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: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00523, E.D. Tex., 05/13/2025
• 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 allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s websites and associated systems infringe a patent related to systems and methods for brokering data between a wireless device and a separate data rendering device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for a user with a mobile wireless device to locate and securely send data to a networked output device, such as a printer or projector, for rendering.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that those licenses did not involve the production of a patented article and thus do not trigger marking obligations under 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. (Compl. ¶6; ’285 Patent, p. 1)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological environment, circa 2000, where users of handheld wireless devices had growing access to data but faced "severely limited, or practically nonexistent" solutions for rendering that data on external devices like printers or large displays. (’285 Patent, col. 4:39-48)
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture to solve this problem by "brokering" data between a wireless device (WD), a network server, and a data rendering device (DRD). A user with a WD can locate a nearby DRD (e.g., a networked printer or projector), and request that data be transferred from a server to that DRD for output. The system incorporates a security feature where a passcode, potentially entered at the DRD itself, is required to authorize the final rendering of the data. (’285 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:6-14, Fig. 6)
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to enhance user mobility and the utility of early wireless devices by enabling "information on the go" to be easily transferred to and utilized on more capable, stationary output hardware. (’285 Patent, col. 4:50-53)

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-13. (Compl. ¶8) Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 are asserted.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD).
  • The DRD is registered with the server and includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
  • A memory in the server, accessible by the DRD, 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 from its memory and "render" the data at the DRD only after a passcode entered at the DRD's user interface matches the passcode stored in memory. (’285 Patent, col. 13:30-col. 14:1)
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶8)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Defendant's websites Ikea.com," with specific examples given as "ikea.com/us/en/customer-service/mobile-apps" and "ikea.com/us/en/stores/frisco/". (Compl. ¶10) The complaint also broadly refers to infringing "systems, products, and services." (Compl. ¶8)

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific technical functionality of the accused websites that is alleged to infringe. It alleges the websites are used by Defendant's customers and that Defendant "infringes vicariously by profiting from its customers use." (Compl. ¶10) The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused functionality or its market context beyond identifying the URLs.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is contained in a chart attached as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶9) However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The narrative allegations assert that Defendant's systems, including the identified websites, directly infringe claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶8, 10) Without the claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the pleading is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • System Mapping Question: A central issue will be whether the architecture of the accused IKEA websites and their backend systems can be mapped onto the claimed "system." The complaint does not explain what constitutes the "data rendering device (DRD)" with its "user interface for receiving passcodes" within the context of IKEA's retail website infrastructure, raising the question of how the accused instrumentality meets these structural limitations.
  • Functional Question: The complaint does not plead facts explaining how the accused websites perform the core functional steps of the claims, such as receiving a passcode at a DRD to authorize the rendering of data previously stored on a server at the request of a separate wireless device. The analysis will question what evidence exists to show the accused websites perform this specific, secured data-brokering process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: The identity and nature of the DRD is fundamental to the claimed system. The infringement case hinges on whether any component of the accused IKEA system qualifies as a DRD as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad list of examples, stating a DRD includes "data rendering hardware (e.g., printers, copiers, displays, etc.) and multimedia software." (’285 Patent, col. 7:7-9)
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary and detailed description repeatedly frame the DRD as a device separate from the user’s primary computer, such as "networked printers, high definition flat panel television displays, multimedia projectors," and other "undedicated" or publicly accessible hardware. (’285 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:10) This context may support an interpretation that a user's own computer monitor displaying a website is not the intended "DRD."

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

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific security and authorization step. Its construction will be critical, as the complaint provides no facts alleging how or where such a step occurs in the accused system. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish a general website login from the specific two-stage process seemingly described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this language covers any authentication, such as a standard password entry on a webpage that ultimately results in content being displayed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowcharts suggest this is a distinct step performed at the DRD to release already-transferred data for rendering. For instance, Figure 11 depicts "Enter Passcode at DRD" (113) occurring after the "DRD receives data" (112), implying a final, local authorization at the output device itself. (’285 Patent, Fig. 11; col. 12:6-9)

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, though it makes a passing reference to "vicarious" infringement by Defendant profiting from customer use. (Compl. ¶10) The primary allegation is for direct infringement. (Compl. ¶10)
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages based on alleged "pre-lawsuit infringement." (Compl. p. 6, ¶d) The body of the complaint, however, does not plead any specific facts to support that Defendant had knowledge of the ’285 Patent prior to the lawsuit.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does the complaint, and can the subsequent evidence, establish how the components of IKEA's commercial website infrastructure plausibly map onto the patent's claimed three-part system of a "wireless device (WD)," a "server," and a distinct "data rendering device (DRD)"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: What proof will be offered to show that the accused websites perform the specific claimed method, particularly the security step of using a passcode entered at a DRD's user interface to authorize the rendering of data, as opposed to a conventional, single-step user login on a website?
• An initial procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: Given the absence of factual allegations supporting pre-suit knowledge in the complaint's body, the case raises the question of whether the bare-bones allegation of willfulness can survive a motion to dismiss.