FinTegrity LLC v. Comerica Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FinTegrity LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Comerica Bank (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01019, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s banking products and services, particularly its transaction authorization systems, infringe a patent related to using third-party data for consumer fraud protection.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for augmenting financial transaction security by comparing transaction details against user data obtained from external sources, such as social media networks, to verify user identity and activity in real-time.
• 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, issued January 21, 2014 (’117 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies deficiencies in existing financial fraud detection systems, describing them as computationally complex, expensive, slow, and reliant on static data, leading to both false positives (incorrectly flagging legitimate transactions) and false negatives (failing to detect fraudulent ones) because they lack access to a user's real-time data (’117 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that authorizes or denies a financial transaction by comparing data from the transaction (e.g., merchant name, location) with "user-data" retrieved from a "third-party information source," such as a social media network (’117 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-64). For instance, if a credit card transaction occurs in Chicago, the system could check a user's social media profile for a recent "Check-In" or calendar event in Chicago to corroborate the transaction's legitimacy, thereby improving accuracy and reducing reliance on traditional heuristics (’117 Patent, col. 5:62-6:5).
• Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to leverage the growing volume of dynamic, real-time user activity data generated on social networks to make fraud detection more accurate and responsive than methods relying on historical or static consumer profiles (’117 Patent, col. 5:29-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core process.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A computer-implemented process for authorizing financial transactions comprising the steps of:
  • retrieving, by one or more computers, transaction-data associated with a financial transaction from a non-transitory storage device associated with a financial institution's server over a communication network...;
  • retrieving, by the one or more computers, user-data from a non-transitory storage device associated with a third-party information source...;
  • comparing, by the one or more computers, said transaction-data to said user-data to generate (i) an authorization flag or (ii) a denial flag...; and
  • communicating, by the one or more computers, (i) the generated denial flag or (ii) the generated authorization flag to said financial institution's server over a communication network...
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" listed in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided, the specific products are not identified in the complaint itself. Given the defendant is Comerica Bank, the accused instrumentalities are presumably its systems and methods for authorizing financial transactions.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '117 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain substantive factual allegations of infringement within its main body. Instead, it states that Exhibit 2, which was not provided, "includes charts comparing the Exemplary '117 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these charts demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '117 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint incorporates these missing charts by reference to form the basis of its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶17). Without this exhibit, the precise theory of how the accused Comerica Bank products are alleged to meet each claim limitation is not detailed in the provided documents. The narrative theory is that Comerica Bank makes, uses, sells, and/or imports products that practice the patented method of fraud detection (Compl. ¶11).

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 patent's scope. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any external data provider a bank might consult, or narrowly to cover only the specific types of sources emphasized in the patent, like social media.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to social media. A party could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning encompasses any information provider that is not the user or the financial institution.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently equates the "third-party information source" with a "Social Media Network" (’117 Patent, col. 2:1-3; col. 3:36-39). The abstract and detailed description are replete with examples tied to social media activity like "Check-Ins," "Likes," and calendar events, suggesting the invention is focused on this specific context (’117 Patent, col. 8:13-20; col. 12:53-56).

• The Term: "user-data" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the type of information retrieved from the third-party source for comparison. The viability of the infringement claim may hinge on whether the data Comerica Bank uses in its fraud systems qualifies as "user-data" under the patent's definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. Claim 3 provides a broad list, including "data representing attributes descriptive of approved merchants, unapproved merchants, locations, user behaviors, or calendar events," which could cover a wide range of information (’117 Patent, col. 14:65-col. 15:1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples focus heavily on user-volunteered, dynamic data reflecting real-time activities and preferences (e.g., a user "Likes" a merchant or "Checks-In" to a location) (’117 Patent, col. 9:8-15). A party might argue that "user-data" is limited to this type of actively generated social information, as distinguished from more static, passively collected data from traditional credit bureaus or databases.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that since the date of service of the complaint, Defendant has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" by selling products to customers for infringing use (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges inducement through the distribution of "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the word "willful." However, it alleges that service of the complaint provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's subsequent infringing activities are knowing and intentional, which could form the basis for a post-suit willfulness claim (Compl. ¶13-15). The prayer for relief also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief, E.i).

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

• A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for lack of specificity, can the Plaintiff produce evidence that Comerica Bank’s fraud-detection systems actually retrieve and compare data from a "third-party information source" in the specific manner required by the claims, or do they rely on different, non-infringing methods?
• A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: Is the term "third-party information source," as used in the patent, limited to the social media context heavily emphasized in the specification, or can it be construed more broadly to cover more conventional, non-social data sources that financial institutions have traditionally used for fraud analysis? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
• A key procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: Does the complaint’s complete reliance on an external, unprovided exhibit to articulate its infringement theory meet the federal pleading standards, or is it vulnerable to an early motion to dismiss for failing to provide adequate notice of the factual basis for its claims?