DCT

4:24-cv-02176

mCom IP LLC v. BOK Financial Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-02176, S.D. Tex., 09/13/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unified banking systems infringe a patent related to integrating disparate e-banking touch points to provide a personalized customer experience.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of unifying various electronic banking channels, such as ATMs and online portals, through a central server to enable consistent customer personalization and centralized management.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has previously entered into settlement licenses related to its patents. An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2022-00055, filed October 15, 2021, resulted in an April 26, 2023 certificate from the USPTO cancelling numerous claims of the patent-in-suit. This cancellation includes all independent claims from which the dependent claims asserted in this complaint originate, raising fundamental questions about the viability of the infringement allegations as currently pleaded.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-11-14 '508 Patent Priority Date
2014-10-14 '508 Patent Issue Date
2021-10-15 IPR2022-00055 Filed
2023-04-26 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Claims
2024-09-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,862,508 - "System and Method for Unifying E-Banking Touch Points and Providing Personalized Financial Services"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,862,508, "System and Method for Unifying E-Banking Touch Points and Providing Personalized Financial Services," issued October 14, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of conventional electronic banking systems (e.g., ATMs, online banking) existing as "stand-alone systems" ('508 Patent, col. 1:55-57). This fragmentation is described as limiting a financial institution's ability to provide a "personalized e-banking experience" and preventing a "unified means for regulating their systems through a common set of control consoles" ('508 Patent, col. 1:58-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server architecture centered on a "common multi-channel server" that integrates with a financial institution's various e-banking touch points ('508 Patent, col. 2:21-24). This server is designed to unify transactional and customer data from all touch points, allowing the institution to deliver personalized content, advertisements, and an accelerated transaction experience based on a customer's stored profile and habits ('508 Patent, col. 2:24-36; FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide financial institutions with a platform to create a more consistent and customized digital banking ecosystem, moving beyond siloed, purely transactional interactions ('508 Patent, col. 2:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2, 8, 14, and 17 (Compl. ¶6).
  • An Inter Partes Review Certificate (US 8,862,508 K1) indicates that independent claims 1, 7, and 13, from which asserted claims 2, 8, and 17 respectively depend, have been cancelled.
  • Independent Claim 1 (cancelled), on which asserted claim 2 depends, generally recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Providing a "common multi-channel server" connected to multiple, different types of "e-banking touch points" (e.g., ATM, kiosk, website).
    • Receiving an "actionable input" from a touch point.
    • Retrieving previously stored data (including user preferences) associated with the input.
    • Delivering the retrieved data back to the touch point.
    • Storing new "transactional usage data" from the interaction.
    • Monitoring the session in real-time to select and transmit "targeted marketing content."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "systems, products, and services of unified banking systems" (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to describe the specific technical features or operation of the accused instrumentalities. It broadly alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that create a "unified banking system" and thereby infringe the '508 patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶5-6). No specific product names, operational details, or market context are provided. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations can be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶7). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. In its absence, the infringement theory is limited to the general narrative allegations in the complaint.

The core narrative theory is that the Defendant's operation of its "unified banking systems" constitutes direct infringement of one or more of claims 2, 8, 14, and 17 of the '508 Patent (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the '508 Patent into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶6). The allegations are stated at a high level of generality without mapping specific features of the accused systems to the limitations of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Claim Viability: The most significant and potentially dispositive issue is procedural. The complaint asserts infringement of claims 2, 8, 14, and 17. However, an Inter Partes Review Certificate (US 8,862,508 K1) issued prior to the filing of the complaint indicates that the independent claims (1, 7, and 13) from which these dependent claims descend have been cancelled. A threshold question for the court will be whether any asserted claims remain valid and enforceable.
    • Technical Questions: Assuming any claims were found to be valid, a central question would be evidentiary. What evidence exists that Defendant’s systems utilize a "common multi-channel server" architecture to perform the specific steps of retrieving stored data, delivering personalized content, and transmitting real-time marketing content as recited in the claims? The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused systems makes it impossible to frame more detailed technical questions at this stage.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis of claim terms may be moot given the cancellation of the independent claims. However, had the claims survived, the following terms from cancelled independent claim 1 would likely have been central to the dispute.

  • The Term: "common multi-channel server"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core architectural element of the claimed invention. Its construction would determine whether the claims read on a single physical server, a logically unified but physically distributed system, or other cloud-based architectures. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between a centralized physical server and a distributed cloud infrastructure is often a key non-infringement argument in software cases.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the server "integrates with existing channel systems provided by financial institutions, associating and connecting them to a common multi-channel server," which could suggest a logical or functional connection rather than a single physical entity ('508 Patent, col. 2:21-24).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: FIG. 1 depicts a distinct, singular server unit (102) connecting all other components. The specification also refers to providing a "single operational platform" and managing activity from a "single remote location," which may support a more centralized or singular construction ('508 Patent, col. 4:30-32).

  • The Term: "e-banking touch points"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term dictates the types of customer interfaces covered by the claims. The dispute could center on whether modern interfaces like mobile banking apps, which are not explicitly listed, fall within the scope of the term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 provides a non-exhaustive list, stating the touch points "comprise one or more of" various devices, which suggests the list is exemplary, not limiting ('508 Patent, col. 11:55-61).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and exemplary embodiments focus on devices prevalent at the time of invention, such as ATMs, kiosks, and PCs accessing a website ('508 Patent, col. 3:32-40). An argument could be made that the term is limited to the types of transactional interfaces contemplated in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The factual basis for these allegations is the assertion that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its products and services in a way that infringes the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the '508 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶8-9). This allegation would typically support a claim for post-suit willfulness. The prayer for relief, however, also seeks a declaration of pre-lawsuit willful infringement and treble damages, despite the complaint not pleading any facts to support pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 5, ¶e).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim viability: Can this lawsuit proceed when all asserted claims (2, 8, 14, and 17) depend from independent claims (1, 7, and 13) that were cancelled by the USPTO in an Inter Partes Review proceeding that concluded before the complaint was filed?
  • A second foundational question is one of evidentiary sufficiency: Even if any claim were deemed assertable, the complaint lacks any specific factual allegations describing how the accused "unified banking systems" actually operate. A key challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence that demonstrates these systems in fact perform the specific, multi-step functions required by the patent, such as using a "common multi-channel server" to deliver real-time, personalized marketing content.