FinTegrity LLC v. Sum Substance Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FinTegrity LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Sum and Substance Ltd. (UK)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00292, E.D. Tex., 03/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and that it has committed acts of patent infringement and caused harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to using third-party data, such as from social media, to authorize financial transactions and detect fraud.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns financial technology (FinTech), specifically methods for enhancing transaction security by cross-referencing transaction details with a user's real-time data from external sources.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a prior U.S. patent application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,635,117, System and method for consumer fraud protection, issued January 21, 2014 (the “’117 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior methods for detecting credit card fraud relied on "computationally complex heuristics and expensive computer systems" that were often slow and inaccurate, leading to both incorrectly flagged legitimate transactions and missed fraudulent ones. (’117 Patent, col. 1:31-45). These systems also lacked access to a user's "real-time data." (’117 Patent, col. 1:45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system and method to authorize a financial transaction by comparing data from the transaction itself with "user-data" retrieved from a "third-party information source," such as a social media network. (’117 Patent, col. 1:53-65). For example, if a transaction occurs in Chicago, the system can check a user's social media profile for a recent check-in or post from that city to help validate the transaction. (’117 Patent, col. 5:62-col. 6:5). The overall system architecture, showing communication between user terminals, third-party sources, and a central transaction authorization system, is depicted in Figure 1. (’117 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention seeks to improve the speed and accuracy of fraud detection by leveraging dynamic, real-time data voluntarily shared by users on third-party platforms, rather than relying solely on historical transaction patterns or static user profile information. (’117 Patent, col. 6:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, instead referencing charts in an external exhibit. (’117 Patent, ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • retrieving... transaction-data associated with a financial transaction... wherein said transaction-data comprises data representing at least one attribute descriptive of said financial transaction;
  • retrieving... user-data from a... third-party information source, wherein said user-data comprises data representing at least one attribute descriptive of an authorized or unauthorized financial transaction;
  • comparing... said transaction-data to said user-data to generate (i) an authorization flag or (ii) a denial flag; and
  • communicating... the generated denial flag or... authorization flag to said financial institution's server... wherein the financial transaction is authorized when the generated authorization flag is communicated.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details about the functionality or operation of the accused products. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '117 Patent" and that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that induce infringement. (Compl. ¶14, 16). Based on the nature of the patent, these products are presumably related to identity verification or transaction authorization services offered by the Defendant. The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the products' commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not included with the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint provides no narrative summary of these charts, stating only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '117 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). The complaint contains a reference to Defendant's "product literature and website materials," which allegedly direct end users to infringe. (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific infringement allegations in the complaint body, any analysis must anticipate likely areas of dispute based on the patent's claims and the general technology area.
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be what specific "user-data" the accused products retrieve and from what "third-party information source." The case may turn on whether the Defendant's products retrieve data from sources equivalent to the "Social Media Network" emphasized in the patent's specification. (’117 Patent, col. 4:33-39).
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of detail raises the question of how Plaintiff will map the accused products to the abstract claim elements. For example, it is unclear what feature of the accused products allegedly constitutes an "attribute descriptive of an authorized financial transaction" or how the accused system's comparison logic generates the claimed "authorization flag" or "denial flag." (’117 Patent, col. 14:38-50).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "third-party information source"

• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the invention, defining the origin of the "user-data" used for verification. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to the social media context heavily described in the patent or covers a broader range of data providers.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 does not limit the source to social media. The specification states that the source "represents one or more third-party websites, networks, applications and/or databases." (’117 Patent, col. 7:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently uses "Social Media Network" as the primary example and context for the invention. (’117 Patent, col. 2:1-2; col. 4:33-39; Title). A defendant may argue that the invention is defined by this specific context, attempting to limit the claim scope to sources with user-generated, real-time social data.

• The Term: "substantially matches"

• Context and Importance: This term of degree is critical for determining when a comparison between transaction-data and user-data results in an "authorization flag" versus a "denial flag." The outcome of the infringement analysis for this element will depend on how much variance is permitted.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests that an exact match is not required. For location, a match can occur if the transaction location is "within a predetermined distance" of the user-data location. (’117 Patent, col. 16:1-3). For behavior, a purchase for "any sports-related purchase may be authorized based on the end-user's interest in soccer," suggesting a categorical match is sufficient. (’117 Patent, col. 14:65-col. 15:2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses more rigid matching rules, such as checking if a merchant is on a pre-approved "white list" or a blocked "black list." (’117 Patent, col. 9:11-14). This could support an argument that "substantially matches" requires a direct correlation based on pre-defined lists or rules, not just a loose categorical association.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '117 Patent." (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• A foundational issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "third-party information source", which is described extensively in the context of social media networks, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific types of data sources used by the Defendant's modern identity verification products?
• A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unfiled exhibit, a key challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating precisely how the accused products perform the abstract steps of the asserted claims, such as retrieving the specific "user-data" and applying the claimed comparison logic to generate an "authorization flag."
• An initial procedural question may be the sufficiency of the pleadings: The complaint's complete reliance on an external, unfiled document for all substantive infringement allegations raises the question of whether it provides the "short and plain statement" of the claim required by federal rules, potentially prompting a challenge from the Defendant early in the case.