DCT

2:25-cv-01021

FinTegrity LLC v. Threatmark SRO

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01021, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in the district because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed fraud protection products infringe a patent related to authorizing financial transactions using data from third-party sources like social media networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of financial fraud detection by leveraging dynamic, user-generated data from external sources to improve the accuracy of transaction verification.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any significant prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,635,117 Priority Date
2013-08-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,635,117 Application Filing Date
2014-01-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,635,117 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 ("the ’117 Patent"), titled "System and method for consumer fraud protection," issued on January 21, 2014. (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of existing financial fraud detection systems, noting that they rely on "computationally complex heuristics and expensive computer systems" that are often slow and inaccurate, leading to both false positives (incorrectly flagging legitimate transactions) and false negatives (failing to detect fraud). (’117 Patent, col. 1:29-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that authenticates a financial transaction by comparing data from the transaction itself (e.g., merchant name, location) against "user-data" retrieved in real-time from a "third-party information source," such as a social media network. (’117 Patent, Abstract). For example, if a credit card is used in Chicago, the system can query a user's social media profile to see if they have recently "checked-in" or posted from a Chicago location, thereby confirming the user's identity with a "greater degree of accuracy." (’117 Patent, col. 5:61-64; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to leverage the increasing volume of dynamic, real-time data voluntarily shared by users on third-party platforms to augment or replace traditional fraud detection algorithms that rely on more static, historical data. (’117 Patent, col. 5:29-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’117 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '117 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a process with the essential elements 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 describes attributes of either an authorized or an unauthorized transaction.
    • Comparing the transaction-data to the user-data to generate either an "authorization flag" or a "denial flag."
    • Communicating the generated flag back to the financial institution's server to either authorize or deny the transaction. (’117 Patent, col. 14:26-62).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional dependent or independent claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It asserts in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '117 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '117 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the public complaint. (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint's narrative theory is that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and/or imports products that practice the claimed invention. (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Given the limited information, any infringement analysis will raise fundamental questions of evidence and claim scope.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether Defendant's technology, which likely involves complex risk scoring, can be said to perform the specific "comparing" and "generating" of a "flag" as recited in the claims. A central question will be whether the patent's heavy focus on "Social Media Networks" limits the scope of the broader term "third-party information source." (’117 Patent, col. 4:31-39).
    • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be what specific "user-data" the accused products retrieve and from what "third-party information source." Plaintiff will bear the burden of proving that the accused system performs the specific comparison recited in the claims, rather than a more generalized risk analysis that incorporates data from multiple sources in a manner distinct from the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "third-party information source" (’117 Patent, col. 14:40)

    • Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical to defining the boundaries of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the claims are limited to the social media context heavily emphasized in the patent's description or if they can read on a wider array of external data providers used in modern fraud detection.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "third-party information source." Dependent claim 2 narrows this term to "a social media network," which suggests under the doctrine of claim differentiation that the independent claim's term is intended to be broader. (’117 Patent, col. 14:66-68).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's background, summary, and detailed description sections repeatedly and consistently refer to "social media data" and "Social Media Networks" as the solution to the stated problem, providing numerous examples like Facebook and Foursquare. (’117 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:49-51; col. 4:31-39).

  • The Term: "comparing... to generate (i) an authorization flag or (ii) a denial flag" (’117 Patent, col. 14:47-49)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core decision-making logic of the claimed process. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern fraud systems often generate a probabilistic risk score rather than a binary "allow/deny" flag, raising the question of whether such a score meets this claim element.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various modules that compare different types of data (e.g., location, behavior, merchant preference), which could support an argument that the "comparing" step is a flexible process not tied to a single, rigid algorithm. (’117 Patent, Figs. 4-7).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "flag" implies a discrete, binary-like signal. The patent's flowcharts consistently depict decision points that lead directly to one of two outcomes: "Allow Transaction" or "Block Transaction," which supports a construction requiring a dispositive output rather than an intermediate risk score. (’117 Patent, Fig. 4, steps 412, 414).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers and end users to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’117 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement. (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement has continued post-filing, which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶14).

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

The resolution of this dispute, based on the initial complaint, appears to turn on two central issues for the court:

  • A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff, through discovery, demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific, sequential steps recited in the patent claims, particularly the generation of a discrete "authorization flag or... denial flag," as the complaint currently lacks any specific factual allegations on this point?
  • A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "third-party information source," rooted in the patent's detailed description of social media platforms, be construed broadly enough to cover the types of external data sources potentially used by the defendant's modern fraud-detection systems?