DCT

2:22-cv-00376

Liberty Peak Ventures LLC v. Charles Schwab Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00376, E.D. Tex., 09/28/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the District, including a headquarters/regional campus in Westlake, Texas, and various branch office locations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s debit card, mobile banking, and mobile wallet services infringe seven patents related to secure electronic transactions, payment processing over disparate networks, mobile device authentication, and user data privacy.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to the security and interoperability architecture for modern digital payments, a critical area for financial institutions offering contactless and mobile transaction capabilities.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's affiliate notified Defendants of the patent portfolio via a letter dated March 30, 2021, and subsequently provided access to a data room containing claim charts for the asserted patents on at least two occasions prior to filing suit. This alleged pre-suit notice is the basis for Plaintiff's claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-08-31 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,953,671
1999-11-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,794,509 and 8,851,369
2002-10-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,572,712
2002-10-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,886,101
2005-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 6,886,101 Issues
2006-06-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,195,985
2010-10-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,905,301
2011-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,953,671 Issues
2013-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,572,712 Issues
2014-08-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,794,509 Issues
2014-10-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,851,369 Issues
2014-12-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,905,301 Issues
2015-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,195,985 Issues
2021-03-30 Date of pre-suit notice letter to Defendants
2021-05-03 Plaintiff provides Defendants with data room access
2021-08-01 Plaintiff again provides Defendants with data room access
2022-09-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,953,671 - "Methods and Apparatus for Conducting Electronic Transactions"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that conventional methods for securing financial transactions, such as Personal Identification Numbers (PINs), were easily duplicated or discovered, creating a need for more robust safeguards against evolving threats in electronic transactions (Compl. ¶36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a challenge-response protocol for authenticating an "intelligent instrument" to an authorization server. The server issues a challenge to a token on the instrument, which generates a response. Upon successful verification, the server assembles transaction credentials, including a cryptographic key, which are then used to validate subsequent transaction requests from the client. (’671 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶36, 80).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a dynamic, cryptographic basis for authorizing transactions, which can offer greater security than static identifiers and is foundational for securing mobile and contactless payment systems (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶79, 80).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Forwarding, by a computer-based system, a challenge to an intelligent token of a client.
    • Receiving, by the computer-based system, the challenge response.
    • Assembling credentials for a transaction, including a key, in response to verifying the challenge response.
    • Receiving a request from the client that includes at least a portion of the assembled credentials.
    • Validating the portion of credentials with the key.
    • Providing access to a transaction service in response to the validation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,794,509 - "Systems and Methods for Processing a Payment Authorization Request over Disparate Payment Networks"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint states that conventional payment transaction methods, particularly for Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) transactions, faced challenges in supporting multiple, disparate payment systems (Compl. ¶42).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-based system that queries a payment system directory to select an appropriate payment system for a given transaction. The directory contains information about multiple candidate payment systems and can use rules or algorithms to locate the proper one. The system then transmits an authorization request containing payment information, which may include a proxy account number, to the selected candidate system. (’509 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶42).
  • Technical Importance: This directory-based routing system allows a point-of-sale device or application to interoperate with multiple payment networks, enabling flexibility and ensuring that transactions are directed to a mutually supported and appropriate processing system (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶94, 95).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Querying, by a computer-based system, a payment system directory that comprises information regarding a plurality of candidate payment systems.
    • The payment system directory locating a candidate payment system for processing the transaction.
    • The candidate payment system receiving payment information, including a proxy account number, for developing a payment authorization.
    • Transmitting, by the computer-based system, a payment authorization request to the candidate payment system.
