Untitled case

I'll research this case and patent before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case and its docket.

Let me nail down the PTAB outcomes, the Federal Circuit ruling on the '409 patent, and the venue/case disposition.

Case Overview — Intellectual Ventures I LLC & Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-00832-AJS (W.D. Pa.)

Parties. The plaintiffs are Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, the assertion vehicles of Intellectual Ventures, the Bellevue, Washington–based patent-holding fund founded by Nathan Myhrvold. IV is a classic non-practicing entity/patent-assertion entity: it does not make or sell the accused banking technology; it acquires patent portfolios and monetizes them through licensing demands and infringement suits. Ownership is split across the two entities — IV II held the '409 patent (and the '666, '574, and '002 patents), while IV I held the '298 patent. The defendants are The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P. — a Pittsburgh-headquartered, operating bank holding company and its banking/payment-processing affiliates. IV filed the complaint on June 25, 2014 and served it July 2, 2014; the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab in the court's Pittsburgh office (Allegheny County), with a jury demand. (Justia docket)

Accused technology and patents. IV's complaint targets PNC's online and mobile banking and payment services — its public websites (pnc.com, pncsites.com) and, most specifically, the Pogo® person-to-person/mobile payment service — plus PNC's credit-card, debit-card and related payment services that implement PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) encryption, and its Automated Clearing House (ACH) services operated under NACHA rules. Although the case metadata flags only U.S. Patent 6,314,409, the June 2014 complaint actually pleaded five patents: (1) the '409 patent — 6,314,409, "System for Controlling Access and Distribution of Digital Property" (inventors Paul B. Schneck and Marshall D. Abrams; filed Oct. 26, 1998; issued Nov. 6, 2001; assigned to IV II). Technically, the '409 patent claims a scheme for "packaging" digital property — an encrypted body plus unencrypted portions and encrypted access rules — so the protected content can be distributed openly over insecure channels while an "access mechanism" enforces the rules and limits every access to the unprotected (decrypted) form; it is aimed at the problem of secondary redistribution after decryption. (2) The '666 patent (7,634,666), asserted against PNC's use of IBM System Z mainframe/zEnterprise systems. (3) The '574 patent (5,745,574), "Security Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions" (issued April 28, 1998), asserted against PCI DSS–based encryption and public-key certificate authentication. (4) The '002 patent, "System and Method for Implementing an Intelligent and Mobile Menu-Interface Agent" (issued April 8, 2003). (5) The '298 patent, "Method and Apparatus for Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files" (issued July 13, 2010), owned by IV I. (Complaint text reproduced at RPX litigation document 10800855.)

Procedural posture and venue. The case had an unusually short life as a standalone docket. PNC obtained an extension to answer (to Sept. 8, 2014), but on August 12, 2014 Judge Schwab granted PNC's motion to consolidate this case with IV's earlier PNC action, No. 2:13-cv-00740 (W.D. Pa., filed May 29, 2013), and to stay the consolidated proceedings (Dkt. 37). IV's own mandatory notices to the PTAB state the '832 docket was "terminated August 13, 2014" — i.e., folded into the 13-740 lead case. (Plainsite docket; IPR2015-01322 Patent Owner Related Matters) Venue matters here because PNC's headquarters and decision-making sit in the Western District of Pennsylvania — this is the defendant's home forum, not a plaintiff-friendly "rocket docket," and it is one of the districts that adopted local patent rules (effective April 2014) with mandatory early infringement/disclosure obligations. The docket's "Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145" entry appears to be a clerk's docketing artifact; the complaint pleads ordinary § 271 infringement.

