Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. NCR Voyix Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: NCR Voyix Corporation (Maryland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00745, E.D. Tex., 09/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to methods for brokering data between a wireless device and a networked data rendering device, such as a printer or display.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow a user of a mobile wireless device to locate, select, and securely send data to a separate device (e.g., a public printer or conference room projector) for rendering.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities and makes preemptive arguments regarding its compliance with the patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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 technological landscape, as of its June 2000 priority date, where users of handheld wireless devices faced significant challenges in rendering data, such as documents or images. It states that solutions for rendering data from these devices were "severely limited, or practically nonexistent" due to small device screens, limited graphical user interface (GUI) functionality, and the difficulty of accessing printing or display resources. (’285 Patent, col. 4:35-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked system to solve this problem. A user with a wireless device (WD) can locate and request data rendering from a separate "data rendering device" (DRD), such as a networked printer or multimedia projector (’285 Patent, col. 1:40-45). A central server manages the interaction, storing the data and a security "passcode" associated with the WD. The data is only rendered by the DRD after the passcode is entered at the DRD’s user interface, providing a secure method for a mobile user to access a shared, potentially public, rendering device. (’285 Patent, col. 5:40-44; Fig. 11).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aimed to bridge the gap between early-generation mobile computing and shared peripheral hardware, enabling a "portability" and "information on the go" experience that was not yet common. (’285 Patent, col. 4:49-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13, which include independent claims 1, 5, and 9. (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • A server in communication with a data rendering device (DRD) that has a user interface for receiving passcodes.
  • Memory in the server for "securely storing data received by or on behalf of" a wireless device (WD) and a "passcode associated with said WD."
  • The server is configured to send the data and passcode to the DRD, which renders the data only "after at least one passcode is entered on said user interface that matches said passcode."
• Independent Claim 5 adds a selection element, requiring the server to be configured to:
  • Enable a DRD to be "selected through a wireless communications network by the WD from more than one DRD registered with said server."
• Independent Claim 9 adds a location-based element, requiring the server to be configured to:
  • Receive a "DRD locator request" from a WD.
  • "find at least one DRD from among more than one DRD... that is located near the WD."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services that performs a method that infringes" which are maintained, operated, and administered by the Defendant. (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any specific accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶10). A narrative summary is provided below. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the '285 Patent into service" and that its systems and products perform an infringing method. (Compl. ¶9). Without a specific accused product or a detailed claim chart, it is not possible to analyze the specifics of the infringement theory. The core of the dispute will depend on whether Defendant's unidentified systems utilize a server-based architecture that brokers data between a user's device and a separate rendering device, gated by a passcode entered at the rendering device, as required by the asserted claims of the ’285 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "passcode" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the security aspect of the invention. Its definition will determine what forms of authentication fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification suggests a potentially broad meaning beyond a simple string of characters.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Passcode capabilities can include the use of passwords/passcodes, biometrics and/or communications security (COMSEC)." (’285 Patent, col. 5:42-44). This could support an argument that "passcode" should be construed to cover a range of authentication methods, including biometric data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims consistently refer to the passcode being "entered at the user interface." (’285 Patent, col. 14:3-4). This language, combined with figures illustrating an "Enter Passcode at DRD" step (e.g., Fig. 11, element 113), might support a narrower construction limited to information that is manually entered, potentially excluding certain passive biometric scans.

• The Term: "located near the WD" (Claim 9)

• Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 9 is key to the location-based service aspect of the invention. The construction of "near" will define the geographic or logical proximity required between the user's wireless device and the rendering device.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using network-based location information, including GPS, to find an appropriate DRD, suggesting "near" could mean a broader geographic region. (’285 Patent, col. 12:10-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also contemplates proximity on a much smaller scale, such as being "in close proximity to the DRD (as in the same room)." (’285 Patent, col. 11:44-46). This could support a more restrictive definition of "near" that requires physical immediacy.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as inducement or contributory infringement. It alleges "direct infringement." (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, the prayer for relief requests that the court "declare Defendant's infringement to be willful and treble the damages," which suggests a willfulness claim based at least on post-filing conduct. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

1. Identification of the Accused Instrumentality: A threshold issue for the case will be the identification of the specific NCR Voyix "systems, products, and services" that Plaintiff accuses of infringement, as the complaint currently lacks this specificity.
2. Architectural Congruence: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused systems, once identified, actually implement the specific server-DRD architecture recited in the claims. The case may turn on whether they use a server to store and forward data to a rendering device that is unlocked by a passcode entered at that separate device, or if they operate on a different technical principle.
3. Claim Scope and the Priority Date: A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: how should terms like "passcode" and "located near" be construed in light of a 2000 priority date? The interpretation of these terms will be critical in determining whether modern systems, developed long after the patent's priority date, fall within the scope of the claims.