Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Epson America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Epson America, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00308, E.D. Tex., 06/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a "regular and established place of business" in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to brokering data between wireless devices and data rendering devices like printers or projectors.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for securely sending data from a wireless device (like an early smartphone or PDA) to a networked output device (like a printer) by first locating the device and then using a passcode to authorize the data rendering.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2000. The patent itself is the result of a long chain of continuation applications, a factor that may be relevant to claim interpretation and the evolution of the claimed technology over time. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	'285 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/214,339)
2017-01-17	'285 Patent Issue Date
2023-06-26	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 - "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices," issued January 17, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem from the early 2000s where users of handheld wireless devices (WDs) were "severely limited" in their ability to use retrieved data due to small screens and the lack of convenient resources for printing or displaying that data (’285 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to bridge this gap. A user with a wireless device can locate a nearby "data rendering device" (DRD), such as a networked printer or projector, through a network server (’285 Patent, col. 7:17-43). The system allows the user to send data to the selected DRD and requires the entry of a passcode at the DRD's user interface to authorize the final printing or displaying of the data, providing a layer of security (’285 Patent, col. 10:43-58). The system architecture involves three key components: the wireless device, a network server managing the DRDs, and the DRD itself (’285 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide "portability" and "information on the go" by creating a method for wireless device users to securely access and utilize otherwise inconveniently located output devices like networked printers (’285 Patent, col. 4:48-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9). The independent claims are 1, 5, and 9.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system for rendering data, comprising:
  • A server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD) that has a user interface for receiving passcodes.
  • The DRD is registered with the server to receive data at the request of a wireless device (WD).
  • A memory in the server for storing data and a passcode associated with the WD.
  • The server is configured to send the data and passcode to the DRD, which renders the data only after a matching passcode is entered on its user interface.
• Independent Claim 5 recites a similar system, but adds the limitation that the server is configured to enable the DRD to be selected by the WD from "more than one DRD registered with said server."
• Independent Claim 9 recites a system where the server is configured to receive a "DRD locator request" from a WD and, in response, find a DRD that is "located near the WD" to enable selection by the user.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its allegation against claims 1-13 is broad (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused Epson product, service, or method by name (Compl. ¶9). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services" that Epson "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges that the infringing instrumentalities involve the "use and management of data retrieved over wireless networks" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint states that further support for the infringement allegations can be found in a chart attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit that is not provided with the court filing (Compl. ¶10). The body of the complaint contains only a conclusory allegation that Defendant's unspecified products and services perform a method infringing claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9). Without the referenced claim chart or more specific factual allegations, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question for discovery will be to identify the specific Epson products, software, and network architectures that Plaintiff accuses. Once identified, a key technical question will be whether the accused Epson systems operate in the manner required by the claims, specifically regarding the three-part architecture of a WD, a central server, and a DRD, and the use of a passcode entered at the DRD to release a print/display job.
• Scope Questions: The initial proceedings will likely focus on the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations under federal pleading standards, given the lack of detail identifying the accused instrumentalities.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "passcode associated with said WD" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the security aspect of the invention. Its construction will determine how tightly linked the passcode must be to the specific wireless device. The dispute will likely center on whether this requires a technical association (e.g., a token or secret stored on the device) or merely a user-level association (e.g., a password known by the user of the device).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. The general description of a user providing passcode information through the DRD's user interface or a WD could suggest the association is with the user, not the hardware itself (’285 Patent, col. 10:48-53).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "passcode associated with said WD" links the passcode to the device, not the user. The specification also discusses storing "passcode-related tools" in the DRD's memory and "passcode information" in the WD's memory, which could support a requirement for a more direct technical link between the code and the device hardware or software (’285 Patent, col. 8:41-43; col. 9:28-30).

The Term: "DRD locator request" (Claim 9)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for Claim 9. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether standard "find printer" functionalities in modern operating systems or applications fall within the claim. The question is whether any request that results in finding a DRD qualifies, or if it must be a specific type of request as contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a user "can request network assistance in identifying the location and/or capabilities of a DRD," which is broad language (’285 Patent, col. 11:50-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes this request in the context of a server-centric system where the server uses the WD's location (e.g., from GPS) and a user profile to find a suitable DRD (’285 Patent, col. 12:9-15). This could be used to argue that a simple network broadcast to find available printers does not constitute a "DRD locator request" to a server as claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers)" on how to use its products in a way that infringes (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the '285 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" as the basis for willfulness (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). Plaintiff explicitly "reserves the right to amend and add inducement pre-suit if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge" (Compl. p. 4, fns. 2, 3).

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

1. Evidentiary Specificity: The immediate and most critical question is one of factual pleading: which specific Epson products, software architectures, and services are accused of infringement? The current complaint lacks this detail, making it a likely subject of early motion practice and a necessary precursor to any substantive analysis.

2. Definitional Scope: A core substantive issue will be one of claim construction: can key terms from a patent with a 2000 priority date, such as "data rendering device (DRD)" registered with a server and a "passcode associated with said WD", be construed to read on the functionality of modern, distributed printing and display ecosystems, or are they limited to the more centralized, purpose-built architecture described in the patent?

3. System-Level Infringement: A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Epson's accused offerings constitute the complete, three-part "system" recited in the claims, which requires a specific interaction between a user's wireless device, a distinct network "server", and the Epson "DRD"? Proving that Epson makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell the entire claimed system, or is liable for its operation, will be central to the infringement case.