Why the case is notable. It is a data point in IV's 2013–14 banking-sector assertion campaign: IV II filed near-simultaneous '409 suits against Huntington, U.S. Bancorp, SunTrust, Commerce Bancshares, BBVA Compass, JPMorgan Chase, First National Bank of Omaha, and Capital One, with PNC as the ninth. The '409 patent in particular became a heavy PTAB battleground, which is the through-line connecting this district case to the AIA post-grant regime: IBM filed IPR2014-00672/-673 (both denied Sept. 22, 2014); Compass Bank, Commerce Bancshares, and First National Bank of Omaha filed IPR2014-00719/-722, which on Oct. 24, 2014 were instituted only as to claim 23 — IV then disclaimed claim 23, mooting those IPRs. JPMorgan Chase filed CBM2014-00157, which the Board instituted on Jan. 14, 2015 on a sole § 101 ground, finding the '409 patent a covered business method patent. IBM followed with IPR2015-01322/-01323, both instituted Dec. 8, 2015. Critically, the S.D.N.Y. in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. held the asserted '409 claims (including claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–27, 29–30, 32–33, 36–40, 42) patent-ineligible under § 101 — a ruling IBM's petitions cited against IV. (See IPR2014-00719/-722 institution decision; CBM2014-00157 institution decision; IPR2015-01323 institution decision.) The practical upshot is that the W.D. Pa. case was stayed behind a wave of PTAB challenges, and the '409 patent's asserted claims were simultaneously under § 101 attack in a coordinate district — the pattern that defines mid-2010s NPE litigation over software/financial-services patents.

Sourcing caveats. I verified the case number, filing date, division, judge, parties, plaintiff/docket counsel appearances (Ian N. Feinberg, Vinay Kumar Malik, Peter Mikhail, Clayton W. Thompson pro hac vice for IV; Thomas L. Allen and Justin J. Kontul for PNC), the five-patent complaint, the consolidation/stay order (Dkt. 37), and the PTAB proceedings listed above. I was not able to confirm in this session (a) the final disposition or any settlement/damages in the consolidated 2:13-cv-00740 case, (b) the Federal Circuit's ultimate resolution of the '409 § 101 appeal, or (c) the full patent numbers for the '002 and '298 patents; those should be treated as unverified. The existing case metadata's description of this matter as simply "family litigation for US6314409" is incomplete — the '832 complaint asserted five patents, of which '409 was one.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with verifying the parties and patent.

Let me dig into the docket and party details.

Let me research the consolidated case's docket and outcome.

Bottom line first

The case metadata needs a correction and a reframing. No. 2:14-cv-00832 (W.D. Pa.) is Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., filed 2014-06-25 before Judge Arthur J. Schwab in the Pittsburgh Division. U.S. Patent 6,314,409 ('409 patent, "System for Controlling Access and Distribution of Digital Property," IV II-owned) was one of five patents asserted — but it was not the only one (the complaint also pleaded the '666, '574, '002 and '298 patents), and the case itself was not litigated to judgment on its own docket. Twelve days after the last defendant was served, the case was consolidated into an earlier IV–PNC action, No. 2:13-cv-00740, and stayed pending PTO/PTAB review; the 2:14-cv-00832 docket was then administratively terminated (2014-08-13). So there is no Markman ruling, no trial, and no verdict on this docket number — the substantive fight happened in the lead case and in parallel PTAB and § 101 proceedings elsewhere.

---

1. Parties, patents, counsel (as verified from the filings)

Sources: docket at Justia Dockets and Plainsite; complaint text at RPX Insight. One docket aggregator lists the cause of action as "35 U.S.C. § 145" — that is a docketing/clerk artifact; the nature of suit is patent infringement under § 271 (Ex Parte case page).

---

2. Chronology of the 2014 action (2:14-cv-00832)

2014-06-23 — Pre-suit notice. IV's counsel sent PNC a letter advising of infringement of at least claim 4 of the '666 patent — pleaded to support the knowledge/willfulness allegations (Compl. ¶ 24).

2014-06-25 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1). Five counts, one per patent: '666 (cl. 4, IBM System z/zEnterprise-based mainframe use), '574 (cl. 18, PCI-DSS encrypted sessions), '002 (menu-interface agent), '298 (cl. 1, PCI-DSS validation functionality, IV I-owned and asserted against PNCMS), and '409 (cl. 1, against all defendants — card/debit/credit payment services using PCI-DSS technology and NACHA-compliant ACH services). Direct infringement plus induced and contributory infringement theories, with willfulness and enhanced-damages/attorney-fee prayers. Jury demand by plaintiffs.

2014-07-02 — Service on all three PNC entities; answers initially due 2014-07-23 (Docs. 19–21).

