Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Ricoh USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00414, W.D. Tex., 06/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and servers for secure network communication infringe a patent related to brokering data between wireless devices and data rendering devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow a user of a mobile wireless device to locate and securely send data to a networked rendering device, such as a printer, for output.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that it is a "new cause of action addressing the Court's reasons for dismissal of the prior action." It also alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least November 12, 2021, the filing date of the prior lawsuit, which may be relevant to potential future allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	'285 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2017-01-17	'285 Patent Issue Date
2021-11-12	Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge via prior lawsuit
2023-06-02	Complaint Filing Date

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

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: At the time of the invention's priority date (June 2000), users of handheld wireless devices faced significant challenges in rendering data, such as printing documents or displaying video. The patent describes the available solutions as "severely limited, or practically nonexistent," forcing users to rely on small device screens with limited functionality (’285 Patent, col. 4:39-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system architecture to solve this problem by "brokering" data between a wireless device (WD), a network server, and a data rendering device (DRD) like a printer or projector (’285 Patent, col. 1:8-13). A user with a WD can locate a nearby DRD, potentially with network assistance, and securely transmit data to it for rendering. Security is managed through the use of passcodes, which can be entered at the DRD to authorize the data rendering process (’285 Patent, col. 5:39-45; Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide greater utility and "portability" for the growing number of wireless device users by bridging the gap between mobile information access and stationary, high-quality output devices (’285 Patent, col. 4:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13, which includes independent claims 1, 5, and 9 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • A server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD).
  • The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
  • The server includes memory for "securely storing data received by or on behalf of said WD and said passcode associated with said WD."
  • The server is configured to receive the data and passcode from its memory and render the data at the DRD after a matching passcode is entered at the DRD's user interface.
• Independent Claim 5 adds a selection element, requiring the server to be configured to:
  • Enable the DRD to be selected by the WD from more than one DRD registered with the server.
• Independent Claim 9 adds a location element, requiring the server to be configured to:
  • Receive a "DRD locator request" from a WD to find a nearby DRD from among multiple registered DRDs.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-13, which add further limitations related to the type of DRD (e.g., printer, video monitor) and how the passcode is provided (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint broadly accuses "systems and servers" that Ricoh "maintained, operated, and administered" (Compl. ¶8). It also refers to "systems for establishing secure communication over a public network" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not identify specific Ricoh product names or services.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused instrumentalities are used for "secure communication over a public network" (Compl. ¶7). No specific technical details regarding the operation of the accused systems or their architecture are provided. The complaint alleges Ricoh sells these products and services in the Western District of Texas but does not provide information on their commercial importance or market position (Compl. ¶2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory must therefore be drawn from the narrative text. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "systems and servers" directly infringe claims 1-13 of the ’285 patent by performing methods of secure communication (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8). The core of the allegation is that Ricoh provides a system that allows users to securely render data, thereby practicing the patented invention (Compl. ¶8).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary issue will be identifying the specific Ricoh products that constitute the claimed "server" and "DRD." The complaint's general reference to "systems and servers" raises the question of whether Plaintiff can map these generic terms to a concrete, infringing architecture.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the functionality of Ricoh's accused products aligns with the specific steps required by the claims. For instance, does the accused Ricoh "server" perform the function of "securely storing data... and said passcode associated with said WD," as recited in claim 1, or does it operate in a technically distinct manner, such as by acting as a simple data conduit?
  • Evidentiary Questions: What evidence demonstrates that Ricoh's systems perform the specific "DRD locator request" function of claim 9 or the DRD "selection" function of claim 5? The complaint does not provide factual support for these elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "passcode associated with said WD" (claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the security and authorization scheme of the invention. Its construction will determine what forms of authentication fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern secure printing systems may use user-based credentials (e.g., network logins, ID cards) rather than a code explicitly "associated with" a specific wireless device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "passcode" can be interpreted broadly, listing examples such as "passwords/passcodes, biometrics and/or communications security (COMSEC)" (’285 Patent, col. 5:42-45). This could support an argument that the term covers any form of user or job authentication.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowcharts in the patent, such as Figure 8, depict a passcode being entered at the DRD (83) to release a specific data transfer job (82), which could suggest the "passcode" is a job-specific or session-specific credential rather than a general credential tied to the wireless device itself (’285 Patent, col. 12:2-7).

• The Term: "server... for securely storing data received by or on behalf of said WD" (claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends heavily on whether the accused Ricoh server performs this specific storage function. The definition of "securely storing" will be critical to determining if Ricoh's system architecture meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a need for temporary storage, stating that "temporary memory can be cleared/zeroed to irreversibly purge data from DRDs after use" (’285 Patent, col. 5:46-49). Plaintiff might argue that any form of access-controlled, temporary caching or queuing of data on the server before rendering constitutes "securely storing."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that this limitation requires more than transient queuing. The use of the word "securely" alongside the storage of both data and a passcode might imply a system where data is held at rest in an encrypted or otherwise protected state within a specific server-side memory or database, awaiting passcode-based release, rather than simply passing through a network queue (’285 Patent, col. 14:3-7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The basis for these claims is the allegation that Ricoh "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). The complaint does not cite specific documents, such as user manuals or marketing materials, to support this allegation.
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not contain a formal count for willful infringement, it lays the groundwork for such a claim. It alleges that Ricoh has known of the ’285 patent since "at least November 12, 2021, the filing date of a prior lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge could be used to support a future claim for enhanced damages.

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

1. Evidentiary Specificity: A threshold issue for the court will be whether the complaint’s generalized allegations are sufficient. Can the Plaintiff identify a specific, concrete Ricoh product architecture that practices the claimed system of a "server" and "DRD" interacting via a "passcode," or will the claims fail for lack of specificity, an issue potentially suggested by the reference to a prior dismissal?

2. Architectural Congruence: A core technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Ricoh system, in fact, "securely stor[e] data... and said passcode" on a server as required by claim 1? The case may turn on whether the accused system is merely a pass-through data router or if it embodies the specific storage-and-release mechanism taught in the patent.

3. Definitional Scope: The dispute will likely involve a battle over claim construction. A central question will be whether the term "passcode associated with said WD," conceived in the context of early 2000s technology, can be interpreted to read on the modern user-centric or network-based authentication methods potentially used in Ricoh’s current secure printing solutions.