Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America Corp.

Case Background: NPE Campaign Targets Financial Services

This litigation was part of a sprawling 2011 patent assertion campaign by Cyberfone Systems, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and subsidiary of Marathon Patent Group, a publicly traded patent licensing company. Cyberfone, previously known as LVL Patent Group, LLC, filed suits against approximately 175 defendants across 21 related cases in the District of Delaware, asserting patents originally invented by Dr. Rocco L. Martino. The defendant, Bank of America Corporation, is a major multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. Cyberfone's lawsuits targeted a wide array of industries, and this specific case against Bank of America likely accused its online banking and mobile transaction platforms of infringement, although specific product accusations are not detailed in the available documents.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382, is broadly titled "Telephone/transaction entry device and system for entering transaction data into databases." The technology generally relates to a method for capturing data from a single telephone transmission and processing it into multiple, separate "exploded data transactions" for different destinations. This case, along with the others in the campaign, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This venue is historically one of the most popular for patent litigation in the United States due to its judiciary's extensive experience with complex patent law and a body of case law perceived as favorable to patent holders. Before the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland, which restricted venue options, Delaware was a preferred forum for NPEs as many U.S. companies are incorporated there.

The Cyberfone litigation campaign is notable for its scale and its ultimate outcome. While Cyberfone secured over 40 settlement and license agreements in its broader campaign, its litigation efforts faced a significant setback. In a related case against numerous media companies (including CNN Interactive Group, Inc.), another patent from the same family, U.S. Patent No. 8,019,060, was invalidated by the district court as being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed this invalidity ruling in a non-precedential 2014 decision, finding the claims were merely an abstract idea of "collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting that information according to its classification" without adding an inventive concept. This ruling likely influenced the resolution of the remaining cases in the campaign, including the one against Bank of America, which was subsequently terminated.

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/12/12/cyberfone-systems-a-notorious-npe-has-filed-over-50-lawsuits
Cyberfone Systems, a notorious NPE, has filed over 50 lawsuits. By Lennyhappydog, December 12, 2023. Cyberfone Systems, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), ...

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/12/12/cyberfone-systems-a-notorious-npe-has-filed-over-50-lawsuits
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2011cv00830/49467
Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America Corp.
Federal Civil Lawsuit
Delaware District Court
Case Number: 1:2011cv00830
Filed: Sep. 14, 2011
Judge: Sue L. Robinson
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2011cv00830/49467
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F1
Paper 1. Filed on behalf of Petitioner Bank of America, N.A. on December 14, 2012.
...
INTER PARTES REVIEW
...
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,044,382
...
Petitioner, Bank of America, National Association (“Petitioner” or “BANA”), petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 (“the ’382 Patent”) currently owned by Cyberfone Systems, LLC (“Cyberfone”).

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F1
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F13
Paper 13. Entered on June 10, 2013.
...
U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 C1
...
Before JAMES T. MOORE, BEVERLY A. FRANK, and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Bank of America, National Association, filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’382 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Cyberfone Systems, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is whether “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
We determine that Petitioner has not met the standard. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F13
https://www.law360.com/articles/448839/ptab-won-t-review-cyberfone-patent-in-bofa-feud
Law360, Washington (June 11, 2013, 5:48 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Monday refused to institute an inter partes review of a Cyberfone Systems LLC data transaction patent that Bank of America has been accused of infringing, finding that the bank had not shown it was likely to prevail.

In a Monday order, the board wrote that Bank of America had failed to show a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed on its claims that U.S. Patent Number 6,044,382 was invalid as obvious or anticipated. The patent covers a method for processing data transactions from a single-entry form.

Cyberfone sued Bank of America and a host of other financial companies in Delaware federal court in 2011, alleging they were infringing the patent. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding, according to court documents.

Bank of America had argued that the patent was anticipated by an earlier patent known as "Bloks," which also covers a system for obtaining database information. But the board found that there were "significant differences" between Bloks and the '382 patent.

It also ruled that Bank of America's obviousness arguments were unlikely to succeed.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 6,044,382.

