DataTreasury Corporation v. Bank of America

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology

This litigation was part of a sweeping, industry-wide patent enforcement campaign by DataTreasury Corporation against the U.S. banking sector. DataTreasury, a Plano, Texas-based entity, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds a portfolio of patents related to digital check imaging and processing. The defendant, Bank of America, is one of the largest operating banking institutions in the United States. The dispute centered on Bank of America's systems for processing checks electronically, specifically its methods for capturing digital images of paper checks and transmitting that data for clearing. This technology became foundational to modern banking, particularly after the passage of the "Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act" (Check 21), a 2003 federal law that facilitated the use of electronic check images, or "substitute checks," to streamline the payment system.

Asserted Patents and Procedural Posture

DataTreasury asserted two key patents from its portfolio, often referred to as the "Ballard patents" after their inventor, Claudio Ballard: U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 and U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137. The '988 patent claims a system for remote image capture with centralized processing and storage, including encrypting data for secure transmission. The '137 patent is a continuation-in-part of the '988 patent and similarly covers automated systems for retrieving, encrypting, and processing transaction data from remote locations. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically known for its plaintiff-friendly reputation, specialized patent rules, and rapid trial dockets, which made it a preferred forum for patent assertion entities. The litigation against Bank of America was part of a larger multi-defendant action that also included other major financial institutions like Wells Fargo and Wachovia.

Notability and Industry Impact

The DataTreasury litigation campaign is notable for its sheer scale and impact on the financial services industry. The company sued a vast number of banks and financial service providers, ultimately securing over $350 million in licensing fees and settlements across its various lawsuits. Critics and some industry members characterized DataTreasury as a "patent troll," accusing it of using overly broad patents to tax standard industry practices that developed alongside new federal laws like Check 21. The case against Bank of America proceeded to a jury trial in October 2010 in Judge David Folsom's court. However, the parties reached a confidential settlement during the trial proceedings, a common outcome in this campaign. The broader litigation wave forced a wide swath of the banking industry to license DataTreasury's patents, with even major players like JPMorgan Chase acknowledging the patents' validity and enforceability in consent judgments.

As a senior patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the outcome of the DataTreasury Corporation v. Bank of America litigation, case number 2:05-CV-293, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This case was part of a massive litigation campaign by DataTreasury Corporation, which accused a large portion of the U.S. banking industry of infringing its patents on digital check imaging and processing technology. The case against Bank of America proceeded through significant pre-trial stages and a trial commenced before the parties reached a settlement.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2005)

• Complaint: DataTreasury Corporation filed its patent infringement lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. in 2005. The suit, one of many filed against major financial institutions, was assigned to Judge David Folsom. The complaint alleged that Bank of America's systems for electronically processing checks, particularly those compliant with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21), infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,910,988 and No. 6,032,137 (the "Ballard Patents").
• Answer and Counterclaims: Bank of America denied infringement and counterclaimed that DataTreasury's patents were invalid and not infringed. The specific filing date of the answer is not readily available in public sources, but it would have followed the complaint in 2005.

Parallel Proceedings and Stay of Litigation (2006–2008)

• Ex Parte Re-examination: In response to the litigation, third parties initiated ex parte re-examination proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) challenging the validity of the Ballard Patents. The USPTO granted the request for re-examination in January 2006.
• Motion to Stay: Citing the pending re-examinations, Bank of America and other defendant banks in related cases filed motions to stay the district court litigation. They argued that a stay would simplify issues and promote judicial economy, as the USPTO's review could invalidate or narrow the patent claims at issue.
• Stay Granted: The court granted the defendants' motions, staying the case pending the outcome of the USPTO's review.
• Re-examinations Conclude, Stay Lifted (2007–2008): The re-examinations concluded favorably for DataTreasury.
  • On 2007-07-13, the USPTO issued a "Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate" for the '988 patent, confirming the patentability of all original claims (some in amended form) and allowing numerous new claims. The examiner's statement of reasons noted that the prior art failed to teach key limitations of the claims, such as providing encrypted subsystem identification information from a remote capture system to a central system.
  • Similarly, the re-examination for the '137 patent concluded with the patent claims being confirmed.
  • Following the conclusion of these proceedings, DataTreasury moved to lift the stay. On 2008-03-11, Judge Folsom granted the motion, finding that the stay was no longer warranted as the re-examinations had confirmed the validity of the Ballard Patents. The litigation then resumed.

Claim Construction (2009)

• Markman Ruling: After the stay was lifted, the case proceeded to claim construction. On 2009-05-11, Judge Folsom issued a comprehensive claim construction order in the consolidated cases, including the Bank of America matter. This Markman ruling interpreted the scope and meaning of disputed key terms in the patents, setting the stage for discovery and summary judgment motions based on the court's definitions. The ruling was cited in later, unrelated patent disputes for its construction of terms like "wide area network (WAN)" and "local area network (LAN)".

Trial and Settlement (2010)

• Pre-Trial Scheduling: The numerous DataTreasury cases were grouped for sequential trials. A trial involving defendants U.S. Bancorp, The Clearing House Payments Co., and Viewpointe LLC took place first. In March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of willful infringement and awarded DataTreasury nearly $27 million in damages. This amount was later enhanced by the judge to over $53 million due to the finding of willfulness.
• Bank of America Trial Scheduled: A subsequent trial including Bank of America, LaSalle Bank, SunTrust Banks, and KeyBank was scheduled to begin in October 2010.
• Settlement During Trial: The trial against Bank of America commenced a few months after the US Bank verdict. The significant verdict and willfulness finding in the US Bank case likely placed considerable pressure on the remaining defendants. During the trial proceedings, DataTreasury and Bank of America reached a confidential settlement. This mid-trial settlement resolved the dispute between the two parties, avoiding a jury verdict. The exact date and terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.