    • Receiving the payment authorization from the candidate payment system.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,851,369 - "Systems and Methods for Transaction Processing Using a Smartcard"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of supporting multiple payment systems in contactless transactions (Compl. ¶48). The described solution involves a smartcard that, upon receiving a payment request, determines a payment system for the transaction by querying payment directory information stored on the smartcard itself and then transmits an identification of that system to a point-of-sale (POS) device (Compl. ¶48).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶109, 110).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' EMV payment applications on contactless cards and mobile wallets are accused of infringement. These applications allegedly query an on-device directory (the Proximity Payment System Environment, or PPSE) to select a payment system (e.g., VisaNet) and transmit its corresponding Application Identifier (AID) to the POS terminal (Compl. ¶¶49-50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,195,985 - "Method, System, and Computer Program Product for Customer-level Data Verification"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses improving the accuracy of transaction risk calculations and fraud detection for customers who have more than one transaction instrument linked to a single account (Compl. ¶51). The solution involves a computer system that receives an authorization request for a transaction using a first instrument, determines a second transaction instrument corresponding to the same user, and analyzes transaction data associated with the second instrument to help authorize the transaction initiated with the first (Compl. ¶51).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶124, 125).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' systems for authorizing tokenized mobile payments are accused of infringement. In these systems, a request initiated with a token (the first instrument) is allegedly processed by the Defendants' system determining the underlying primary account number (PAN) (the second instrument) and analyzing data associated with the PAN to authenticate and authorize the transaction (Compl. ¶¶52-55).

U.S. Patent No. 8,905,301 - "System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Issuing and Using Debit Cards"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses problems arising from overdraft charges and fees (Compl. ¶57). The described solution is a computer-based authorization system that provides overdraft protection by linking a primary payment account to a separate backup account. When a transaction request is received for the primary account, the system requests and receives status information regarding the backup account and authorizes the transaction based on that information (Compl. ¶57).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶138, 139).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' Overdraft Protection program is accused of infringement. The program is alleged to link a Schwab checking account (the payment account) with a separate deposit account or line of credit (the separate account) and to authorize transactions that would overdraw the checking account by accessing funds based on the status of the linked source (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,572,712 - "Device Independent Authentication System and Method"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent provides a method for initiating secure sessions with web-browsing enabled wireless devices, including those that do not support cookies (Compl. ¶61). The solution involves a web server that analyzes an HTTP request file from a client device, including browser identification data such as client agent and device model data, to determine whether the device is a supported type and to grant, configure, or deny access accordingly (Compl. ¶¶61, 153).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶152, 153).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' secure website login process is accused of infringement. When a user logs in, their device allegedly sends an HTTP request containing device model and client agent data, which Defendants' web servers compare against a database of authorized models to determine whether to grant access or require further authentication (Compl. ¶¶62-65).

