No Presents for Gift Card Patent Owner from Federal Circuit

AlexSam, Inc. misplaced its patent infringement circumstances towards Simon Property Group/Blackhawk Network and Cigna Corporation in two separate choices issued by the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday, April 1.

AlexSam owns U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608, which discloses a “multifunction card system.” Primarily, the invention is a sort of reward card that “can serve numerous features, thus permitting the patron to have one card which can act as their card for monetary transactions, long-distance phone calls, loyalty info, and medical info.” Primarily at problem in each circumstances was a declare development adopted in AlexSam, Inc. v. Datastream Card Servs. Ltd., No. 2:03-cv-337, 2005 WL 6220095 (E.D. Tex. 2005) for the time period “unmodified”, particularly, “a terminal for making purchases at a retail location of the sort in use as of July 10, 1997 that has not been reprogrammed, custom-made, or in any other case altered with respect to its software program or {hardware} to be used within the card system.”

Within the Cigna case, AlexSam filed swimsuit towards Cigna Corp on March 18, 2020, three years after the ’608 patent’s expiration, within the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Jap District of Texas, alleging that Cigna’s Shopper-Pushed Well being Plan debit playing cards infringed impartial declare 32 and dependent declare 33 of the ’608 patent. In preliminary development hearings for disputed claims, AlexSam requested that the trial courtroom undertake the identical development for the time period “unmodified” in declare 32 that was utilized in Datastream. The courtroom did, however added two commas at Cigna’s request, making the ultimate development for “unmodified” in declare 32: “a terminal, for making purchases, that’s of the sort in use as of July 10, 1997, and that has not been reprogrammed, custom-made, or in any other case altered with respect to its software program or {hardware} to be used within the card system.”

On the Federal Circuit, AlexSam argued that “whereas declare 32 was construed accurately, the district courtroom erred by ignoring the top of the development, which states ‘to be used within the card system.’” The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that “AlexSam has advocated for over fifteen years for a similar declare development contained in declare 32 of the ’608 patent…[and] [f]or the primary time, on abstract judgment on this case,…argues for a broader development…. [W]e decline to contemplate AlexSam’s eleventh-hour arguments….”

In the end, although, AlexSam’s key downside was not the declare development problem, stated the CAFC, however the truth that it failed to offer enough proof that the alleged infringer used unmodified gadgets, simply because it did within the precedential case of Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp., 715 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The Justice of the Peace choose accurately concluded that ‘AlexSam’s proof on this case, like its proof in IDT, merely reveals that modifications of ordinary current POS gadgets weren’t required to be used within the accused system. Binding precedent establishes that such proof is inadequate,’” wrote the CAFC.

Within the Simon Property litigation, AlexSam sued Simon, and later amended its grievance so as to add Blackhawk, alleging that merchandise together with Simon’s self-branded reward playing cards infringed impartial claims 34 and 60 and varied dependent claims of the ’608 patent. The Jap District of Texas courtroom adopted the Report and Suggestion (R&R) of a Justice of the Peace choose and granted two motions of non-infringement for Simon Property and Blackhawk in March 2022. AlexSam asserted that “[t]he ‘608 Patent covers a wide range of necessary applied sciences regarding the debit card business,” and “[t]he multifunction card system disclosed within the ‘608 Patent enabled customers and retailers to make use of current point-of-sales gadgets, the present banking infrastructure, and a financial institution identification quantity (BIN) to carry out monetary transactions.” AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group L.P., No. 2:19-CV-331-JRG, (E.D. Tex. 2021). Simon and Blackhawk motioned for abstract judgment of non-infringement and the Justice of the Peace choose advisable granting each the Simon and the Blackhawk motions, which the district courtroom in the end adopted.

In its objections, AlexSam contended that the R&R “affords a distinct understanding of the declare time period ‘unmodified’ than is stipulated to by the events.” However the courtroom concluded that the R&R didn’t provide a brand new declare development of the time period “unmodified,” though it did make clear the scope of the time period in view of the Federal Circuit’s resolution in IDT and the proof AlexSam wanted to satisfy its burden on patent infringement. The CAFC agreed, reaching comparable findings because it did within the Cigna opinion.

In the end, each rulings affirmed the Jap District of Texas courtroom, with the CAFC concluding in Simon Property that the district courtroom accurately utilized the Datastream declare development and that AlexSam didn’t present enough proof to ascertain a real dispute of fabric reality over whether or not the accused gadgets have been ‘unmodified’ and in Cigna affirming that AlexSam failed to offer enough proof of Cigna’s infringement.

Picture Supply: Deposit Images
Picture ID:59930373
Copyright:hin255