Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. IKEA US Retail LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: IKEA US Retail LLC (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: [Not specified in complaint]
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00074, E.D. Tex., 01/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infrastructure, including pages related to mobile applications and store locations, infringes a patent related to systems for brokering data between a user's wireless device and a separate data rendering device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for a mobile user to locate and securely send data (such as documents or video) to a networked output device, like a printer or display, for rendering.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, but alleges these licenses did not pertain to the production of a patented article and therefore do not trigger patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

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"

• 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 (’285 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention (priority date of June 2000), users of handheld wireless devices faced significant limitations in their ability to render data. Solutions for printing documents or displaying video from mobile devices on networked printers or displays were described as "severely limited, or practically nonexistent" (’285 Patent, col. 4:39-42).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system to solve this problem by "brokering" data between a wireless device (WD), a network server, and a data rendering device (DRD) like a printer or projector (Compl. ¶7). A user with a WD can request the location of a nearby DRD from a server. The server can then facilitate the transfer of data to the selected DRD for rendering, with security managed through passcodes that can be entered at the DRD itself to authorize the process (’285 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:17-31). This architecture allows a mobile user to securely access and use output devices that are not directly connected to their own device.
• Technical Importance: The invention addresses the challenge of making mobile data useful by providing a method to bridge the gap between portable, data-enabled devices and stationary, high-quality output devices in a secure and user-friendly manner (’285 Patent, col. 4:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 are asserted. The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:

• A system comprising a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD), where the DRD is registered with the server.
• The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
• A memory in the server for securely storing data and an associated passcode received on behalf of a wireless device (WD).
• The server is configured to receive the data and passcode, and to cause the DRD to render the data only after a passcode matching the stored passcode is entered at the DRD's user interface.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-13 encompasses them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Defendant's websites Ikea.com," with specific examples being pages related to mobile apps and a store locator for its Frisco, TX location (Compl. ¶10). The complaint more broadly accuses "systems, products, and services that infringe" which Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused websites are "used by Defendant's customers" (Compl. ¶10). However, it does not provide specific details on how these websites or the underlying systems function to broker data between a customer's wireless device and a data rendering device in a manner that allegedly practices the claims. The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes "vicariously by profiting from its customers use of the various Defendant's website" (Compl. ¶10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶9). The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant directly infringes by operating systems that embody the claimed invention and that this infringement is tied to the use of its websites by customers (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). Without the claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the allegations is not possible based on the complaint alone.

• Identified Points of Contention: The high-level allegations, when compared to the specific language of the ’285 Patent’s claims, suggest several potential points of contention.
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused "systems" and "websites" (Compl. ¶8, ¶10) operate in the manner claimed. For example, what component of IKEA's infrastructure constitutes the claimed "data rendering device (DRD)"? And does the system allow a user's wireless device to locate and select a specific DRD as described in the patent (’285 Patent, col. 6:29-37)?
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will likely concern the "passcode" limitation. Claim 1 requires a passcode to be "entered at the user interface" of the DRD to authorize rendering (’285 Patent, col. 14:1-4). The complaint does not allege facts explaining how a customer using the IKEA website would enter a passcode at a printer or other rendering device to complete an action initiated on the website.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the scope of the claims. The infringement case may depend on whether a device like a customer's personal home printer, which might receive data originating from the IKEA website, qualifies as a "DRD" under the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides examples of DRDs including "networked printers" and "video monitors" (’285 Patent, col. 4:66-67), which could be interpreted broadly to include common consumer devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes DRDs as devices that a user can "locate" via the system, and as being potentially "publically available or private" resources within an enterprise or community (’285 Patent, col. 5:6-14). This context, along with examples like "Internet Kiosks" and "automatic teller machines (ATMs)" (’285 Patent, col. 14:18-20), may support a narrower construction limited to devices that are part of the claimed system's network and discoverable by a user, rather than any arbitrary end-user device.

• The Term: "passcode associated with said WD being entered at the user interface" [of the DRD]

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines a critical security and authorization step in the claimed method. Infringement requires showing that the accused IKEA system performs this specific action. Practitioners may focus on this term because there is a potential mismatch between the claim language, which requires passcode entry at the rendering device, and the common operation of a website, where authentication typically occurs on the user's own device (the WD).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may dispute what constitutes a "user interface" of the DRD and what it means for a passcode to be "entered at" it. A party advocating for infringement could argue this covers any form of logical association or authorization signal received by the DRD.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart figures explicitly depict a step where a user must "Enter Passcode at DRD" (’285 Patent, Fig. 8, element 83). This, combined with the plain language of the claim, suggests a direct interaction with the rendering device itself to authorize the data transfer or rendering, which may support a narrower and more literal interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that "Defendant's acts complained of herein caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" and that Defendant infringes "vicariously by profiting from its customers use" (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). These allegations may be intended to support a theory of induced infringement or direct infringement under a theory of control over its customers' actions.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff requests a declaration that Defendant’s "pre-lawsuit infringement" was willful (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶d). The complaint itself, however, does not plead any specific facts to support an allegation that Defendant had knowledge of the ’285 Patent prior to the lawsuit being filed.

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

Based on the initial complaint and the patent-in-suit, the dispute appears to center on fundamental questions of technical operation and claim scope.

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused IKEA website infrastructure actually perform the specific steps recited in the asserted claims, most notably the requirement that a user enters a passcode at the data rendering device to authorize the rendering of data? The complaint lacks the factual detail to establish this crucial link.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "data rendering device," which the patent describes in the context of locatable, networked resources like kiosks and office projectors, be construed to cover the private home printers or personal computers of Defendant’s customers interacting with its commercial website? The viability of the infringement case may hinge on the court's construction of this and other key terms.