Untitled case

Case Overview & Background

This Covered Business Method (CBM) review, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corporation, CBM2014-00020, was a key challenge to a patent wielded by one of the most prolific patent assertion entities (PAEs) in the financial services industry. The patent owner, DataTreasury Corporation, is a non-practicing entity that has engaged in a massive litigation campaign since the early 2000s, suing dozens of banks and financial services companies and reportedly securing over $350 million in licenses and settlements. The petitioner, Fidelity National Information Services (FIS), is a major operating company and global leader in financial technology, providing core banking, payment processing, and other services to thousands of financial institutions. This proceeding was one of several CBMs filed by technology providers who were sued alongside their bank customers by DataTreasury.

The dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137, which claims a system for remotely capturing data from documents like checks, and centrally processing and storing the captured information. DataTreasury broadly asserted that its patents, including the '137 patent, covered the technology essential for modern electronic check processing, particularly the remote deposit capture (RDC) systems widely adopted by banks following the passage of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21 Act). The Check 21 Act, passed in 2003, gave legal equivalence to digital images of checks, known as "substitute checks," which eliminated the need to physically transport paper checks and fueled the growth of the very RDC services that FIS and others provided to the banking industry. DataTreasury's infringement allegations, therefore, targeted the core of modern banking infrastructure.

This case is notable for its strategic use of the CBM review process at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and its broader impact on a massive NPE campaign. DataTreasury was well-known for aggressively litigating in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs. However, the CBM review program, established by the America Invents Act, created a specialized and more efficient venue for challenging the validity of business method patents. Crucially, CBM reviews allowed for challenges based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter, an argument that gained significant traction after the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. That decision made it substantially easier to invalidate abstract software and business method patents. By successfully petitioning for CBM review, FIS and other defendants were able to move the validity fight to the PTAB, a forum seen as more skeptical of such patents, ultimately leading to the invalidation of the challenged '137 patent claims.

DataTreasury Patent Finally Invalidated After Landmark CBM Review

2026-05-11 – A Covered Business Method (CBM) review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has resulted in the invalidation of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137, owned by the prolific patent monetization entity DataTreasury Corporation. The PTAB's decision was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, bringing to a close a significant challenge to a patent that had been the subject of extensive litigation against the financial services industry.

Chronology of Key Events

Filing of Parallel District Court Litigation (2013-05-28)
DataTreasury Corporation initiated patent infringement litigation against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) and other financial services companies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case against FIS was assigned case number 2:13-cv-00432. DataTreasury alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,910,988 and 6,032,137, which relate to systems for imaging and processing checks and other financial documents.

Petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review (2013-10-25)
In response to the lawsuit, FIS filed a petition with the PTAB for a CBM review of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137, case number CBM2014-00020. This was one of several CBM petitions filed by various defendants against DataTreasury's patents, which were seen by many as a key target for the then-new CBM review program created by the America Invents Act (AIA).

Institution of CBM Review (Approximately 2014-04)
The PTAB instituted the CBM review, determining that the '137 patent was eligible for the program and that FIS had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that the claims were unpatentable. While the exact date of the institution decision is not readily available in public records, it would have occurred approximately six months after the petition filing, as per standard PTAB procedure.

Stay of District Court Litigation
Following the institution of the CBM review, FIS successfully obtained a stay of the parallel district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (2:13-cv-00432) pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding. This is a common occurrence intended to promote judicial efficiency by allowing the USPTO to first rule on the validity of the patent claims at issue. The exact date the stay was granted is not publicly documented.

Final Written Decision by PTAB (2015-04-29)
The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in CBM2014-00020, finding all challenged claims of the '137 patent unpatentable. The Board agreed with FIS's argument that the patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of "transferring [encrypted] information from one location to another" without adding an inventive concept, rendering them invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.

Appeal to the Federal Circuit (2015)
DataTreasury appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was docketed as case number 16-1046.

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision (2016-10-13)
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam judgment affirming the PTAB's decision. In a nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, the appellate court summarily agreed with the PTAB's finding that the claims of the '137 patent were invalid. This decision was seen as a major victory for the financial industry and a demonstration of the effectiveness of the CBM review process in challenging patents that many considered overly broad and a drag on innovation.

Final Outcome
The Federal Circuit's affirmance conclusively invalidated the challenged claims of DataTreasury's '137 patent. This outcome likely led to the dismissal of the stayed district court case against FIS, although specific docket information confirming the final disposition is not readily available. The result in this CBM review and its subsequent appeal marked a significant defeat for DataTreasury, which had previously secured over $350 million in settlements and licensing fees from its extensive patent assertion campaigns.

Based on a review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) docket for CBM2014-00020 and related public records, the petitioner, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., was represented by attorneys from multiple law firms.

Counsel for Petitioner: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.

• Name: J. Steven Baughman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm (at time of proceeding): Ropes & Gray LLP (Washington, D.C. office)
  • Note: A highly-regarded PTAB specialist, Baughman was named Law360's first "IP MVP" for post-grant contributions in 2013 and was counsel on fifteen of the first 25 Covered Business Method (CBM) review proceedings.

• Name: Scott A. McKeown

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm (at time of proceeding): Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. (Alexandria, VA office)
  • Note: McKeown is a prolific PTAB practitioner, having handled over 400 PTAB matters since 2012 and is the founder of the "PatentsPostGrant.com" blog.

• Name: Gregory H. Lantier

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm (at time of proceeding): WilmerHale (Washington, D.C. office)
  • Note: Lantier is a seasoned IP litigator with extensive experience in PTAB proceedings, Federal Circuit appeals, and district court litigation, co-chairing his firm's Post-Grant Proceedings Working Group.

In the Covered Business Method (CBM) review CBM2014-00020, patent owner DataTreasury Corporation was represented by counsel from Nix Patterson & Roach LLP and the Albritton Law Firm. While a Power of Attorney document from the initial PTAB proceeding is not publicly available through web searches, the attorneys who represented DataTreasury in the subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are a matter of public record.

Counsel for Patent Owner: DataTreasury Corporation

• Name: Christian John Hurt

  • Role: Lead Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm: Nix Patterson & Roach LLP
  • Office: Dallas, TX
  • Note: Hurt was listed as the lead counsel who argued the case for DataTreasury before the Federal Circuit.

• Name: Derek Tod Gilliland

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nix Patterson & Roach LLP
  • Office: Daingerfield, TX
  • Note: Gilliland is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience representing DataTreasury in its numerous infringement campaigns in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Edward K. Chin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Albritton Law Firm
  • Office: Longview, TX
  • Note: Chin is an experienced Texas-based litigator who frequently serves as local counsel in patent cases, including those involving DataTreasury.

These attorneys were formally listed as counsel of record in the Federal Circuit's judgment that affirmed the PTAB's decision of unpatentability for the '137 patent. The litigation campaign by DataTreasury, heavily supported by Nix Patterson & Roach, was a significant factor leading to the creation of the CBM review program under the America Invents Act.