BioPay, LLC v. Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches to verify the details.

Let me verify the specific patents and check for the related Delaware infringement case, ex parte reexaminations, and any later assertion history.

Let me check the related Delaware infringement suit, the later history of these patents (bankruptcy/sales, PTAB, later assertions), and the docket.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Both sides were operating biometric-payment companies, not NPEs. Plaintiff BioPay, LLC (Herndon, Va.) was the self-described "leader and innovator in biometrically-initiated payment processing," selling its Paycheck Secure fingerprint system for payroll and check cashing and ACH-based payments at roughly 1,000–1,600 merchant locations (including Bi-Lo and Marsh Supermarkets), with more than 1.5–2 million enrolled consumers. Notably, BioPay had no issued patents when it sued — only ~29 pending applications — which it publicly framed as why it filed a declaratory-judgment action rather than an infringement suit (finextra, thepaypers). Defendant Solidus Networks, Inc. (San Francisco), doing business as Pay By Touch, had acquired Indivos Corporation in April 2004 and built a large portfolio it claimed comprised ~22–24 issued and 12–13 pending patents on "tokenless" biometric authentication; Indivos was named as a co-defendant, presumably because it was the record assignee of the core patent family. Pay By Touch's flagship deployment was in grocery (e.g., Piggly Wiggly Carolina, all 85 stores).

Accused technology. The dispute was over fingerprint-at-the-point-of-sale payment and check-cashing systems. Both companies enrolled consumers by linking a fingerprint template to a payment card or bank account, then authorized subsequent transactions by a fingertip scan at the POS (American Banker). BioPay characterized the case as defensive: it alleged Pay By Touch was telling prospective merchant clients it "owned a monopoly on biometric financial transactions" and that signing with BioPay would invite suit, prompting BioPay to seek a judicial declaration that it infringed nothing (finextra; Digital Transactions). Two patents were at issue (per the case metadata): U.S. 6,581,042 B2, "Tokenless biometric electronic check transactions" (Indivos Corporation; priority dating to the 1994 Indivos "tokenless" family) — a system/method for authorizing electronic check transactions using only a biometric sample and a registered checking account, with no paper check or token presented; and U.S. 6,728,397 B2, "Check verification system" (inventor Joan Tibor McNeal; filed 1998-06-19, granted 2004-04-27), which Pay By Touch acquired in January 2005 from Biometric Payments Systems (Atlanta) and which covers digitizing check/token indicia (e.g., the MICR line) together with biometric data for centralized verification — squarely aimed at BioPay's check-cashing core business. (Press releases of the era variously cite the second patent as "6,278,397," apparently a typo; the asserted/asserted-in-press patent is 6,728,397.)

Procedural posture and venue. BioPay filed its DJ action on January 18, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Wilmington Division — C.A. No. 1:05-cv-00025-SLR, assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson (the "SLR" suffix; verified on the face of the court filing). Pay By Touch responded in mid-February 2005 (reported as a February 15 "countersuit") alleging willful infringement of the '042 and '397 patents and seeking treble damages, and the February docket entry's reference to dismissing "the claims and counterclaims in this action" suggests the infringement allegations were pleaded in the same Delaware proceeding (insideARM; American Banker). Delaware was a natural forum: Indivos was a Delaware corporation, D. Del. was (and is) a magnet patent venue with a deep local patent bar, and a single Delaware action could consolidate the dueling claims. Trial was calendared for January 2007.

Resolution and why the case is notable. The litigation ended not by verdict but by vertical merger: on/about December 6, 2005, Pay By Touch announced it would acquire BioPay for $82 million in stock and cash, absorbing BioPay's entire patent portfolio (Law.com; Digital Transactions). The case was closed by a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, dated February 2, 2006 and entered February 22, 2006 (Doc. 34-2), each side bearing its own costs. The case is notable on several axes: (1) it is a rival-vs-rival patent fight resolved by consolidation rather than a PAE/NPE assertion campaign; (2) BioPay's declaratory-judgment-first strategy — a patent-poor operating company using a DJ action as a competitive counter to a patent-rich rival's sales messaging — is a textbook early example of "patents as a business-killer" (TowerGroup analyst Josh Kessler's phrase in American Banker); (3) it illustrates the nascent biometric-payments market and the ACH-vs-card economics that drove merchant adoption (Gartner's Avivah Litan called the fight "a lot of hot air" given the small market); and (4) it foreshadowed Pay By Touch's later collapse into bankruptcy (2008), after which the Solidus/Indivos patent portfolio was dispersed — a Unified Patents portal entry lists both Solidus Networks and Open Invention Network LLC among assignees of patents in this family.

