Sales Transaction Systems LLC v. Bank Of America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sales Transaction Systems LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Bank of America Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: CONNOR LEE AND SHUMAKER PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00763, W.D. Tex., 07/08/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Bank of America operates numerous physical bank and ATM locations within the district, which constitute regular and established places of business where infringing activities occur.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ATM banking ecosystem, which allows customers to perform cardless transactions using a mobile device and receive electronic receipts, infringes a patent related to private and secure financial transactions at an ATM.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for increasing the security and convenience of ATM transactions by replacing the physical bank card with a mobile wireless device and offering digital receipts.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims a very early priority date from a chain of predecessor applications. This extended prosecution history may be relevant to future arguments regarding the scope of the claims and the universe of applicable prior art.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-01-15	'933 Patent Priority Date
2021-04-27	'933 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-10	Date of example email receipt provided in complaint
2022-07-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,990,933 - System and Method for a Private and Secure Financial Transaction System Using an ATM

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,990,933, issued April 27, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes privacy and security vulnerabilities in traditional payment systems. These include the risk of merchants or banks collecting and misusing sensitive customer data (e.g., purchasing habits) and the risk of physical card theft or loss ('933 Patent, col. 1:41-61, col. 2:13-16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method that allows a customer to conduct a financial transaction at an ATM using a mobile wireless device instead of a physical bank card. A central system authenticates the transaction, and the ATM can suppress a physical receipt in favor of an electronic one, thereby enhancing privacy and security ('933 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-41). The system architecture involves communication between the customer's wireless device, a central system, and the ATM over a global computer network ('933 Patent, Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to increase transaction security by removing the need to carry a physical, losable card and to enhance privacy by reducing the paper trail of receipts containing sensitive financial information ('933 Patent, col. 2:37-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 5 (a system claim) (Compl. ¶29). The complaint provides the text for and focuses its allegations on claim 5.
• Independent Claim 5 requires:
  • A central system with a CPU, memory, logic, and a database server for pre-storing customer electronic addresses.
  • An ATM with a printing mechanism and ATM logic.
  • An interface at the ATM where a customer's mobile wireless device is used to identify the customer's proximity "in lieu of the ATM receiving customer identifying data from an ATM card."
  • The ATM logic "suppresses printing" of the transaction receipt.
  • The central system logic electronically sends the receipt to the customer's pre-stored electronic address.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Bank of America’s ("BoA") "ATM banking ecosystem," which includes its network of ATMs and associated software systems (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on two key features of BoA's system. First, the ability for customers to initiate and conduct ATM transactions without a physical card by using a mobile device equipped with a digital wallet (Compl. ¶¶14, 19). The complaint includes a promotional image from BoA’s website showing a user holding a smartphone to an ATM’s contactless reader to "Get cash without your card" (Compl. p. 4). Second, the system provides customers the option to receive transaction receipts electronically via email instead of, or in addition to, a physical printed receipt (Compl. ¶¶16, 20). This functionality is alleged to be commercially important as a feature of modern consumer banking.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'933 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a central system for managing operations of ATMs ... wherein the central system database server pre-storing customer electronic addresses of select customers;	BoA operates a central system to manage its ATMs, and its central database server pre-stores customer email addresses for services like Online Banking.	¶¶15-16	col. 11:47-54
an ATM, wherein the ATM has a printing mechanism and an ATM logic, wherein the ATM logic controls the printing mechanism...	BoA's ATMs are equipped with physical receipt printers and internal logic that controls when a receipt is printed.	¶18	col. 10:24-33
the ATM interfaces with the customer, using a mobile wireless device of the customer to identify the customer being in proximity to the ATM for the ATM transaction in lieu of the ATM receiving customer identifying data from an ATM card;	BoA ATMs interface with a customer's mobile device (e.g., a phone with a digital wallet) via an NFC reader to conduct a transaction without the customer inserting a physical ATM card.	¶19	col. 10:3-11
the ATM logic suppresses printing of the ATM transaction receipt;	When a customer selects the email receipt option, the BoA ATM does not print a physical receipt. The complaint includes a screenshot of the ATM interface presenting "Email," "Print," and "No receipt" options.	¶20, p. 7	col. 10:27-30
and the central system logic sending electronically the ATM transaction receipt to the one of select customers via the pre-stored customer electronic addresses...	BoA's central system sends an email with the transaction details to the customer's pre-stored email address. An exhibit shows an ATM screen stating "Emailing your receipt."	¶21, p. 8	col. 9:43-48

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether a digital wallet transaction, which uses a virtual representation of a physical card, meets the limitation of being "in lieu of" the ATM receiving data "from an ATM card." A court may need to decide if this means replacing the physical card as a token or replacing the underlying card data itself.
• Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the "suppresses printing" limitation raises a significant question. The complaint's evidence shows the accused system offers a choice to not print (Compl. p. 5). The core issue will be whether providing an option for an e-receipt, while still offering a "Print" button, constitutes "suppression" as required by the claim, or if the claim requires a more mandatory or default state of non-printing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"suppresses printing of the ATM transaction receipt"

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim may depend entirely on the construction of "suppresses." If it is construed narrowly to mean "prevents" or "disables," the accused system, which offers a "Print" button, may not infringe. If construed more broadly to mean "reduces the incidence of" or "provides an alternative to," the claim may be met. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's own visual evidence (Compl. p. 5) appears to create a direct conflict with a narrow interpretation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent's overall objective is to reduce privacy risks from paper records ('933 Patent, col. 1:47-54), and a system that successfully encourages users to opt for electronic receipts functionally "suppresses" printing in furtherance of that goal.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the ATM, upon learning the transaction data is coming from the central system instead of a card insertion, "suppresses printing of a paper record" ('933 Patent, col. 10:27-30). This could support an argument that suppression is a direct, non-optional consequence of the cardless transaction method, rather than a user-selectable option.

"in lieu of the ATM receiving customer identifying data from an ATM card"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to whether modern contactless payment systems, which are based on virtualized card data, fall within the patent's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts its wireless device method with the use of a physical "bankcard" ('933 Patent, col. 2:30-41). A party could argue that "from an ATM card" refers to the physical token and its associated read mechanisms (e.g., magnetic stripe reader), meaning any method that avoids this physical interaction is "in lieu of" it.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the "customer identifying data" is the key part of the limitation. If a digital wallet transmits the same essential data (e.g., a primary account number) as a physical card, then the ATM is not operating "in lieu of" receiving that data, but is merely receiving it via a different technology (NFC vs. a card reader).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint makes a passing reference to "aiding and abetting" but does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶29). The factual basis for such a claim could be that BoA provides the infringing ATM system and actively instructs its customers on how to use the accused cardless and e-receipt features through its website and on-screen prompts (Compl. ¶¶14, 19).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not contain a specific allegation of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the '933 patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of "increased...damages" under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which signals an intent to pursue a finding of willfulness based at least on post-filing conduct (Compl., Prayer ¶¶ iii, iv).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "suppresses printing," which suggests an active stoppage, be construed to cover a system that simply provides the option of an electronic receipt while still allowing the user to print one?
• A second central question will be one of definitional scope: does a modern digital wallet transaction, which transmits virtualized card data via NFC, operate "in lieu of...receiving customer identifying data from an ATM card," or is it merely a new delivery mechanism for the same fundamental data, placing it outside the scope of the claim?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of system architecture: what specific "customer identifying data" is transmitted by BoA's cardless system, and how does it compare to the data read from a physical card, which will be critical to resolving the "in lieu of" dispute.