DCT

2:25-cv-01017

FinTegrity LLC v. Bank Of America Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-1017, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for authorizing financial transactions by comparing transaction data with user data obtained from third-party sources.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves enhancing financial fraud detection by leveraging dynamic, real-time user data, such as location or preferences shared on social media, to verify transactions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-15 ’117 Patent Priority Date
2013-08-09 ’117 Patent Application Filing Date
2014-01-21 ’117 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that traditional fraud detection systems 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. 1:30-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that authorizes a financial transaction by retrieving transaction data (e.g., merchant location, purchase category) and comparing it against "user-data" retrieved from a third-party source, such as a social media network (’117 Patent, Abstract). This allows the system to use dynamic, real-time information like a user's check-ins, calendar events, or stated merchant preferences ("Likes") to confirm the user's identity and intent with greater accuracy (’117 Patent, col. 6:14-20; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The approach aims to shift fraud detection from a reliance on static historical data and complex predictive algorithms to a model that incorporates dynamic, user-generated, real-time data to improve accuracy and reduce computational expense (’117 Patent, col. 5:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • While the complaint refers to "Exemplary '117 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit, analysis of the patent indicates Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim (Compl. ¶11).
  • 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;
    • comparing... said transaction-data to said user-data to generate (i) an authorization flag or (ii) a denial flag; and
    • communicating... the generated... 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities, as this information is allegedly contained within Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’117 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It incorporates by reference claim charts, designated as Exhibit 2, which were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶17). The narrative alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling these products, and also through internal employee testing (Compl. ¶11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be identifying the specific accused products and establishing what evidence, if any, demonstrates that they perform the claimed steps. The central question is whether Defendant's systems retrieve "user-data" from a "third-party information source" and compare it with transaction data as required by the claims.
    • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be whether the data sources used by Defendant, if any, for fraud detection qualify as a "third-party information source" within the meaning of the claims, which are described in the patent with a heavy emphasis on social media networks (’117 Patent, col. 4:32-39). The analysis may question whether conventional data sources, such as credit bureaus or internal transaction histories, meet this claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "third-party information source" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis. The case may turn on whether the data sources used by the accused products fall within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification repeatedly uses "Social Media Network" as the primary example, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction (’117 Patent, col. 2:1-3, col. 4:32-39).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the source 106 "represents one or more third-party websites, networks, applications and/or databases," which may support a construction not limited to social media platforms (’117 Patent, col. 6:66-7:2).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description is heavily focused on social media, defining terms like "Check-In" and "Like" and explaining how data from networks like Facebook and Foursquare can be used (’117 Patent, col. 4:32-65, col. 8:1-10). This context may support an interpretation limited to sources providing similar, user-generated, real-time lifestyle data.

  • The Term: "user-data" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Infringement will depend on whether the information Defendant's systems retrieve and use for comparison qualifies as "user-data" as claimed. The dispute may center on whether the data must be dynamic and user-generated, as opposed to static or institutionally generated data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is defined in the summary of the invention to include a list of categories such as "approved merchants, a shared Location, a user behavior, or a calendar event" (’117 Patent, col. 2:6-8). This list could be argued as illustrative rather than exhaustive.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes the value of "real-time" and "dynamic" user data that reflects a user's present or future activities, contrasting it with the "limited and/or static" data used by prior art systems (’117 Patent, col. 5:17-30). This could support a construction requiring the "user-data" to be of a similarly dynamic and real-time nature.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’117 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts constitutes actual knowledge, and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

Given the limited factual detail in the complaint, the initial phase of the case will likely concentrate on clarifying the fundamental allegations and the scope of the asserted patent.

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary basis: What specific Bank of America products are accused of infringement, and what factual evidence supports the allegation that these products perform the claimed method of retrieving and comparing transaction data against "user-data" from a "third-party information source"?
  • A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "third-party information source," which is heavily contextualized in the patent by social media examples, be construed to cover the types of data sources potentially used in modern banking fraud detection systems?
  • Finally, a key technical question will concern functional operation: Assuming the accused products do perform some data comparison for fraud analysis, does the technical mechanism of that comparison align with the specific steps required by the asserted claims, particularly the generation and communication of a binary "authorization flag" or "denial flag"?