2014-07-11 — Stipulation extending answer to 2014-09-08 (Doc. 28). This is strategically telling: the defendants never answered on this docket before consolidation.

2014-07-11/2014-07-15 — Defense notices of appearance and disclosure statement (Docs. 26–27, 29); a clerk's quality-control notice flagged PNC for not filing its L.R. 7.1.1 disclosure statement.

2014-08-12 — Order granting the motion to consolidate and to stay (Doc. 37, Judge Schwab, resolving Doc. 31). The 2014 action was consolidated into the earlier-filed 2:13-cv-00740 (IV I/IV II v. PNC and PNC Bank, filed 2013-05-29), and the consolidated action was stayed. The docket shows 2:14-cv-00832 terminated 2014-08-13.

No Markman hearing, no claim construction, no summary judgment practice, no discovery milestones, no trial, no verdict, no post-trial motions and no appeal on this docket number. The case never got past initial pleadings.

---

3. What the real fight was: the lead case 2:13-cv-00740, and the stay wiring

PNC's own SEC disclosures (quoted in a PTAB exhibit filing — PNC 10-K excerpt, CBM2014-00177 Ex. 1014) describe the lead case's arc:

• 2013-05-29 (docket) / June 2013 (PNC's description): IV I/IV II sued PNC and PNC Bank in W.D. Pa. on five patents.
• July 2013: PNC answered and counterclaimed, seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity.
• November 2013: PNC filed CBM/post-grant review petitions at the PTO seeking to invalidate all five asserted patents. These are the CBM2014-00028/00029/00030 family (PTAB caption: Bank of America, National Association, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, patent nos. 8,083,137; 7,664,701; 7,603,382; and 7,260,587) plus PNC v. IV I, CBM2014-00032 on the '298 patent (7,757,298) (PTAB oral-hearing record, CBM2014-00033; Docket Alarm PTAB search).
• 2013-12-06: the W.D. Pa. court dismissed IV's claims as to two of the patents and stayed the suit pending the PTO review petitions and any appeals (PNC 10-K). The same date is recorded as the "termination" of 2:13-cv-00740 in IV's later PTAB mandatory notices — i.e., the lead case was statistically closed/stayed at that point and later reopened when the 2014 complaint was consolidated into it (IPR2015-01322 Mandatory Notices).

Why IV filed a second suit in June 2014: the 2014 complaint asserted a largely different patent set ('666, '574, '002, '298, '409) from the 2013 action. IV II's parallel campaign against the banks (BBVA Compass, Commerce, First National Bank of Omaha, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust, U.S. Bancorp, Huntington, Capital One) shows the '409 patent was being pushed in the 2013–14 wave (IPR2014-00722 Petitioners' Updated Notice of Related Matters, 2014-07-17, which expressly lists "No. 2:14-cv-00832 (W.D. Pa.)" as related matter (9)). Caveat: I could not verify from the filings whether the 2013 action's five patents fully overlap with the 2014 set — the '298 patent appears in both, and the '382/'137/'701/'587 family does not appear in the 2014 complaint.

Effect of the stay: because 2:13-cv-00832 was merged into a case already stayed under the PTAB petitions, the new complaint produced no litigation progress at all — no answer with invalidity counterclaims, no Rule 26 disclosures, no Markman, no damages discovery. As of PNC's Q3 2015 10-Q, the W.D. Pa. matter is still described as consolidated pretrial proceedings (PNC 10-Q, Q3 2015).

---

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings touching the asserted patents

On the '409 patent (US 6,314,409):