Sourcing caveats. Party descriptions, patent identification (including the 6,278,397/6,728,397 typo), the $82M merger, and the February 2006 dismissal are well-sourced (American Banker, Law.com, Digital Transactions, insideARM, finextra, thepaypers, and the filed stipulation). Two items I could not fully verify within my search budget and would want to confirm against PACER/RECAP: the exact docket number of the separate Pay By Touch infringement action (if it was docketed separately from 05-25 rather than as counterclaims), and the detailed post-2008 chain of title for the '042/'397 patents. No IPR or other PTAB proceeding is possible for these 2003–2004 patents at the time of the dispute (IPRs began in 2012), and I found no evidence of any such later proceeding — treat the absence of PTAB history as unverified rather than confirmed. The metadata's "settled" status should be understood as resolution-by-acquisition plus stipulated dismissal without prejudice, not a merits settlement.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good foundation. Now let me get docket-level detail and check for PTAB proceedings on these patents.

Let me do a final round of targeted searches on the docket and PTAB angle.

I'll research the counsel of record for BioPay, LLC in this Delaware declaratory-judgment action.

I found the dismissal stipulation. Let me dig deeper into the docket and original complaint to confirm the full plaintiff-side roster and any changes in counsel.

I have strong docket-based confirmation. Let me verify the attorneys' backgrounds and check for the original complaint/appearances and any CourtListener docket.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff BioPay, LLC

Bottom line up front: BioPay's legal team was a two-tier arrangement typical of Delaware patent practice — a Delaware local-counsel firm (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) signing everything on the docket, and an out-of-state "of counsel" firm (Verrill Dana, LLP) carrying the substantive patent work out of Maine and Boston. I could not identify any in-house BioPay lawyer of record, and no separate plaintiff-side firm appeared.

The names below are drawn directly from case filings in 1:05-cv-00025-SLR. Note on sourcing: these documents were reviewed through OCR'd reproductions of the court file (findforms.com reproductions of D. Del. CM/ECF filings), not a live PACER pull, so there is minor OCR degradation in the captured text; the attorney names, firms, addresses, and bar/ID numbers are consistent across multiple documents, which gives me confidence in them.

---

Delaware / local counsel — Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Of counsel (out-of-state) — Verrill Dana, LLP

---

Important caveats / what I could not confirm

• No in-house BioPay counsel of record identified. BioPay's president, Tim Robinson, is quoted extensively in contemporaneous press as the company's public spokesperson for the suit, but he is not a lawyer and did not appear on the docket. If BioPay had in-house counsel, they did not enter an appearance.
• No additional plaintiff-side firms. The pleadings I recovered (Notice of Service and dismissal stipulation) show only Verrill Dana (of counsel) plus Potter Anderson (local), so I have no evidence of other plaintiff-side counsel.
• Firm-name/affiliation at the time: The Delaware firm is styled "Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP" in the filings. It has since been rebranded (now commonly "Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP"); I did not independently verify each attorney's current firm or status as of today, so treat current affiliations as unconfirmed.
• Verification limitation: I was unable to complete a live PACER/CourtListener docket pull (Dkt. 1, the original complaint, and any early appearances) before reaching my research limit. The counsel roster above is anchored to Docket Entries 27, 31, 33, and 34-2, all of which postdate the complaint. I did not find a document listing plaintiff's counsel from the case's opening days, so it is possible — though not evidenced — that appearances were amended early on. To be fully rigorous, I would pull the full docket sheet and the complaint (Dkt. 1) to confirm the plaintiff's original appearance(s).

Suggested next verification steps

1. PACER docket report for 1:05-cv-00025-SLR (D. Del.) — check Dkt. 1 (complaint) and the "attorney appearances" / ECF participant list.
2. CourtListener RECAP docket for the case, if a copy exists, to confirm no mid-case substitutions.
3. Firm bio pages (Potter Anderson; Verrill Dana) to confirm current roles/office locations, since these can change over ~20 years.

Note on the outcome: Consistent with the existing case summary, the litigation ended when Pay By Touch/Solidus agreed to acquire BioPay — memorialized in attorney Horwitz's January 4, 2006 letter (Dkt. 31) — and the parties filed a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs (Dkt. 33, Feb. 2, 2006). The "Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent" (Dkt. 34) lists the patents as U.S. 6,581,042 B2 (held by Indivos Corporation) and U.S. 6,728,397 B2 (listed to Joan Tibor McNeal).

I'll research the docket and counsel for the defendants in this case.

I have strong primary-source hits. Let me dig deeper on each defendant attorney and check for a separate Pay By Touch counterclaim suit.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch & Indivos Corporation

Sourcing note: PACER itself is paywalled and I could not retrieve the live docket sheet directly. The attorney identifications below are drawn from imaged copies of actual case filings from C.A. No. 05‑25‑SLR that are mirrored on public document sites (D.I. 14, D.I. 20, D.I. 31, D.I. 34‑2), plus independent corroboration of each attorney's practice. Where a fact is uncorroborated, I say so.

Bottom line: A single firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, served as both Delaware/local counsel and lead merits counsel for both defendants. No separate Delaware "local counsel" firm and no in-house counsel appear of record. The last appearance on file is the stipulation of voluntary dismissal (Feb. 2, 2006), so the roster below is the complete appearance as of dismissal.

