DCT

2:18-cv-00007

PPS Data LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., 2:18-cv-00007, E.D. Tex., 01/10/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district (an office in Allen, Texas) and has committed acts of alleged infringement within the district, including by providing products to customers such as American State Bank.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote deposit capture solutions infringe five patents related to methods and systems for processing financial instrument deposits from a location physically remote from a financial institution.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is remote deposit capture (RDC), which allows bank customers to deposit checks electronically using scanners or mobile devices, a practice that has become a fundamental component of modern commercial and retail banking.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that NetDeposit, LLC, the original assignee of the patents-in-suit, changed its name to PPS Data, LLC in 2010. It also alleges that multiple unspecified parties have taken licenses to practice the asserted patents, which may be relevant to future damages calculations, such as establishing a reasonable royalty.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-04-28 Earliest Priority Date ('430, '106, '924, '071, '956 Patents)
2007-02-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,181,430 Issues
2007-05-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,216,106 Issues
2008-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,440,924 Issues
2009-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,624,071 Issues
2014-02-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,660,956 Issues
2018-01-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,181,430 - "Method and System for Processing Financial Instrument Deposits Physically Remote From a Financial Institution," issued February 20, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the traditional, inefficient process of physically presenting a paper check to a financial institution for deposit and clearing, which involves high costs for transportation, handling, and storage of the physical instruments (’430 Patent, col. 1:14-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user at a "remote site" (e.g., a home or office) can capture an electronic image of a check, validate the deposit information, and transmit this electronic data to a "central site" processor at a financial institution (’430 Patent, col. 2:11-20). The system then uses this electronic data to clear the check, potentially creating a duplicate paper check only if required by the maker bank, thereby reducing the need to transport the original paper check (’430 Patent, col. 3:1-10).
  • Technical Importance: This approach helped enable the shift from paper-based check clearing to electronic clearing (check truncation), significantly reducing processing costs and the "float" time for funds to become available (’430 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A method for deposit processing at a central system of checks deposited at a remote site.
    • The central system receives deposit information for multiple deposit transactions, including account designation, electronic check data, and check image data.
    • The central system is separate from the bank's MICR capture, deposit accounting, cash management, and float processing systems.
    • The central system transmits the electronic deposit data for a subset of transactions to different respective banks of first deposit.
    • The central system sorts and error checks the received information before transmitting it to the bank's other systems.
    • The central system transmits the electronic check data and check image data to a maker bank, Federal Reserve Bank, or correspondent bank via a path that bypasses the bank of first deposit's other processing systems.

U.S. Patent No. 7,440,924 - "Method and System for Processing Financial Instrument Deposits Physically Remote From a Financial Institution," issued October 21, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the same general problem as the ’430 Patent: the inefficiency of paper-based check processing (’924 Patent, col. 1:11-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-readable medium with instructions for a central system to process remote deposits. It involves receiving deposit information from a remote site, performing sorting and error-checking, and transmitting the electronic check data to the appropriate bank of first deposit and ultimately to the maker bank, bypassing the bank's conventional check processing systems (’924 Patent, col. 2:48-61; col. 18:11-51). The claims focus on the program product (software) that directs the central system's actions.
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims the software architecture for a central processing hub designed to manage RDC transactions, a key component for financial institutions looking to implement and scale remote deposit services (’924 Patent, col. 2:11-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶27). Independent claim 19 is representative.
  • Claim 19 Elements:
    • A computer-readable medium with program code for deposit processing at a central system.
    • The code causes a machine to receive deposit information for multiple deposit transactions, including account designation, electronic check data, and check image data.
    • The central system is separate from the bank's MICR capture, deposit accounting, cash management, and float processing systems.
    • The code causes the machine to transmit electronic deposit data for a subset of transactions to different respective banks of first deposit.
    • The code causes the machine to perform sorting and error checking on the received information before transmission to the bank's other systems.
    • The code causes the machine to transmit the electronic check data and image data to a maker bank, Federal Reserve Bank, or correspondent bank via a path that bypasses the bank's other processing systems.

