DCT

7:25-cv-00031

Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Nike Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00031, W.D. Tex., 05/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Nike has a regular and established place of business in the district, commits acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to brokering data between wireless devices and data rendering devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for a wireless device to locate and securely send data to a nearby "data rendering device" (like a printer or display) via a network.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts these licenses did not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because the licensees did not admit infringement or agree to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-06-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285
2017-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Issued
2025-05-13 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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"

  • Patent Identification: 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: The patent describes a need for improved methods for users of handheld wireless devices to render data (e.g., documents, video) on external devices. At the time of the invention, users were "generally restricted in all data use by small device-based viewers, limited GUI functionality and unavailable or inconveniently located rendering...resources" (’285 Patent, col. 4:41-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a wireless device (WD) can request a network server to locate a nearby data rendering device (DRD), such as a printer or display. The user can then select a DRD, and the system facilitates the secure transfer of data to that DRD, often requiring a passcode to authorize the rendering (’285 Patent, col. 11:57-12:8; Fig. 8). The system brokers the interaction, allowing a mobile user to securely output data to a previously unassociated, publicly or privately available device.
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between the portability of wireless devices and the utility of stationary output devices like printers and projectors, enhancing the concept of "information on the go" (’285 Patent, col. 4:50-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A system for rendering data comprising a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD).
    • The DRD has a user interface for receiving passcodes.
    • The DRD is registered with the server to access and receive data.
    • Data rendering occurs at the DRD at the request of a wireless device (WD).
    • Rendering is responsive to a passcode associated with the WD being entered at the DRD's user interface.
    • A memory in the server securely stores the data and associated passcode.
    • The server is configured to receive the data and passcode, and to render the data after a matching passcode is entered at the DRD.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint broadly accuses "systems, products, and services that infring[e]" which Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8). No specific Nike products (e.g., SNKRS app, Nike+ Run Club, retail store systems) are identified.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of any accused Nike product. It alleges in general terms that Nike's systems perform the functions claimed in the ’285 Patent, such as brokering data between wireless devices and other system components (Compl. ¶7-8). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific operation or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not attach this exhibit (Compl. ¶9). In the absence of the chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's systems directly infringe claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶8-9). The core of the allegation is that Nike operates a system where users of wireless devices can interact with a larger networked system to cause data to be processed or displayed, and that this system structure meets the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶7-8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the components of Nike's accused systems map onto the claimed elements. For example, what specific Nike hardware or software constitutes the claimed "data rendering device (DRD)"? Does the term "passcode," as defined and used in the patent, read on the authentication or login mechanisms used in Nike’s commercial systems?
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the specific architecture of the accused Nike systems. A key question is whether any Nike system practices a method where a server holds data and a passcode, and only releases or renders that data upon receiving confirmation that the passcode was entered at a separate "data rendering device," as required by claim 1. The complaint does not provide evidence to show that Nike's systems operate in this specific manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of "DRD" is critical, as it defines the endpoint of the patented data transaction. Plaintiff may argue for a broad definition covering any device that outputs information, while Defendant may argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific examples in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the accused "rendering" is undefined in the complaint, and the patent focuses on specific outputs like printing and video projection.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a DRD "includes data rendering hardware (e.g., printers, copiers, displays, etc.) and multimedia software" (’285 Patent, col. 7:6-9). The "e.g." and "etc." suggest the list is not exhaustive.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary and background consistently emphasize devices that "render data in the form of documents and video data" such as "networked printers, high definition flat panel television displays, multimedia projectors" (’285 Patent, col. 4:38-40, col. 4:62-65). This context may support a narrower construction limited to devices that produce a visual or physical output for a human user.

  • The Term: "passcode"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the security aspect of the invention. The dispute will likely involve whether standard user logins or system authentication tokens within Nike's ecosystem qualify as the specific "passcode" required by the claims, which is entered at the DRD to trigger rendering.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the term is flexible, stating "Passcode capabilities can include the use of passwords/passcodes, biometrics and/or communications security (COMSEC)" (’285 Patent, col. 5:41-44).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes a specific workflow where the passcode is entered "at the DRD" to release the data held by the server (e.g., Fig. 8, element 83; Fig. 11, element 113). This may support a narrower construction requiring the passcode entry to occur on the physical rendering device itself, as distinct from a user logging into an application on their wireless device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "but for Defendant's actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments involving Defendant's products and services would never have been put into service" (Compl. ¶8). This language suggests a theory of induced infringement, where Plaintiff may argue that Nike encourages or instructs its users or system components to operate in an infringing manner.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the ’285 Patent. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint body provides no specific factual basis to support a claim for willful infringement (Compl. p. 5, ¶d).

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether Plaintiff's highly generalized allegations, which fail to identify any specific accused product or provide a supporting claim chart, can survive a motion to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
  2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, specifically whether the components of Nike's commercial ecosystem can be mapped onto the patent's specific architecture. A core question is one of analogy: can the claimed "data rendering device," conceived as a printer or projector, be interpreted to cover a software endpoint, a retail point-of-sale system, or another component within Nike's infrastructure?
  3. Functional Mismatch: A key technical question will be whether any accused Nike system performs the specific security function recited in the claims. The court will need to determine if Nike's systems practice the claimed method of transferring data and a "passcode" to a server, which then waits for that passcode to be entered at a separate "rendering device" before completing the data transfer, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the operational logic.