Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. et al.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, commonly recognized as Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or "patent trolls," initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against financial technology giant Fidelity National Information Services Inc. (FIS) and its related entities, Fidelity National Information Services LLC, FIS Global LLC, and Metavante Corporation. Intellectual Ventures' business model typically involves acquiring extensive patent portfolios and then monetizing these assets through licensing agreements or litigation, rather than by manufacturing products or offering services. Conversely, FIS is a global leader in financial technology, providing a broad range of solutions for banking, payments, and capital markets, including core processing platforms, payment solutions, and wealth and retirement services, which are widely utilized by financial institutions and merchants worldwide.

The sole patent asserted in this litigation was U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382. This patent generally relates to systems and methods for tracking and storing information concerning a user's purchases and expenses. The specific products or services offered by FIS that were alleged to infringe this patent are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries of the initial complaint for this case. However, given FIS's extensive portfolio in financial transaction processing and banking applications, the accused instrumentalities likely involved its core banking or payment processing software that handles consumer financial data.

The case, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. et al., was filed on May 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was assigned to District Judge Arthur J. Schwab. At the time, the Western District of Pennsylvania had recently adopted Local Patent Rules (around 2012) aimed at streamlining patent litigation, offering procedural certainty, and facilitating quicker case resolution. The case was dismissed relatively swiftly on December 16, 2013, approximately seven months after filing. The exact reasons for the dismissal are not detailed in readily available public records, but such an early termination often suggests a confidential settlement between the parties or a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. While the '382 patent was later found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a separate case against Capital One in 2014, this decision occurred after the dismissal of the FIS case and therefore was not the direct cause of its termination. The case is notable as an example of Intellectual Ventures' broad assertion campaigns against financial institutions, reflecting a period when NPEs actively targeted the financial services sector with business method patents.

The patent infringement litigation, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:13-cv-00740, W.D. Pa.), commenced on May 24, 2013, and concluded with its dismissal on December 16, 2013. The rapid termination of the case suggests an early resolution, likely a settlement or voluntary dismissal.

Here's a chronological overview of the key developments and outcome:

• Filing of Complaint (2013-05-24): Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Fidelity National Information Services Inc., Fidelity National Information Services LLC, FIS Global LLC, and Metavante Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The asserted patent was U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382.
• Case Dismissal (2013-12-16): The case was dismissed on December 16, 2013. While the specific reason for dismissal (e.g., settlement, voluntary dismissal, or motion to dismiss) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results for this specific case, the prompt indicates a "Dismissed" status. Given the short duration of the case, it likely did not proceed through extensive pre-trial motions, claim construction, or discovery.
• Parallel Proceedings and Patent Validity Context (Post-Dismissal for this case): Although the Fidelity case was dismissed relatively quickly, the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382, faced challenges in other parallel litigations. In a separate case, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, which also involved U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382, a district court granted summary judgment, finding that the asserted claims of the '382 patent claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and were also indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This later Federal Circuit ruling on the '382 patent indicates a significant validity weakness for the patent, which could have influenced the early dismissal or settlement in the Fidelity case, though it occurred after the dismissal.

No specific information regarding answers, counterclaims, substantial pre-trial motions (other than a potential motion leading to the dismissal), claim construction, discovery milestones, or trial events for this particular Fidelity case was found, consistent with its swift termination. Similarly, no specific PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings directly impacting the Fidelity litigation's dismissal were identified in the provided search results for the period it was active. However, Covered Business Method (CBM) patent reviews, which are relevant to patents like 7,603,382, began to be filed around the time this case was active, starting in late 2012.

The search results confirm that Henry A. Petri, Jr. was counsel for Intellectual Ventures I LLC. A document from a related case explicitly states, "Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures I LLC By: Henry A. Petri, Jr..." and references the case number 2:13-cv-00740-AJS (W.D. PA) [cite: 6 in first step]. Further information identifies Henry A. Petri, Jr. as an Intellectual Property Attorney at Polsinelli PC, with an office in Washington, D.C.. His experience includes patent litigation, post-grant matters in the Patent and Trademark Office, and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He also taught a patent litigation course at the University of Texas School of Law.

While local counsel are often involved in patent cases, the provided search results do not explicitly name any Pittsburgh-based local counsel for Intellectual Ventures in this specific case (2:13-cv-00740). The searches did bring up Pittsburgh firms like K&L Gates and Bernstein-Burkley, but their roles in this particular case for the plaintiff were not identified. Without explicit docket entries or filings naming them, I cannot confirm their involvement as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

Therefore, only Henry A. Petri, Jr. can be definitively identified as counsel for the plaintiff(s).

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff(s):

• Name: Henry A. Petri, Jr.
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Polsinelli PC, Washington, D.C.
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Mr. Petri is an experienced litigator focusing on patent litigation, post-grant matters at the Patent and Trademark Office, and licensing. He has extensive experience in appellate matters, including appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His technical experience spans semiconductor processing, chemical processes, data storage, and software. He also previously taught patent litigation at the University of Texas School of Law.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. et al. (2:13-cv-00740) using publicly available web search tools. The search queries did not yield specific docket entries, appearances, or news articles detailing the legal representation for the defendants in this particular patent infringement case, which was filed and dismissed in 2013. Without access to the official PACER docket for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, it is not possible to definitively determine the attorneys of record.