Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Vizio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Vizio, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00791, N.D. Tex., 06/28/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for content delivery infringe patents related to methods and systems for brokering data between a wireless device and a separate data rendering device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses coordinating the display of content, such as video, from a user's handheld wireless device (e.g., a smartphone) onto a fixed, network-connected rendering device (e.g., a smart TV or printer).
• Key Procedural History: The currently operative First Amended Complaint was filed following a motion to dismiss a prior complaint. U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299 is subject to a Certificate of Correction, issued February 23, 2016, which amended the preamble of asserted independent claim 3.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	Priority Date for '299 and '285 Patents
2015-09-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299 Issued
2016-02-23	Certificate of Correction for U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299 Issued
2017-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Issued
2023-06-28	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299 - "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299, "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices," issued September 29, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical environment, circa 2000, where users of handheld wireless devices were "restricted... by small device-based viewers" and "limited GUI functionality," lacking convenient methods to render data on more capable, but separate, output devices ('299 Patent, col. 4:26-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses methods for "data brokering" where a user's wireless device (WD) can request a network to locate a nearby data rendering device (DRD), such as a printer or multimedia projector. The user can then select a DRD and direct the network to transfer data to it for rendering, a process that can be secured with a passcode ('299 Patent, col. 4:40-54, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to satisfy a growing user desire for "portability" and "information on the go" by bridging the functional gap between mobile devices and fixed, high-quality output hardware ('299 Patent, col. 4:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 3, along with dependent claims 2 and 4-6 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method for brokering video data comprising the steps of:
  • Receiving a request from a wireless device (WD) at a network to locate a data rendering device (DRD), such as a video monitor or projector, where the request includes WD location information.
  • The network identifying the physical location and capabilities of a DRD based on the WD location.
  • The network providing the WD with location information for an accessible DRD.
  • Receiving the WD's selection of a DRD via entry of an "authorization code" at a user interface, which triggers the DRD to retrieve and render the selected video data.
• Independent Claim 3 recites a method for brokering data comprising the steps of:
  • Receiving a request from a WD at a network resource to locate a DRD.
  • The network resource determining the WD's geographic location (using GPS, network ID, or triangulation) and identifying a DRD based on that location.
  • The network resource providing the WD with information about a publicly accessible DRD.
  • Receiving the WD's selection of a DRD and data for rendering.
  • Providing the selected video data to the DRD after an authorization code is verified.

U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 - "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices"

• 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Stemming from the same specification as the '299 patent, this patent addresses the same challenge of enabling users of limited-capability wireless devices to access and use powerful, networked rendering hardware ('285 Patent, col. 4:36-48).
• The Patented Solution: The '285 patent claims a system, rather than a method, for data brokering. The system is centered on a server that communicates with DRDs. The server is configured to store data and passcodes and to facilitate the selection of a DRD by a WD, enabling the secure rendering of data on that selected DRD ('285 Patent, col. 13:30-14:55).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides the system-level architecture for implementing the data brokering methods described in the family, focusing on the role of a central server in managing the interaction ('285 Patent, col. 4:49-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, and 9, along with dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-13 (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising a server and memory, where the server is configured to receive data and an associated passcode and render the data on a registered DRD only after a matching passcode is entered on the DRD's user interface.
• Independent Claim 5 recites a system where a server is configured to enable a WD to select a DRD from among multiple registered DRDs and then render data on the selected DRD after passcode verification.
• Independent Claim 9 recites a system where a server is configured to receive a "DRD locator request" from a WD, find a nearby DRD, and enable the WD to select it for rendering after passcode verification.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly accuses "systems, products, and services that performs a method that infringes" the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). It does not name a specific Vizio product, service, or feature, such as Vizio SmartCast.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused instrumentalities. The allegations are framed in general terms, asserting that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems without describing how those systems operate (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D) that were not provided. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'299 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems and services perform a method infringing claims 1-6 of the '299 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The implicit theory is that Vizio's infrastructure functions as the claimed "wireless data communication network." This network allegedly receives requests from a user's wireless device (e.g., a smartphone) to display content on a data rendering device (a Vizio smart TV). The complaint suggests this process involves locating the TV and brokering the transfer of video data to it for display (Compl. ¶7-8). The pleading does not, however, contain specific factual allegations that map particular Vizio features to the elements of the asserted claims.

'285 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems and services constitute an infringing system under claims 1-13 of the '285 Patent (Compl. ¶13). The implied theory is that Vizio's servers and back-end infrastructure create the claimed system. This system allegedly registers Vizio TVs as DRDs, receives selection commands from users' wireless devices, and manages the rendering of data on the selected TV, purportedly using an authentication mechanism as claimed (Compl. ¶12-13). As with the '299 patent, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations supporting this theory.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Sufficiency: A primary point of contention will likely be the sufficiency of the complaint itself. The pleading contains general allegations of infringement without identifying specific accused products or mapping their features to the claim elements. This raises the question of whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleadings.
• Scope Question ('299 Patent): A significant issue for claim 3 of the '299 patent is an apparent internal inconsistency. The Certificate of Correction amended the claim's preamble to cover brokering "data" generally, but a limitation in the claim body still requires "providing said video data." This raises the question of whether the claim is limited to video, or if the inconsistency could give rise to a defense of indefiniteness.
• Technical Question ('285 Patent): The independent claims of the '285 patent all require a "passcode" or "authorization code" to be entered or verified for rendering to occur. A key factual question will be whether the accused Vizio systems employ a user-facing passcode or authentication step that meets these claim limitations, as opposed to a more seamless, automatic network handshake.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the '299 Patent:

  • The Term: "authorization code" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 requires the "entry of authorization code at a user interface." The construction of this term will be critical to determining if the authentication methods used in the accused Vizio systems, if any, fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can be interpreted broadly, stating that "Passcode capabilities can include the use of passwords/passcodes, biometrics and/or communications security (COMSEC)" ('299 Patent, col. 5:22-24).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict a specific, discrete user action, "Enter Passcode at DRD" (e.g., '299 Patent, Fig. 8, element 83), which could support a narrower construction limited to a manually entered code rather than any generic security credential.

• For the '285 Patent:

  • The Term: "server... registered with said server" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This phrasing appears in the description of the claimed system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its reflexive nature could be a basis for an indefiniteness argument or a non-infringement position if the accused system does not have a "server" that is "registered with" itself.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this term should be read in the context of the overall disclosure, which describes networks with Home Location Registers (HLRs) that maintain information about network devices ('285 Patent, col. 7:30-36). This might support an interpretation where "registered with said server" simply means the server maintains a database of associated DRDs.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a plain meaning construction, suggesting the language is nonsensical or requires a specific registration protocol that is not defined in the patent, thereby limiting the claim to the disclosed embodiments or rendering it indefinite.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges only "direct infringement" and does not plead specific facts to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts to support it, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief includes a request to "declare this case to be 'exceptional' under 35 U.S.C. § 285," but the factual basis for such a finding is not developed in the body of the complaint (Compl. p.5, ¶d).

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

• A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: do the complaint's generalized infringement allegations, which lack identification of specific products and detailed feature mapping, satisfy the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?
• A central claim construction issue will be one of definitional consistency: for claim 3 of the '299 patent, how will the court resolve the conflict between the corrected preamble covering "data" and the claim body's limitation requiring the provision of "video data"? This may determine the claim's scope or its validity.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: do the accused Vizio systems actually utilize a "passcode" or "authorization code" as recited in all asserted independent claims of the '285 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed security mechanism and the accused system's operation?