U.S. Patent No. 6,886,101 - "Privacy Service"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a privacy service system for facilitating the auditing and control of users' personal data to help detect identity fraud (Compl. ¶66). The system stores privacy data for multiple users in a central database and allows each user to self-audit their own data (but restricts them from auditing the data of others), including reviewing and changing their stored information and associated privacy policies (’101 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶66, 166).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶166).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' online banking platform is accused of infringement. Users allegedly provide personal data (e.g., phone number, Social Security number) when creating an account, which is stored by Schwab. Users can then log into their own account to access a user profile section where they can retrieve, review, and change their privacy data and communication preferences (Compl. ¶¶67-69).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' financial products, services, and systems related to Schwab Bank Debit Cards, mobile banking, and mobile wallets compatible with platforms like Google Pay and Samsung Pay (Compl. ¶¶6, 24). This also includes the back-end computer systems that perform payment processing, authentication, authorization, overdraft protection, and fraud detection for these services (Compl. ¶¶24, 35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused services facilitate contactless payments using the Europay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) standard (Compl. ¶26). This functionality is enabled both through physical debit cards with embedded microchips and through mobile devices using technologies like Near Field Communication (“NFC”) (Compl. ¶¶27, 29). A core feature is "tokenization," where a surrogate "virtual account number" is used for mobile wallet transactions to obscure the user's actual Primary Account Number (PAN) (Compl. ¶¶32-33). A screenshot provided in the complaint explains that Google Pay facilitates the assignment of a "virtual account number," also called a token, to securely link to the user's actual card number (Compl. p. 30). The complaint alleges that Defendants, as the card issuer, direct and control the provisioning of credentials to these third-party mobile wallets (Compl. ¶34). Further functionalities include an Overdraft Protection program that links checking accounts to other deposit or credit accounts (Compl. ¶58) and a secure online login system that authenticates users by analyzing their device information (Compl. ¶¶63-65).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,953,671 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
forwarding, by a computer-based system for conducting a transaction, a challenge to an intelligent token of a client... During the enrollment process for a mobile wallet, Defendants' issuance system forwards a challenge to a consumer's mobile device (the "intelligent token") for identification, verification, and device attestation. ¶37-38, 80 col. 4:26-34
receiving, by said computer-based system, said challenge response Defendants' system receives the challenge response from the mobile device to determine if the device is in a trusted state. ¶38, 80 col. 4:30-34
assembling, by said computer-based system, credentials for a transaction in response to verifying said challenge response, wherein said assembled credentials include a key Upon verification, Defendants' system assembles credentials, including encryption keys, during a process referred to as "provisioning" for use in future transactions. ¶39, 80 col. 4:35-39
receiving, by said computer-based system, a request from said client, wherein said request includes at least a portion of said assembled credentials... During a payment transaction, Defendants' authorization system receives a request from the consumer's mobile wallet containing credentials, such as a tokenized PAN and an Application Cryptogram. ¶40, 80 col. 4:40-44
validating, by said computer-based system, said portion of said assembled credentials with said key of said assembled credentials Defendants' system validates the received Application Cryptogram using the previously provisioned key. ¶40, 41, 80 col. 4:45-49
and, providing, by said computer-based system, access to a transaction service in response to said validating. Once the mobile wallet and its credentials are validated, the transaction is authorized and allowed to proceed. ¶41, 80 col. 4:50-53
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the one-time "user enrollment" and "provisioning" process described in the EMV standards (Compl. ¶¶37-39) constitutes the real-time, transaction-specific challenge-response sequence for assembling credentials as recited in claim 1. The complaint's evidence, such as a diagram of a "Basic Mobile Payment System Overview" (Compl. p. 21), shows "Enrolment/Management" as a distinct phase from a later transaction, raising the question of whether credentials are assembled "in response to verifying said challenge response" for a specific transaction or are pre-provisioned for future use.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the "Application Cryptogram" sent with each transaction request (Compl. ¶40) can be considered "a portion of said assembled credentials." The complaint alleges the credentials (including the key) are "assembled" during enrollment (Compl. ¶39), while the cryptogram is generated dynamically for each transaction. This raises a question of whether the cryptogram is part of the pre-assembled credentials or a separate, transaction-specific authenticator.

