Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Bollore Logistics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Bollore Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Blue Systems (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00464, W.D. Tex., 10/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing an address in Belton, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s websites and associated systems infringe a patent related to methods for brokering data between wireless devices and data rendering devices, such as printers or monitors.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of rendering data from portable wireless devices onto separate, often networked, output devices, a key issue in the early 2000s as mobile data services began to expand.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product practicing the patent. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that those licenses did not require marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because they were entered into to end litigation without any admission of infringement.

Case Timeline

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological environment, circa 2000, where users of handheld wireless devices were "severely limited, or practically nonexistent" in their ability to render documents and video on external devices ('285 Patent, col. 4:38-42). Users were generally restricted to small device screens with limited functionality, creating a need for better methods to utilize data retrieved through wireless networks (ʼ285 Patent, col. 4:43-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides systems and methods for "data brokering" that allow a wireless device (WD) to locate and securely send data to a separate data rendering device (DRD), such as a networked printer, monitor, or projector ('285 Patent, Abstract). A user with a WD can request the location of a nearby DRD from a network server, select a DRD, and then request the transfer of data to that DRD for rendering, with access often secured by a passcode entered at the DRD ('285 Patent, col. 6:29-44, FIGS. 6-8).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to untether mobile users from their small screens, enabling them to leverage the superior output capabilities of fixed devices like printers and projectors in public or enterprise settings ('285 Patent, col. 4:48-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9). The asserted independent claims are 1, 5, and 9.
• Independent Claim 1: A system for rendering data, comprising:
  • a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD);
  • the DRD including a user interface for receiving passcodes;
  • the DRD registered with the server to access and receive data;
  • memory in the server for securely storing data and a passcode associated with a wireless device (WD);
  • wherein the server is configured to render the data after a passcode is entered on the DRD's user interface that matches the stored passcode.
• Independent Claim 5: A system for rendering data, comprising:
  • a server in communication with at least one DRD with a user interface for receiving passcodes;
  • memory in the server for storing data and a passcode associated with a WD;
  • wherein the server is configured to enable the DRD to be selected by the WD from more than one DRD registered with the server;
  • and wherein the server is configured to receive the data and passcode to render the data after a matching passcode is entered at the DRD.
• Independent Claim 9: A system for rendering data, comprising:
  • a server in communication with at least one DRD with a user interface for receiving passcodes;
  • memory in the server for storing data and a passcode associated with a WD;
  • wherein the server is configured to receive a "DRD locator request" from the WD to find at least one DRD near the WD;
  • and wherein the server enables the selected DRD to receive data from memory for rendering after a matching passcode is entered.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Defendant's websites, e.g., https://www.bluesystems.ai/#skills" as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these websites "are used by Defendant's customers or in testing" (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that Defendant infringes "vicariously by profiting from its customers use" of the website and that Defendant "controls both the manner and timing of infringement" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical functionality of the accused websites or how they operate. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an external "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit itself (Compl. ¶10). The narrative allegations state that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services that infringe one or more of claims 1-13 of the '285 patent" (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory is based on vicarious liability for customer use of Defendant's websites (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not, however, contain factual allegations that map specific features of the accused websites to the elements of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: A central issue may be how the accused "websites" map to the claimed system architecture, which requires a "server," a "wireless device (WD)," and a distinct "data rendering device (DRD)" with its own "user interface." The complaint does not specify what components of the accused system correspond to each of these claimed elements.
  • Technical Questions: All asserted independent claims require a passcode to be entered at the user interface of the DRD to authorize data rendering. A key factual question will be whether the accused websites implement this specific security and data-release mechanism as claimed. The complaint provides no facts on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted claims. Its construction will determine what types of hardware or software can satisfy this limitation. The dispute may center on whether a general-purpose computer monitor or a software application window can constitute a "DRD," or if the term is limited to standalone hardware like networked printers or projectors.
• 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 adapted for rendering data" ('285 Patent, col. 7:8-11), which may support an argument that software components can qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of DRDs as distinct physical hardware, such as "network-enabled printers, copiers, video-enabled monitors/televisions, multimedia projectors" ('285 Patent, col. 5:25-28) and "Internet Kiosks... or an automatic teller machine (ATM)" ('285 Patent, col. 14:1-3), which may support a narrower construction limited to such devices.

Key Term: "passcode associated with said WD being entered at the user interface" [of the DRD]

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the security and authorization mechanism. The location of passcode entry—"at the user interface" of the DRD—is a critical topographical element of the claims. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an accused system's authentication process meets this specific requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to explicitly define "user interface" in a limiting way, which could support an argument that any method of input associated with the rendering device suffices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent suggests a physical interaction with the rendering device, stating the passcode can be entered "using a DRD user interface or via direct (local) communication to the DRD by the WD" ('285 Patent, col. 12:6-9). This could be used to argue against, for example, a passcode entered into a web browser on a PC that also happens to be displaying the rendered data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement "vicariously" by Defendant profiting from and controlling its customers' use of the accused website (Compl. ¶11). These allegations appear to sound in inducement or contributory infringement but lack specific factual support regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patent or its specific intent to cause infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any facts, such as pre-suit notice or knowledge of the patent, that would support such a claim.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: How does the functionality of the accused "websites" as used by customers align with the claimed three-part system of a server, a wireless device (WD), and a distinct data rendering device (DRD)? The complaint's lack of factual detail on this point presents a primary ambiguity.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused system perform the specific passcode-gated rendering process required by all asserted independent claims, where a passcode is entered "at the user interface" of the component alleged to be the DRD?
• A central legal question will be one of liability: Assuming the elements of direct infringement by a customer are established, what specific facts support the complaint's conclusory allegation that Defendant "controls... the manner and timing of infringement" sufficient to establish vicarious or indirect liability?