DCT

6:22-cv-00363

Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wells Fargo

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 6:22-cv-00363, W.D. Tex., 04/11/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile banking application infringes a design patent for an animated graphical user interface.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of a user interface for a mobile financial application, a key area of competition among financial institutions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on April 11, 2022. A Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding had been initiated against the patent-in-suit at the USPTO on April 5, 2022. On September 20, 2022, while the litigation was pending, the Plaintiff filed a terminal disclaimer, disclaiming the remaining term of the patent. Subsequently, on May 1, 2023, the USPTO issued a certificate cancelling the patent's only claim as a result of the PGR. This procedural history suggests the asserted patent is no longer enforceable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-09-03 U.S. Patent No. D930,702 Application Filing Date
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent No. D930,702 Issue Date
2022-04-05 Post-Grant Review (PGR2022-00031) filed against '702 patent
2022-04-11 Complaint Filing Date
2022-06-09 Post-Grant Review (PGR2022-00045) filed against '702 patent
2022-09-20 Plaintiff files terminal disclaimer for '702 patent
2023-05-01 '702 patent claim cancelled via Post-Grant Review Certificate

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702, "Display screen portion with animated graphical user interface," issued September 14, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '702 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a graphical user interface.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a graphical user interface that animates through a sequence of images. The complaint asserts the second embodiment of the design, which shows a three-stage animation. The sequence begins with a screen showing a central box with square elements and options below it (FIG. 3), transitions through an intermediate screen comprised of circular shapes (FIG. 4), and ends on a screen with a central box and a button below it (FIG. 5). The broken lines depicting text (e.g., "$0.00," "Send," "Cancel") and the outline of a computer device are explicitly disclaimed and form no part of the patented design (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific visual appearance for a user interface at a time when financial institutions were increasingly competing on the user experience of their mobile applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described. The complaint asserts the "second embodiment" of this claim (Compl. ¶10, ¶12).
  • The claimed design consists of the visual elements depicted in solid lines and their sequential appearance, as shown in the following figures:
    • The first image in the animated sequence (FIG. 3).
    • The second, transitional image in the sequence (FIG. 4).
    • The third, final image in the sequence (FIG. 5).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Wells Fargo mobile app" (Compl. ¶9).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Wells Fargo mobile app is an application for consumers that "comprises a design of a display screen portion with an animated graphical user interface" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not contain any screenshots or specific descriptions of the accused interface's appearance or operation, instead referencing an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶10, Exhibit B). The complaint asserts that Defendant offers this mobile application to consumers throughout Texas (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a side-by-side claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶10). Analysis is therefore based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the Wells Fargo mobile app directly infringes the '702 patent because it "embodies the design covered by the '702 patent" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides a screenshot of a map from Defendant's website showing its physical branch locations in Austin, Texas, to support its venue allegations (Compl. p. 3). Notably, each of the three infringement counts in the complaint incorrectly identifies the patent-in-suit as "U.S. Patent No. D857,702," which appears to be a typographical error, as the patent identified in the body of the complaint and attached as an exhibit is U.S. Patent No. D930,702 (Compl. ¶7, Counts I-III).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question in a design patent case is whether the accused design is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis would need to properly exclude the disclaimed subject matter (all text and the device outline) from the comparison, focusing only on the solid-line visual elements and the animation sequence.
    • Technical Questions: A factual dispute would concern the actual appearance and animated behavior of the accused Wells Fargo mobile app's interface. The complaint does not provide the necessary evidence for a comparison, raising a question of whether its infringement allegations are sufficiently pleaded.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As a design patent case, the "claim" is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. Therefore, formal claim construction of specific terms is not the central issue. The analysis instead focuses on a comparison of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures, with the accused product's design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 5, ¶(a)). However, the complaint's factual allegations do not specify any actions by Wells Fargo that would constitute inducement or contributory infringement, nor do they allege the requisite knowledge or intent for such a claim.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant’s infringement was willful.

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

  • A threshold issue is one of mootness: given that the patent-in-suit's sole claim was cancelled by the USPTO in a Post-Grant Review proceeding and that the Plaintiff filed a terminal disclaimer during the litigation, the central question is whether a viable cause of action for infringement remains.
  • A related question concerns damages: The patent's cancellation raises the question of whether any damages can be recovered, as the patent may be considered void from its issuance. Even if some claim for past damages survived, it would be limited to the approximately one-year period between the patent's issuance (September 2021) and the Plaintiff's disclaimer (September 2022).
  • Finally, the case raises questions of pleading sufficiency: the complaint's failure to include any depiction of the accused user interface, combined with its repeated typographical error identifying the asserted patent number in the formal infringement counts, raises the issue of whether the infringement allegations met federal pleading standards at the time of filing.