Final Disposition

• Dismissal: Following the settlement agreement, the parties would have filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, and the court would have dismissed the case with prejudice. This formally ended the litigation between DataTreasury and Bank of America.

Later PTAB Proceedings

Years after the Bank of America case settled, the Ballard patents were challenged again at the USPTO under the then-new America Invents Act (AIA) procedures.

• Covered Business Method (CBM) Review: On 2013-10-25, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. filed a petition for a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 (CBM2014-00020). This proceeding challenged the patent's validity on grounds that it claimed an abstract idea for a financial product or service. This PTAB proceeding had no direct impact on the already-settled litigation with Bank of America but was a significant subsequent development for the patent itself. Public records of the final written decision for this specific CBM are not readily available in the search results, but the filing itself highlights the continued scrutiny the patent faced.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

DataTreasury Corporation was represented by a combination of lead trial counsel from Nix Patterson, LLP (formerly Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P.) and local counsel from East Texas firms well-versed in the practices of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

---

Lead Counsel

• Name: Nelson J. Roach

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P. (at the time of litigation); now a partner at The Roach Law Firm.
  • Office Location: Daingerfield, Texas
  • Note: Roach led the trial efforts against Bank of America and was a lead trial lawyer in DataTreasury's broader litigation campaign which recovered hundreds of millions of dollars.

• Name: C. Cary Patterson

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P. (at the time of litigation); now a founding partner at Nix Patterson, LLP.
  • Office Location: Texarkana, Texas
  • Note: As a founding partner, Patterson was instrumental in leading the firm's representation of DataTreasury in its extensive patent enforcement litigation against the banking industry.

• Name: Rodney A. Cooper

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P. (at the time of litigation); later founded Cooper Law Group.
  • Office Location: Daingerfield, Texas
  • Note: Cooper was a lead partner for the intellectual property section at the firm and handled significant IP cases, including the DataTreasury litigation.

---

Local Counsel

• Name: T. John "Johnny" Ward, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Law Office of T. John Ward, Jr., P.C.
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Note: Ward is a highly regarded East Texas trial lawyer, frequently sought as local counsel in major patent infringement cases filed in the district. He is the son of retired U.S. District Judge T. John Ward, who was a prominent judge for the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Charles Ainsworth

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Note: His firm was formed by retired federal judge Robert M. Parker and regularly serves as local counsel for national firms litigating in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Robert C. "Chris" Bunt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Note: Bunt has extensive trial experience and is frequently retained as local counsel in patent litigation within the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Eric M. Albritton

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Albritton Law Firm
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Note: Albritton is a seasoned patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas and has been involved in numerous high-profile patent cases as local counsel.

Note: The case against Bank of America was part of a larger, multi-defendant litigation strategy by DataTreasury. The core legal team, led by Nix, Patterson & Roach, represented the plaintiff throughout these related cases, including in actions against Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, and others, which were consolidated under case number 2:06-cv-00072.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Bank of America was represented by attorneys from the national intellectual property firm Fish & Richardson P.C., with additional counsel from Foley & Lardner LLP. As is standard practice in the Eastern District of Texas, they were supported by local counsel.

Lead Counsel

• Thomas M. Melsheimer
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm at time of case: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Dallas, TX office)
  • Note on experience: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, Melsheimer has a history of representing major corporations in high-stakes litigation, including clients like Microsoft and Texas Instruments. During the DataTreasury litigation, he was a principal at Fish & Richardson, a top-tier intellectual property and patent litigation firm. He later moved to open the Dallas office for Winston & Strawn in 2017.

Of Counsel / Additional Counsel

• Michael M. Rosen

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm at time of case: Likely Foley & Lardner LLP or a predecessor firm, appearing Pro Hac Vice.
  • Note on experience: An intellectual property litigator with a focus on patent law, Rosen has significant experience in patent trials in the district courts of Texas, Delaware, and California. A docket entry in the consolidated case Datatreasury v. Wells Fargo (2:06-cv-00072) shows his application to appear Pro Hac Vice for Bank of America.

• Robert E. Hillman

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm at time of case: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Boston, MA office)
  • Note on experience: A principal at Fish & Richardson specializing in patent litigation. He was listed alongside Thomas Melsheimer on key filings representing Bank of America in the consolidated multi-defendant litigation.

Local Counsel

• Robert M. Parker / Robert Christopher Bunt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm at time of case: Parker & Bunt, P.C. (Tyler, TX office)
  • Note on experience: This firm was frequently retained as local counsel for parties litigating in the Eastern District of Texas. Their involvement was critical for navigating local court procedures and practices. Filings in the consolidated case confirm their role for the defendant group that included Bank of America.

• Michael E. Jones / E. Glenn Thames, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm at time of case: Potter Minton (Tyler, TX office)
  • Note on experience: Potter Minton is a well-established East Texas firm. Attorneys from the firm were listed on a 2006 filing as representing the defendant group including Bank of America, providing necessary local expertise.