DCT
6:21-cv-01094
Wepay Global Payments LLC v. PayPal Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wepay Global Payments LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: PayPal, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ohanianip; WAWRZYN LLC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01094, W.D. Tex., 10/20/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly having a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PayPal "Super App" infringes a design patent related to an animated graphical user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the ornamental design of animated user interfaces for mobile payment applications, a field where user experience and visual identity are significant competitive factors.
- Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent-in-suit was the subject of two Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. These proceedings resulted in a certificate issued on May 1, 2023, cancelling the patent's only claim. The patent owner also filed a terminal disclaimer on September 20, 2022. These post-filing events limit any potential infringement liability to the period between the patent's issuance and its cancellation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-09-03 | D930,702 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date) |
| 2021-09-14 | U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702 Issues |
| 2021-10-20 | Complaint Filed |
| 2022-04-05 | Post-Grant Review PGR2022-00031 Filed |
| 2022-06-09 | Post-Grant Review PGR2022-00045 Filed |
| 2022-09-20 | Terminal Disclaimer Filed by Patent Owner |
| 2023-05-01 | Post-Grant Review Certificate Issued, Cancelling the Claim |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702, titled Display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, issued September 14, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution; instead, they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an animated graphical user interface (GUI) presented in two embodiments (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The complaint asserts the second embodiment, which consists of a three-stage animation depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5 (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The patent explicitly disclaims content shown in broken lines, including all text and most GUI elements, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Consequently, the claimed ornamental features of the asserted embodiment appear limited to the three solid black squares shown in Figure 3, which then transition through two subsequent screens (Figures 4 and 5) that contain no solid-line, claimed features (’702 Patent, FIGS. 3-5).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific visual sequence for a user interface, which could be intended to create a unique user experience or brand association within a financial application (’702 Patent, Title).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described" (’702 Patent, CLAIM). The complaint specifically alleges infringement of the second embodiment of this claim (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential visual elements of the asserted second embodiment are:
- A first static image (Figure 3) containing three small, solid squares positioned at three corners of a larger, disclaimed rectangular area.
- A transition to a second static image (Figure 4) containing only disclaimed elements shown in broken lines.
- A transition to a third static image (Figure 5) also containing only disclaimed elements shown in broken lines.
- The claimed design is the sequential, animated transition between these three images (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The PayPal "Super App" for iOS and Android operating systems (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as containing an "animated graphical user interface" that allegedly "embodies the design covered by the ’702 patent" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide further specific details about the operation of the accused interface, instead referencing an "Exhibit B" claim chart that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit that is not provided; the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.
The complaint alleges that the PayPal "Super App" directly infringes the second embodiment of the ’702 patent by making, using, distributing, and selling products that incorporate the patented animated GUI design (Compl. ¶12). The complaint states that a side-by-side claim chart in "Exhibit B" supports this allegation, but the exhibit is not available for analysis (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for a design patent turns on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. A central question is whether the overall visual appearance of the PayPal app's interface is "substantially the same" as the claimed design, which is narrowly defined by the solid-line drawings.
- Technical Questions: A dispositive factual question is whether the accused PayPal animation contains visual elements corresponding to the three solid squares shown in Figure 3, as these appear to be the only claimed ornamental features in the asserted animated sequence (’702 Patent, FIG. 3). The absence of these specific elements in the accused product would suggest a lack of infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on interpreting the scope of the design as depicted in the patent's figures, rather than construing textual terms.
- The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described" (’702 Patent, CLAIM).
- Context and Importance: The scope of the claim is defined by the patent's drawings, and the distinction between features shown in solid lines (claimed) and broken lines (unclaimed) is critical. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because the patent's explicit disclaimer of nearly all GUI elements severely limits the scope of protection.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope might argue that the unclaimed elements in broken lines provide essential context that informs the overall visual impression of the claimed features, even if the broken-line elements themselves are not protected.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides strong evidence for a narrow interpretation, stating unambiguously that "The broken line showing of text and portions of the graphical user interface in FIGS. 1 through 5 represents environmental subject matter and forms no part of the claimed design" (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language suggests the claim is strictly limited to the features rendered in solid lines.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 4(a)), but the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. While the prayer for relief requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. p. 4(b)), which can be awarded for willful or egregious infringement, the complaint pleads no facts regarding Defendant's alleged pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Case Viability: The most significant issue is procedural: given the post-filing cancellation of the patent's sole claim during Post-Grant Review, a threshold question is whether Plaintiff's case for pre-cancellation damages can survive, or if the entire action is moot.
- Infringement Scope: From a substantive perspective, a key question would have been one of design scope: could the accused PayPal GUI be considered "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer, when the claimed ornamental design is narrowly limited to three small squares appearing in the first frame of an animated sequence? The extensive disclaimers in the patent create a significant hurdle for proving infringement.