Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Amazon Web Services Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00215, W.D. Tex., 09/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement, has a regular and established place of business, and conducts substantial business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems and services infringe a patent related to methods for brokering the transfer and rendering of data from a wireless device to a separate, networked data rendering device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses coordinating data delivery from a mobile device to an output device like a printer or display, using a network server as an intermediary and often requiring a passcode for security.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and states it has entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts that these licenses did not grant rights to produce a patented article and did not include admissions of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	’285 Patent Priority Date
2017-01-17	’285 Patent Issue Date
2024-09-06	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 (“the ’285 Patent”), “Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices,” issued January 17, 2017. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention’s priority date (June 2000), methods for a user of a handheld wireless device to render data (e.g., documents or video) were “severely limited, or practically nonexistent,” primarily constrained by the small viewers and limited functionality of the mobile devices themselves. (’285 Patent, col. 4:39-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a wireless device (WD) can request that data be rendered on a separate, networked “data rendering device” (DRD), such as a printer or projector. A network server acts as an intermediary, storing the data and passcode information. The user can then go to the DRD and enter a passcode at its user interface to authorize the server to release the data for rendering. (’285 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:59-col. 8:2). This architecture separates the mobile data request from the secure, localized data rendering.
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a framework for "information on the go," enabling users of early, resource-constrained mobile devices to leverage more capable, networked hardware for outputting information. (’285 Patent, col. 4:49-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13. (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD).
  • The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes and is registered with the server.
  • The system is used at the request of a wireless device (WD) to render data on the DRD.
  • Rendering is performed in response to a passcode associated with the WD being entered at the DRD's user interface.
  • The server has memory for securely storing the data and the passcode received from or on behalf of the WD.
  • The server is configured to send the stored data to the DRD for rendering only after a passcode entered at the DRD's user interface matches the passcode stored in the server's memory.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its infringement allegations are made as to "one or more of claims 1-13." (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses unspecified "systems, products, and services that [Defendant] maintains, operates, and administers." (Compl. ¶9). No specific Amazon product, such as a particular AWS service, is named.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities perform a method that infringes the ’285 patent. (Compl. ¶9). It does not, however, provide any specific details about how these systems function. The complaint also makes no allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a chart attached as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶10). That exhibit was not publicly available with the complaint. The narrative allegations are insufficient to construct a detailed claim chart.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Specificity Question: The complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused instrumentality will likely be a primary point of contention. The central question is which, if any, of Amazon's vast portfolio of services performs the claimed method.
• Scope Question: A key dispute may concern the definition of a "data rendering device (DRD)." The patent specification frequently describes DRDs as distinct hardware like "networked printers, copiers, video-enabled monitors/televisions, [and] multimedia projectors." (’285 Patent, col. 5:25-28). It is an open question whether the term can be construed to cover modern software-based endpoints, such as a web browser on a user's computer, as might be required to map the claims onto a cloud service architecture.
• Technical Question: Claim 1 requires a specific authentication sequence where a passcode is entered "at the user interface" of the DRD, which triggers the server to release the data. (’285 Patent, cl. 1, col. 13:38-39, col. 14:13-16). A significant factual question is whether the complaint can show that any Amazon service implements this precise workflow, as opposed to more common authentication methods where credentials are entered at the client device that is requesting the data, not at the separate device that is rendering it.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is central to the dispute. If construed narrowly to mean only the types of dedicated hardware described in the patent, it may be difficult to prove infringement by a general-purpose cloud computing platform. If construed broadly, it could potentially read on a wider range of modern technologies, including a user's personal computer or a virtual machine instance.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "device" to a particular type of hardware. Parties advocating for a broader scope may argue "rendering" is a general term covering any form of data presentation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides a consistent set of examples: "networked printers," "televisions, video monitors, and projectors." (’285 Patent, col. 4:63-65). The Abstract and Summary sections also frame the invention around these types of physical output devices, which may support a narrower construction limited to such hardware. (’285 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-5).

The Term: "a passcode... being entered at the user interface" of the DRD

• Context and Importance: This term defines the location and mechanism of the security authorization step. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory hinges on whether an accused Amazon service's authentication process can be mapped onto this specific claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "at the user interface" does not require a physical interface on the DRD hardware itself, but could include a software interface (e.g., a web portal) that controls the DRD, even if accessed from another computer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowcharts in the patent appear to depict the passcode entry as a distinct step occurring at the DRD. For example, Figure 8 shows "Enter Passcode at DRD" (83) as an action separate from the network data transfer (82). (’285 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 12:2-9). This suggests a local, direct interaction with the rendering device to unlock the data, which could support a narrower interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. It does, however, include allegations that could form the basis for such a claim, stating that Defendant introduced infringing products "into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be sold in Texas" and that "but for Defendant's actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments... would never have been put into service." (Compl. ¶3, ¶9).

Willful Infringement

The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that infringement was willful and an award of treble damages. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e). The body of the complaint, however, does not allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the ’285 Patent by the Defendant.

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

• A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency and specificity: given the complaint's failure to identify any specific accused product or service, a threshold question is whether it meets the plausibility standard for patent infringement claims, or if it will be dismissed for lack of factual detail.
• A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "data rendering device," which the patent describes in the context of 2000-era hardware like networked printers and projectors, be construed to encompass components of a modern, distributed cloud computing service and its user endpoints?
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: assuming a relevant product is identified, does its authentication architecture perform the specific sequence required by the claims—namely, releasing server-held data only after a passcode is entered locally at the user interface of the rendering device itself?