• IPR2014-00672 and IPR2014-00673 — petitions by non-party IBM.
• IPR2014-00719 and IPR2014-00722 — petitions by Compass Bank, Commerce Bancshares and First National Bank of Omaha (Jones Day), challenging claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–27, 29–30, 32–33, 36–39 (IPR2014-00722 Petition, 2014).
• CBM2014-00157 — petition by JPMorgan Chase entities.
• 2014-09-22 — the PTAB denied institution as to the '409 patent claims, including the claims IV had asserted against the banks (per the N.D. Ga. stay opinion, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02454-WSD, 2014 WL 5019913 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2014), Justia). IV's lead PTAB counsel was Sterne Kessler (Lori A. Gordon, Jonathan M. Strang) with in-house support (Donald J. Coulman, Tim R. Seeley).
• 2015-06-01 — new IPR2015-01322 / IPR2015-01323 petitions against the '409 (related-matter notices filed 2015-06-22). On 2015-09-24 the Board denied Patent Owner's motion for additional discovery on the IBM/JPMC privity-and-indemnity theory, applying the Garmin factors — a real setback for IV's effort to knock out the petitioners on privity grounds (decision).

On the '666 patent (7,634,666): the PTAB instituted IPR on all claims on 2014-04-16, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–11 are invalid over prior art (SunTrust opinion, Oct. 7, 2014). Final written decisions across the bank cases were expected by October 2015 (or April 2016 for cause).

On the '694 patent (6,826,694): institution of IPR as to claim 1 on 2014-09-24 (same opinion).

On the '298 patent (7,757,298): PNC's CBM2014-00032 was filed in November 2013 — outcome not verified here.

I did not find instituted PTAB proceedings on the '574 or '002 patents; treat that as unverified rather than as a negative finding.

---

5. The decisive parallel rulings: § 101 invalidation of the '409 patent

The '409 patent was killed off outside W.D. Pa., which is why the stayed PNC case became largely academic:

• 2015-04-28 — S.D.N.Y. (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777-AKH, 2015 WL 1941331 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2015), Judge Hellerstein): the court held the '409 and '084 patents invalid (patent-ineligible under § 101).
• 2015-09-25 — W.D. Pa. (Judge Mark R. Hornak), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., Nos. 1:14-cv-00220/1130/1131: dismissed IV's claims on other IV patents (the '581, '434 and '002 patents) under § 101 and for lack of standing on the '581 patent — a § 101 ruling on the '002 patent, one of the very patents added to the PNC 2014 complaint (opinion, 2015-09-25).
• 2015-11-30 — D. Md. (IV v. Capital One, No. 8:14-cv-00111-PWG): the court applied issue preclusion from the JPMC ruling and entered final judgment that the '084 and '409 patents are invalid, then denied IV's Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate (Doc. 417, filed 2015-11-30, Docket Alarm).
• 2017-02-10 — Federal Circuit: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (decided the same day as IV v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315), the companion appeal from the W.D. Pa. § 101 dismissals. This appeal is where the § 101 judgments against the '084/'409 family were reviewed on the merits. I am citing the reported citation and date from recollection of the published opinions rather than from a verified docket entry in this session — please confirm the precise holding as to the '409 patent before relying on it.

---

6. Final disposition and present posture

• 2:14-cv-00832: disposed of by consolidation and termination on 2014-08-13; its claims (including the '409 claim) were carried forward into 2:13-cv-00740, which was under a PTAB-driven stay.
• Consolidated W.D. Pa. action (2:13-cv-00740 + 2:14-cv-00832): last verified status is a stayed, consolidated pretrial proceeding as of PNC's Q3 2015 10-Q. I could not verify a final dismissal order, settlement, stipulated judgment, or appeal on the W.D. Pa. docket — this is the key open item. Given that (a) the PTAB denied institution on the '409 in Sept. 2014 but instituted on the '666, (b) the '409 and '002 patents were invalidated under § 101 in other districts in 2015, and (c) PNC's later 10-K/10-Q filings stop describing active IV–PNC patent litigation, the practical outcome was almost certainly resolution or abandonment rather than trial — but I will not assert a specific settlement date or terms without a docket entry.
• Trial / verdict / JMOL / fees: none in this matter. No Markman ruling, no summary judgment ruling, no damages or fee award.
• Practical outcome as to the '409 patent: the patent was held invalid for patent-ineligible subject matter (S.D.N.Y. 2015-04-28; D. Md. final judgment 2015, affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit in 2017) and the PTAB declined to institute the 2014 IPRs against it. Either way, the '409 claim in the PNC case had no viable path forward.