U.S. Patent No. 8,794,509 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
querying, by a computer-based system configured to facilitate a transaction, a payment system directory... In response to a command from a POS terminal, the payment application on a consumer's mobile wallet queries an onboard directory known as the Proximity Payment System Environment (PPSE). ¶43, 95 col. 1:49-54
wherein said payment system directory... comprises information regarding a plurality of candidate payment systems... The PPSE response contains a list of products and applications (candidate payment systems) supported by the debit card. ¶44, 95 col. 2:37-41
and wherein said payment system directory locates a candidate payment system for processing at least a portion of said transaction... The POS terminal's "Entry Point" compares the list of payment systems from the card's PPSE with the systems it supports and selects the one with the highest priority. ¶44, 95 col. 1:55-60
wherein said candidate payment system receives payment information related to said transaction... and wherein said payment information includes a proxy account number The selected payment system (e.g., the issuer network like VisaNet) receives transaction information that includes a "payment token," which serves as a proxy account number for the user's PAN. ¶45, 46, 95 col. 2:4-7
transmitting, by said computer-based system, a payment authorization request related to said transaction to said candidate payment system The mobile wallet application transmits a payment authorization request containing transaction data to the issuer through the selected payment system. ¶47, 95 col. 2:8-11
and receiving, by said computer-based system, said payment authorization from said candidate payment system. The card application receives the issuer's authorization decision (e.g., approved, declined, or online request) via an Application Cryptogram from the payment system. ¶47, 95 col. 2:12-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the Proximity Payment System Environment (PPSE), which resides on the consumer's card or mobile device, can be construed as the claimed "payment system directory." The patent may describe a directory that is a distinct, potentially centralized component of the "computer-based system," whereas the complaint's evidence describes the PPSE as a data structure on the client device (Compl. p. 25).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely question which entity performs the "locating" step. The claim recites that the "payment system directory locates a candidate payment system." However, the complaint's own supporting document indicates that the POS terminal's "Entry Point compares the ADF Names and Kernel Identifiers" from the card's directory with its own supported systems to make a choice (Compl. p. 25), suggesting the POS terminal, not the directory itself, performs the "locating" function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "intelligent token" (’671 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’671 Patent identifies a consumer's mobile device (e.g., a smartphone running Google Pay) as the "intelligent token" (Compl. ¶37). The construction of this term is critical because it will determine whether standard mobile devices fall within the scope of the claims or if the term is limited to more specialized hardware, such as a smartcard with a dedicated cryptographic processor.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to an "intelligent instrument," which could suggest any device with processing capabilities sufficient to generate a "challenge response," potentially including a general-purpose mobile device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description or specific embodiments may describe the "intelligent token" primarily in the context of a smartcard or a secure element, which could support a narrower construction limited to devices with specific security hardware.

  • The Term: "payment system directory" (’509 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory rests on the Proximity Payment System Environment (PPSE) within an EMV-compliant application qualifying as the "payment system directory" (Compl. ¶43). The definition of this term will determine whether a client-side data list meets the claim limitation or if a more centralized, server-side directory is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may describe the directory in general terms as a mechanism that provides information about "a plurality of candidate payment systems" (’509 Patent, claim 1), which could arguably read on the function of the PPSE as described in the complaint (Compl. p. 25).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification may describe the "payment system directory" as a component that actively "communicates with said computer-based system" and "locates" a payment system (’509 Patent, claim 1). This could imply an active, server-side entity rather than the passive data file on a consumer device that the PPSE appears to be.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each of the seven asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations state that Defendants took affirmative steps with the intent to cause infringement by customers and partners, citing activities such as creating advertisements promoting the accused services, adopting the EMV standards, providing payment applications to third-party mobile wallet providers (e.g., Google, Samsung), and distributing instructions and manuals through their websites (Compl. ¶¶83, 98, 113, 128, 142, 156, 169).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all seven patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from a notice letter dated March 30, 2021, and subsequent access provided on May 3, 2021, and August 1, 2021, to a data room containing claim charts detailing the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶81, 84, 96, 99, 111, 114, 126, 129, 140, 143, 154, 157, 167, 170).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the patents' specific disclosures, such as "intelligent token" and "payment system directory," be construed broadly enough to read on the components and functions of the standardized, industry-wide EMV architecture for contactless and mobile payments that form the basis of the accused services?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: do the accused processes, which are based on the EMV specification, perform the exact sequence of steps recited in the asserted method claims? For example, in the context of the ’671 patent, are credentials "assembled" in real-time "in response to" a challenge for a given transaction, or are they pre-provisioned during a separate enrollment phase in a manner fundamentally different from the claimed method?
  • A third pivotal question will relate to claim element attribution: for system and method claims that require different components to perform specific actions, does the evidence show the correct component performing the claimed action? The dispute over the ’509 patent, for instance, may focus on whether the "payment system directory" itself performs the "locating" step, or if that function is carried out by a separate entity (the POS terminal), potentially avoiding infringement.