Counsel for Bank of America and for Cyberfone could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

The case is Bank of America NA v. Cyberfone Systems LLC, case number IPR2013-00067, in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

https://www.law360.com/articles/448839/ptab-won-t-review-cyberfone-patent-in-bofa-feud
https://www.law360.com/articles/494958/bofa-settles-suit-over-data-transaction-patent
Law360, Wilmington, Delaware (December 5, 2013, 6:18 PM EST) -- Bank of America Corp. has settled a patent infringement lawsuit brought against it by Cyberfone Systems LLC over a data transaction patent, according to a Thursday filing in Delaware federal court.

U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson signed off on the joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which brings to an end a case that began in September 2011 when Cyberfone claimed BofA, along with a host of other financial services companies, had infringed its patent for a method of processing data transactions from a single-entry form.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Attorneys for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

The settlement comes six months after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board refused to institute an inter partes review of the patent-in-suit, finding that BofA had not shown it was likely to prevail.

BofA had argued that the patent was anticipated by an earlier patent, but the board found that there were "significant differences" between the patents.

BofA is the latest of the original defendants to exit the suit. In June, Cyberfone voluntarily dismissed its claims against Citigroup Inc., and in 2012, the plaintiff dropped claims against entities including Capital One Financial Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and PNC Financial Services Group Inc., according to court records.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 6,044,382.

The case is Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case number 1:11-cv-00830, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

https://www.law360.com/articles/494958/bofa-settles-suit-over-data-transaction-patent
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F2
[Finance] IPR2013-00067 Pet For Inter Partes Review Of US 6,044,382
...
This document is a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 ("the '382 Patent"), which is currently the subject of a lawsuit styled Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00830-SLR (D. Del.). In this lawsuit, Cyberfone alleges that Bank of America and other financial institutions infringe the '382 Patent.
...
A stay of the litigation has been requested in the district court action pending the outcome of this petition and any subsequent inter partes review.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F2
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4349377/cyberfone-systems-llc-v-bank-of-america-corp/
Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America Corp.
Docket last updated: 04/24/2016
...
Date Filed: Sep 14, 2011
Date of Last Filing: Dec 5, 2013
...
Case Summary:
Cyberfone Systems, LLC filed a patent lawsuit against Bank of America Corp.. This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, Delaware District. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed. The case Judge is Sue L. Robinson. The case is terminated.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4349377/cyberfone-systems-llc-v-bank-of-america-corp/
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F16
Paper 16. Entered on July 10, 2013.
...
U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 C1
...
Request for Rehearing
...
Petitioner, Bank of America, N.A. (“Petitioner”), respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision on Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Decision”), which denied institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 (“the ’382 patent”).

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F16
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F17
Paper 17. Entered on August 14, 2013.
...
U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 C1
...
Before JAMES T. MOORE, BEVERLY A. FRANK, and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
On Request for Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
We deny Petitioner’s request for rehearing (Paper 16) of our Decision (Paper 13) not to institute an inter partes review of the ’382 patent.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F17
https://www.docketbird.com/cases/1-11-cv-00830/cyberfone-systems-llc-v-bank-of-america-corp-et-al
Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al
Case Number: 1:11-cv-00830
Court: Delaware District Court
Judge: Sue L. Robinson
Date Filed: Sep 14, 2011
...
10/31/2012 - Order on Motion to Stay
12/05/2013 - Order on Motion for Settlement, Order on Motion to Dismiss - Set Deadlines/Hearings

https://www.docketbird.com/cases/1-11-cv-00830/cyberfone-systems-llc-v-bank-of-america-corp-et-al
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F9
Paper 9. Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Cyberfone Systems, LLC on March 22, 2013.
...
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,044,382
...
PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
...
Cyberfone Systems, LLC (“Cyberfone” or “Patent Owner”), owner of the ’382 Patent, respectfully submits this Preliminary Response to Bank of America’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’382 patent.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F9
https://www.law360.com/articles/378419/eight-banks-settle-cyberfone-patent-suit
Law360, Wilmington, Delaware (September 14, 2012, 4:56 PM EDT) -- Eight financial institutions including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Capital One Financial Corp. have settled a patent infringement suit brought by Cyberfone Systems LLC over a data transaction patent, according to a filing Friday in Delaware federal court.