---

1. M. Duncan Grant — Delaware counsel of record / signatory for both defendants

• Firm: Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, Delaware office (Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100, 1313 N. Market St.; also 1313 Market St., P.O. Box 1709).
• Role: The Delaware attorney who signed every defendant-side filing in the case — the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (D.I. 14, Apr. 28, 2005), the opposition/response papers, the Jan. 4, 2006 letter to Chief Judge Robinson and Magistrate Judge Thynge advising the Court of the pending acquisition (D.I. 31), and the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 34‑2, Feb. 2, 2006). Delaware Bar No. 2994.
• Note on experience: Long-tenured Delaware litigator (not a patent specialist per se) with a substantial intellectual-property and Chancery/commercial docket — e.g., Delaware counsel to Google in Gersh v. Google (D. Del. 1:09‑cv‑00494, 2009), to Volvo Construction Equipment in International Construction Products v. Caterpillar (D. Del. 1:15‑cv‑00108), and Delaware counsel in Matthews v. Groove Networks (Del. Ch., 2005) and DFC Global (Del. Ch. 9564‑CB). Pepper Hamilton later merged into Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders (2020).

2. W. Joseph ("Joe") Melnik — lead / of counsel, merits (Pittsburgh)

• Firm: Pepper Hamilton LLP, One Mellon Center, 500 Grant Street, 50th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412‑454‑5000). Identified in the filings as "OF COUNSEL" for defendants alongside Mr. Grant (D.I. 20, D.I. 34‑2), and served as a non‑CM/ECF registered participant by Federal Express (D.I. 20).
• Role: Appears to be the substantive IP/patent lead on the defense team, with Mr. Grant handling Delaware local practice. He was elected a Pepper Hamilton partner effective Jan. 1, 2005 — i.e., days before this case was filed — in the "Patents/Intellectual Property" practice in Pittsburgh.
• Note on experience: Registered patent attorney; his own professional bio expressly lists biometrics and smart cards among the technologies he has litigated, and describes him as lead counsel on numerous PTAB inter partes reviews. He is also the named PCT agent of record on Pepper Hamilton patent filings (e.g., WO 2004/012233 A3, agent "MELNIK, W., Joseph").

3. Raymond A. Miller — of counsel, merits (Pittsburgh)

• Firm: Pepper Hamilton LLP, Pittsburgh (500 Grant St., 50th Floor / Suite 5000).
• Role: Listed as "OF COUNSEL" on the defendant-side filings (D.I. 34‑2, and the same signature block appears on the May 2005 discovery service notice, D.I. 20).
• Note on experience: Registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 42,891); at the relevant time he was head of Pepper Hamilton's Patent Group, with a practice concentrated in life sciences/biopharma prosecution, licensing, and IP due diligence rather than courtroom patent litigation. His deposition/Power of Attorney filings (e.g., IPR2016‑00947) confirm continued patent-practice activity; he later moved to Troutman Pepper and then DLA Piper, and has been ranked in IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers (Pennsylvania IP). Given his biopharma focus, his role here was likely portfolio/technical support rather than first-chair trial work.

---

Points to flag

1. No in-house counsel of record found. Pay By Touch/Solidus's own legal department does not appear in any filing I could locate. If in-house lawyers participated, they did not enter an appearance.
2. Pay By Touch's own infringement suit. Contemporaneous press (American Banker, Nov. 9, 2005; Law.com) reports that Solidus filed its own infringement countersuit around Feb. 15, 2005, four weeks after BioPay's DJ complaint. The dismissal stipulation in 05‑25‑SLR expressly dismisses "the claims and counterclaims in this action," which suggests the infringement claim was pleaded as a counterclaim in this docket rather than as a separately numbered Delaware action — but I could not verify a separate case number, so treat the "counterclaim vs. separate suit" question as unresolved.
3. Metadata vs. press discrepancy. The case summary lists U.S. 6,728,397 B2 as at issue; a Digital Transactions article refers to Pay By Touch's acquired check-cashing patent as "USPTO number 6,278,397," and American Banker says BioPay sued the same day Solidus received a patent (Jan. 18, 2005). These are likely press transcription errors for the '397 patent, but I flag it because it bears on which patent was the subject of the dispute.
4. Definition of "record." The appearances above are the ones visible in the filings that survive on public mirrors. Motions to appear pro hac vice, substitutions, or withdrawal notices between Feb. 2006 and dismissal could exist without being reflected in the documents I could retrieve; I found none.

For context, plaintiff BioPay was represented by a different team — Richard L. Horwitz (I.D. 2246) and David E. Moore (I.D. 3983) of Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, as local counsel, with James G. Goggin (Verrill Dana, Portland, ME) and George P. Field (Verrill Dana, Boston, MA) as of counsel (D.I. 20, D.I. 34‑2).