminals, including but not limited to the iCT 250, iWL 222, and iWL 252 models (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as POS terminals that accept electronic payments via various methods, including smartcard, magnetic stripe, and contactless (NFC) (Compl. ¶¶20-21). A screenshot from an Ingenico user guide for the iCT 250 depicts a "Purchase with Cashback" menu option, which prompts a user to key in a sale amount and a separate cash amount using the device's keypad (Compl. ¶22; p. 7). This visual shows a step-by-step process for a user to obtain cash back in conjunction with a purchase (Compl. p. 7). After the amounts are entered, the complaint alleges the terminal's control system requests authorization for the combined payment (Compl. ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’701 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a financial information reader configured to receive financial information from a card associated with an account... | The accused terminals are alleged to have readers for smartcards, magnetic stripes, and contactless cards to receive financial information from a credit or debit card. A provided image shows a card being inserted into the terminal's smartcard reader (Compl. p. 6). | ¶21 | col. 20:2-6 |
| an input device configured to receive a request for a select cash amount in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction; and | The accused terminals allegedly use their keypads as input devices to receive a "cash amount in excess of the amount of a purchase transaction" via a "Purchase with Cashback" function. A user guide screenshot shows a prompt to "Key in Cash Amount" (Compl. p. 7). | ¶22 | col. 20:7-9 |
| a control system configured to request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount on the account. | The terminals are alleged to include a control system that requests authorization for the combined payment. A screenshot from a user guide states, "The terminal will now dial for authorisation," after both the sale and cash back amounts have been entered (Compl. p. 8). | ¶24 | col. 20:10-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question may be how the accused terminal's "control system" technically operates. The complaint alleges a unified authorization request for both the purchase and cash amounts. The provided evidence shows a unified user interface flow, but it does not detail the underlying communication protocol between the terminal and the remote financial service provider. The case may require evidence on whether the terminal sends a single, combined authorization request or two separate requests that are merely bundled in a single user session.
- Scope Questions: The term "in excess of an amount of the purchase transaction" appears to plainly read on "cashback." The complaint also mentions "tip" as an example (Compl. ¶22). While the evidence focuses on cashback, a dispute could arise over whether a "tip" is functionally equivalent to a "select cash amount" within the meaning of the claim, or if it represents a distinct type of transaction not contemplated by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a control system configured to request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount on the account"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the functional core of the claim. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on whether the accused system performs a single, integrated authorization for the combined total, or whether it handles the purchase and cash-back components as distinct actions, even if they occur in the same user session.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification discusses overcoming the inefficiency of prior art systems that require multiple steps and screens for a single transaction (’971 Patent, col. 2:11-21). This context may support an interpretation where any system that combines the purchase and cash-back steps into a single, streamlined user-facing process meets the limitation, regardless of the precise backend implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim’s parallel structure—"request authorization for payment of [the purchase transaction] and [the select cash amount]"—could support a narrower reading that requires the authorization request itself to be a single, unified data transmission containing both components. The abstract similarly describes a control system "configured to request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount," suggesting a single, consolidated action by the control system (’971 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a finding that Defendant has "directly and indirectly infringed" (Prayer for Relief ¶1). However, the complaint’s sole count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶17-28). The complaint does not plead the specific elements of knowledge and intent required for a claim of induced infringement, although it provides evidence in the form of a user guide that allegedly instructs on the infringing use (Compl. p. 7). No allegations supporting contributory infringement are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Ingenico terminal's control system transmit a single, unified authorization request for the combined purchase and cash-back amount, as required by the claim's language, or does its software architecture handle these as distinct authorization events that are merely presented to the user in a single workflow?
- The case will also turn on a claim construction question: what is the scope of "request authorization for payment of the amount of the purchase transaction and the select cash amount"? The court will need to determine whether this requires a single, atomic action by the control system or if it can be read more broadly to cover any system that streamlines the user experience of a combined purchase-plus-cash-back transaction.