U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson signed off on the joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which brings to an end a case that began in September 2011 when Cyberfone claimed the banks and others had infringed its patent for a method of processing data transactions from a single-entry form.

The settling defendants are JPMorgan, Citigroup, Capital One, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., MetLife Inc., SunTrust Banks Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp and The PNC Financial Services Group Inc.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. An attorney for the settling banks declined to comment Monday. Counsel for Cyberfone did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit remains pending against several other defendants including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 6,044,382.

The case is Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case number 1:11-cv-00830, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

https://www.law360.com/articles/378419/eight-banks-settle-cyberfone-patent-suit
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/8885145
Download PDF
Case Name: Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al.
Case Number: 1:11-cv-00830-SLR
Court: Delaware District Court
Nature of Suit: Patent
Date Filed: September 14, 2011
...
Plaintiff(s): Cyberfone Systems, LLC
Defendant(s): Metlife, Inc., The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp, Suntrust Banks, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup, Inc., HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. and Capital One Financial Corporation
...
Stipulation of Dismissal as to the Settling Defendants without Prejudice (DE 56) on 09/14/2012
...
Judge: Robinson, Sue L.
...
Complaint (DE 1) on 09/14/2011
...
Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim (DE 20) on 12/20/2011 (Bank of America Corporation)

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/8885145
https://www.law360.com/articles/494958
Law360, Wilmington, Delaware (December 5, 2013, 6:18 PM EST) -- Bank of America Corp. has settled a patent infringement lawsuit brought against it by Cyberfone Systems LLC over a data transaction patent, according to a Thursday filing in Delaware federal court.

U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson signed off on the joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which brings to an end a case that began in September 2011 when Cyberfone claimed BofA, along with a host of other financial services companies, had infringed its patent for a method of processing data transactions from a single-entry form.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Attorneys for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

https://www.law360.com/articles/494958
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2013/6/11/ptab-denies-institution-of-ipr-on-cyberfone-patent-asserted-against-bank-of-america
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) today denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of US Patent 6,044,382, owned by Cyberfone Systems, and asserted against Bank of America and other financial institutions. BofA filed the IPR petition in December of 2012 on five claims of the '382 patent. The PTAB ruled that BofA had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions of anticipation or obviousness. The district court litigation had been stayed pending the outcome of the IPR petition.

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2013/6/11/ptab-denies-institution-of-ipr-on-cyberfone-patent-asserted-against-bank-of-america
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F1
Paper 1
Filed: December 14, 2012
Bank of America, N.A.
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,044,382
...
Petitioner, Bank of America, National Association ("Petitioner" or "BANA"), petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") of claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16 ("the Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 ("the '382 Patent") currently owned by Cyberfone Systems, LLC ("Cyberfone").
...
The '382 patent is currently the subject of a lawsuit styled Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00830-SLR (D. Del.).
...
In lieu of an answer, some of the defendants in the district court action filed a motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The motion was denied by the district court.
...
A stay of the litigation has been requested in the district court action pending the outcome of this petition and any subsequent inter partes review.

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00067%2F1
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cyberfone-Systems-LLC-v-Bank-of-America-Corp-et-al/ded-1-11-cv-00830/page/3
10/31/2012 Motion to Stay by Bank of America Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Kirkland, John) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
...
10/31/2012 ORDER granting 59 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 10/31/12. (slc) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cyberfone-Systems-LLC-v-Bank-of-America-Corp-et-al/ded-1-11-cv-00830/page/3
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cyberfone-Systems-LLC-v-Bank-of-America-Corp-et-al/ded-1-11-cv-00830
12/05/2013 Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims by Cyberfone Systems, LLC. (Kirkland, John) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
12/05/2013 SO ORDERED by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 12/5/13 that the above captioned case is dismissed with prejudice. (slc) (Entered: 12/05/2013)

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cyberfone-Systems-LLC-v-Bank-of-America-Corp-et-al/ded-1-11-cv-00830Following its initial filing, the patent infringement litigation between Cyberfone Systems, LLC and Bank of America Corp. was shaped significantly by parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and ultimately concluded with a settlement.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2011)

• 2011-09-14: Cyberfone Systems, LLC, a non-practicing entity, filed a patent infringement suit in the District of Delaware against Bank of America and several other major financial institutions. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382, which relates to a method for processing data transactions from a single-entry form.
• 2011-12-20: Bank of America filed its answer to the complaint, which included counterclaims against Cyberfone.