---

7. Verification notes (avoiding fabrication)

1. Party/caption correction — the metadata "Untitled case" / "family litigation" label should be replaced with Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00832-AJS.
2. Patents-at-issue field is incomplete — 6,314,409 was one of five patents pleaded; if the case record is used elsewhere, the '666, '574, '002 and '298 patents should be listed too.
3. Unverified items flagged above: the exact 2013-case patent set and its overlap with the 2014 complaint; the outcome of CBM2014-00032 ('298); whether any PTAB petition was instituted on the '574 or '002 patents; the precise Federal Circuit holding on the '409 patent in IV v. Capital One; and the ultimate disposition of the consolidated W.D. Pa. action. Each would be confirmed by pulling the full PACER docket for 2:13-cv-00740 (including post-2015 entries) and the PTAB P-TACTS records for CBM2014-00032 and IPR2015-01322/01323.

I'll research this case using multiple search angles.

I got a possible match. Let me verify the case identity and patents.

Case identified: Intellectual Ventures I LLC & Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Now let me pull the docket and identify plaintiff's counsel.

Bottom line

The "unverified" metadata can now be resolved: 2:14-cv-00832 is Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., filed June 25, 2014 in W.D. Pa. (Pittsburgh), assigned to Judge Arthur J. Schwab. U.S. Patent No. 6,314,409 ("System for controlling access and distribution of digital property," Schneck & Abrams; assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC) is one of five patents asserted in the complaint (along with the '666, '574, '002 and '298 patents). The complaint expressly alleges that Intellectual Ventures II owns the '409 patent and the '298 patent is owned by Intellectual Ventures I. (Complaint via RPX Insight; IPR2014-00722 Petitioner's Notice of Related Matters)

On August 12, 2014 Judge Schwab granted a motion to consolidate this case with the earlier IV v. PNC action, No. 2:13-cv-00740, and to stay it (Dkt. 37). The case is now shown as closed. (Justia docket 2:2014cv00832)

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Caveat on sourcing: PACER itself is paywalled; the entries below are drawn from the RECAP-derived docket mirrors (Justia, PlainSite, Docket Alarm) and the pro hac vice orders on the docket sheet. Where I could not verify a firm or full name, I say so rather than guess.

Not plaintiff's counsel (for contrast): Dkts. 26 and 27 are Notices of Appearance by Thomas L. Allen and Justin J. Kontul for the PNC defendants — both Reed Smith LLP (Pittsburgh), i.e., defense side. (PlainSite docket)

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings (context on the '409 patent)

The '409 patent was heavily challenged while this case was pending, which is a standard reason the district case was stayed:

• IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II — IPR2014-00673 and IPR2014-00722, petitions filed April–May 2014, challenging claims 23–27, 29–30, 32–33, 36–40. (IBM § 301 submission, Ex. 1004)
• Compass Bank, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., and First National Bank of Omaha — IPR2014-00719 (filed May 1, 2014).
• CBM2014-00157 — covered business method review of the '409 patent; IV's own Markman slides and tutorial from the sibling S.D.N.Y. case (No. 1:13-cv-3777, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein) were filed as exhibits. (CBM2014-00157 record)

In its July 17, 2014 Notice of Related Matters, IV listed nine pending lawsuits asserting the '409 patent, including the PNC action at No. 2:14-cv-00832.

---

What I could not verify / limitations

1. No sealed filings were identified in this case; the docket appears to be a normal public patent docket, but the case was stayed barely seven weeks after filing and then terminated, so the record is thin.
2. Firm attributions for the Feinberg Day team are inferred from the firm name and general IV practice; I did not confirm each attorney's current/2014 firm page.
3. Samantha Quinn's firm and the identity of the "Joseph F. ___" entry are unresolved from the sources I could access. A direct PACER pull of the attorney/party report for 2:14-cv-00832 (and the consolidated 2:13-cv-00740 case) would settle both.
4. The plaintiff's counsel team likely overlapped substantially with the 2013 consolidated case (2:13-cv-00740); if you need the complete historical team, that docket's appearance entries should be pulled too.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case, building on the PNC counsel names already flagged in the prior section.

Let me pull the actual docket attorney listings and research the PNC counsel.