FinTegrity LLC v. Nice Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FinTegrity LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: NICE Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00294, E.D. Tex., 03/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for authorizing financial transactions by comparing transaction data with user data collected from third-party sources, such as social media networks, to detect fraud.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of financial fraud detection by leveraging real-time, dynamic user data from online platforms to augment or replace traditional, static heuristic analysis.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior U.S. patent application.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,635,117 - System and method for consumer fraud protection

Issued: January 21, 2014. (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art fraud detection methods rely on "computationally complex heuristics and expensive computer systems" that are often slow, data-intensive, and fail to incorporate a user's real-time data, leading to incorrect transaction flagging or missed fraudulent activity. (’117 Patent, col. 1:31-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to authorize or deny a financial transaction by retrieving data about the transaction (e.g., merchant location) and comparing it to "user-data" retrieved from a "third-party information source," such as a social media network. (’117 Patent, Abstract). For instance, the system may link a user's financial account to their social media profile and use information like a recent "Check-In" or calendar event to corroborate a transaction's legitimacy in real-time. (’117 Patent, col. 6:15-30).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve fraud detection by leveraging dynamic, user-generated data to reduce reliance on less effective, static fraud detection models and expensive computing power. (’117 Patent, col. 1:46-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '117 Patent Claims" but does not specify them, instead referring to an external exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.

• Independent Claim 1: A computer-implemented process for authorizing financial transactions, comprising the steps of:
  • retrieving transaction-data associated with a financial transaction from a financial institution's server;
  • retrieving user-data from a third-party information source, where the user-data represents attributes of an authorized or unauthorized financial transaction;
  • comparing the transaction-data to the user-data to generate an authorization flag or a denial flag; and
  • communicating the generated flag to the financial institution's server.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products or services. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in charts provided as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. It alleges in general terms that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '117 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶¶16-17). In the absence of this exhibit, the infringement theory can only be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the ’117 Patent because they "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '117 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). The complaint further alleges that Defendant’s own employees test and use these products, constituting direct infringement. (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any particular product feature to a claim element, a primary question will be whether discovery yields evidence to support the conclusory allegation that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶16).
  • Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products or their functionality, it is an open question what specific technology Defendant employs and whether it operates in the manner required by the claims, particularly concerning the retrieval and comparison of data from a "third-party information source." (’117 Patent, col. 15:36-40).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"third-party information source" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is central to the infringement analysis. The dispute may turn on whether the source of data allegedly used by Defendant’s products qualifies as a "third-party information source" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification provides examples that could support both broad and narrow interpretations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited, stating a fraud protection system "need not be confined to a single third-party network" and can include "Social Media Networks, common interest forums and/or e-mail domains." (’117 Patent, col. 6:6-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract, title, and numerous examples heavily emphasize "Social Media Networks" as the primary embodiment of this source. (’117 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-3; Fig. 1). A party could argue the invention's context limits the term to sources with similar characteristics to social media platforms.

"substantially matches" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term of degree defines the threshold for generating an "authorization flag" versus a "denial flag." Its construction will determine how closely the "transaction-data" must align with the "user-data" to avoid being flagged as potentially fraudulent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification indicates that exact matches are not required. For location data, a match can occur if a transaction is "within a predetermined distance" of the user's location. (’117 Patent, col. 14:38-40). For behavior, a transaction for "any sports-related purchase" could be authorized based on a general "interest in soccer." (’117 Patent, col. 14:65-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide a precise mathematical or logical definition for "substantially," leaving the term open to arguments that a tighter correlation is required than what the plaintiff may allege. The term's meaning is defined by the specific context (e.g., location, merchant type, behavior), which may support a more constrained reading depending on the facts.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness appears to be based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities thereafter are willful. (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's complete reliance on an unprovided exhibit to identify the accused products and map them to the patent claims, a threshold question will be whether the plaintiff can produce specific evidence to substantiate its conclusory allegations of infringement.
• The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: The construction of the claim term "third-party information source" will be critical. The court will need to determine whether this term, heavily exemplified in the patent by consumer social media networks, can be construed to read on the data sources allegedly used by Defendant’s commercial fraud-prevention products.