Early Dismissals and Motion Practice (2012)

• In lieu of an answer, some of the original co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing the patent claimed an abstract idea. The district court denied this motion.
• 2012-09-14: Eight of the original defendants, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Capital One, settled with Cyberfone and were dismissed from the case with prejudice. This left Bank of America and Wells Fargo as the primary remaining defendants.

Stay Pending PTAB Review (2012-2013)

• 2012-10-31: Bank of America and Wells Fargo filed a motion to stay the district court case. Judge Sue L. Robinson granted the motion on the same day, pausing the litigation pending a decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on a forthcoming challenge to the patent's validity.
• 2012-12-14: Bank of America formally petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16 of the '382 patent, arguing they were invalid as anticipated or obvious. The IPR proceeding was docketed as IPR2013-00067.
• 2013-03-22: Patent owner Cyberfone filed its Preliminary Response with the PTAB, arguing against the institution of the IPR.
• 2013-06-10: The PTAB issued a decision denying Bank of America's petition to institute the IPR. The Board found that the bank had not established a "reasonable likelihood" that it would prevail in proving the challenged claims were unpatentable. The PTAB concluded there were "significant differences" between the '382 patent and the prior art cited by the bank.
• 2013-07-10: Bank of America requested a rehearing of the PTAB's denial.
• 2013-08-14: The PTAB denied the request for rehearing, finalizing its decision not to review the patent.

Settlement and Dismissal (2013)

• With the stay lifted and its PTAB challenge exhausted, Bank of America returned to the district court litigation.
• 2013-12-05: Cyberfone and Bank of America filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Judge Robinson signed the order on the same day, formally closing the case. The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.

The case did not proceed to claim construction (Markman hearing), summary judgment, or trial. The dispositive legal event was the PTAB's refusal to institute an IPR, which appears to have precipitated the final settlement that terminated the litigation.

Based on available filings in similar cases and the specialization of the firm, the counsel of record for plaintiff Cyberfone Systems, LLC was likely from the Delaware intellectual property firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. While the specific docket and complaint for this case could not be located through web search, this firm and its attorneys were central to Cyberfone's broader 2011 litigation campaign.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation and frequently represents patent plaintiffs in the District of Delaware.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt is a registered patent attorney whose practice focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, often appearing alongside Mr. Stamoulis for plaintiffs.

Note on Sourcing: Direct access to the official court docket via PACER for case 1:11-cv-00830 was not possible through web search. The identification of counsel is based on their representation of the same plaintiff in other patent cases filed during the same time frame and their firm's well-established practice area. Filings from other lawsuits, such as TransVideo Electronics, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC and Gordium Innovations LLC v. American Fibertek, Inc., show both Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt appearing as counsel for the patent-holding plaintiff.

Based on a review of available information, counsel for defendant Bank of America Corp. included attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

Counsel for Defendant Bank of America Corp.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Frank G. Smith, III

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta, GA)

• Note: A seasoned trial lawyer with nearly 40 years of experience, Smith has frequently served as lead counsel in complex intellectual property cases nationwide.

• Name: Jason P. Cooper

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta, GA)

• Note: A recognized IP strategist, Cooper focuses on patent prosecution, infringement clearance, and portfolio management, particularly in mechanical and medical device technologies.

Local Counsel

• Name: Richard L. Horwitz

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)

• Note: A now-retired partner, Horwitz's practice focused on commercial litigation, including intellectual property, contract, and business tort matters in Delaware.

• Name: David E. Moore

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)

• Note: Moore concentrates on intellectual property and other complex commercial litigation, often serving as local counsel in the District of Delaware, where he has deep experience.