U.S. Patent No. 7,624,071 - "Method and System for Processing Financial Instrument Deposits Physically Remote From a Financial Institution," issued November 24, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a central system for processing remote deposits that includes specific components for receiving, sorting, error-checking, and transmitting the electronic check and image data, bypassing traditional processing systems (’071 Patent, col. 23:25-65). It claims the system itself, comprising various configured components, rather than the method or software.
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 37 is representative.
  • Accused Features: The "JHA RDC solutions" are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 7,216,106 - "Method and System for Processing Financial Instrument Deposits Physically Remote From a Financial Institution," issued May 8, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for processing remote deposits that includes the step of comparing deposit parameters (e.g., number of items, total amount) against a customer-specific limit before transmitting the information to the bank of first deposit (’106 Patent, col. 24:1-12). This introduces a pre-processing risk management step into the remote deposit workflow.
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶49). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Accused Features: The "JHA RDC solutions" are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 8,660,956 - "Method and System for Processing Financial Instrument Deposits Physically Remote From a Financial Institution," issued February 25, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a central system for processing remote deposits made by multiple different depositing individuals. A key feature is the system's ability to receive deposits designated for different banks of first deposit and transmit the data to the appropriate bank, acting as a multi-institution processing hub (’956 Patent, col. 18:8-23).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶60). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Accused Features: The "JHA RDC solutions" are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "JHA RDC solutions," which include JHA mRDC, Remote Deposit Anywhere, Remote Deposit Complete, Remote Deposit Express, Remote Deposit Now, and Remote Deposit Scan (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as software, products, and services designed to "facilitate remote deposit capture, deposit processing and remote deposit solutions" (Compl. ¶13). These systems are alleged to "enable Defendant's customers to process financial instrument deposits physically remote from a financial institution" (Compl. p. 5).
  • The allegations suggest these products provide the core functionality of capturing check data and images at a customer's location and transmitting them electronically to a financial institution for deposit, consistent with the function of RDC technology.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping the elements of any asserted claim to the functionality of the accused JHA RDC solutions. Instead, it makes general allegations that the accused products incorporate the inventions described and claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶16, 27, 38, 49, 60). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific infringement contentions, analysis must focus on potential areas of dispute based on the claim language and the general nature of RDC technology.
    • Scope Questions:
      • A central question for the '430, '924, and '071 Patents will be whether the accused JHA RDC solutions practice the claimed architecture where the "central system" is explicitly "separate from MICR capture, deposit accounting, cash management, and float processing systems" of the bank (’430 Patent, col. 17:59-64). The dispute may turn on whether Defendant's system is a distinct, bypassing module as claimed, or is more integrated with a bank's core processing systems.
      • For the '106 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused products perform the claimed step of comparing deposit parameters against a predefined "individual customer limit" as a condition of processing (’106 Patent, col. 23:49-55). Infringement may depend on whether the accused products include this specific risk-management feature.
    • Technical Questions:
      • The patents describe a detailed, multi-step data flow from a "remote site" to a "central site" and then to a "maker bank." A core technical question will be whether the actual data paths, processing steps, and system components of the JHA RDC solutions map onto this claimed workflow, particularly the requirement that the data transmission "bypasses" the bank's other systems (’430 Patent, col. 18:44-51).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "central system is separate from MICR capture, deposit accounting, cash management, and float processing systems" (from claim 1 of the ’430 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the fundamental architecture of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely focus on how architecturally distinct the accused RDC processing module is from the bank's other legacy systems.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as an alternative to "traditional check clearing routes" and focuses on processing "electronic images of checks as opposed to the slower method of sending paper checks" (’430 Patent, col. 2:1-5). This could support an interpretation where "separate from" means functionally distinct in its electronic, image-based operation, even if it shares some network infrastructure or hardware with other bank systems.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the central system to transmit data via a path that "bypasses" these other systems (’430 Patent, col. 18:44-51). This suggests a requirement for a physically or logically segregated data path, which could support a narrower construction requiring a greater degree of architectural separation than merely performing a different function.

  • The Term: "remote site" (from claim 1 of the ’430 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "remote site" is foundational to the patent's scope, as it defines the location where the check image capture occurs. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether it covers the full range of modern RDC endpoints, from a corporate treasurer's office with a dedicated scanner to an individual's smartphone.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that remote locations "can be used by individuals and businesses" and could include "the financial institution's remote locations, other financial institution's locations, businesses, private residences, etc." (’430 Patent, col. 2:16-20). This broad, exemplary list suggests the term is not limited to a specific type of location or device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description often refers to a "remote site processor" and a "scanner/reader/printer," which may suggest an interpretation requiring a location with more sophisticated hardware than a standard mobile device, potentially limiting the claim's applicability to mobile RDC (’430 Patent, Fig. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for each asserted patent. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides advertising, product manuals, and other instructions that cause its customers to use the JHA RDC solutions in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶18, 29, 40, 51, 62). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the JHA RDC solutions are a material part of the invention, are not a staple article of commerce, and are especially made or adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶¶19, 30, 41, 52, 63).
  • Willful Infringement: For each patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant had notice of the patent "no later than the filing of this Complaint" and that its continued infringement is therefore willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶¶25, 36, 47, 58, 69). This is a claim for post-suit willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: does the accused "JHA RDC solutions" architecture embody a "central system" that is "separate from" and "bypasses" a bank's conventional processing systems as claimed, or is it a more integrated feature of a bank's overall digital platform? The outcome will likely depend heavily on claim construction and detailed evidence of the accused system's design.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the complaint provide sufficient detail to determine whether the accused products perform the specific additional functions required by certain patents, such as the pre-processing comparison to "customer limits" claimed in the ’106 Patent or the multi-bank processing hub functionality of the ’956 Patent?
  • A third central question will relate to damages: given the allegation that "multiple parties that have already taken licenses to practice PPS Data's patents" (Compl. ¶23), a significant focus of the case, should it proceed, will be on the terms of those licenses and whether they can be used to establish a reasonable royalty for any infringement by the Defendant.