Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC (IV), the plaintiff in this litigation, is a global invention and investment business that develops, acquires, and licenses intellectual property, and has often been characterized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or "patent troll." IV's business model centers on aggregating large patent portfolios and then licensing these patents or pursuing legal action against alleged infringers. The defendants, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., are all prominent financial services institutions. Bank of America Corporation is a multinational investment bank and financial services holding company, and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. operates as its investment management and wealth management division. Similarly, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is a major bank holding company offering a wide range of retail and business banking, wealth management, and asset management services through its subsidiary PNC Bank, N.A..

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382, titled "Advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized webpages." Broadly, this patent relates to a system for selectively tailoring information delivered to an Internet user based on their specific needs and profiles. While the specific accused products or services were not detailed in the available public information regarding the dismissal, given the nature of the patent and the defendants' businesses, it is highly probable that the allegations pertained to online banking platforms, personalized financial services, or other internet-based interfaces offered by the defendant financial institutions that customize user experiences.

The case, 1:13-cv-01274, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The District of Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation due to its well-established body of patent law and experienced judiciary, though it is not immediately clear if a specific judge was assigned before its swift dismissal. The case was filed on August 7, 2013, and dismissed just over three months later on November 20, 2013. The rapid dismissal suggests an early resolution, possibly a settlement, a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, or a very early finding that the claims were unmeritorious. This case is notable as part of Intellectual Ventures' broader pattern of asserting large portfolios of patents against various industries, often targeting companies for their common use of widely adopted technologies. The quick termination without a detailed ruling or extensive litigation is characteristic of some PAE assertion strategies, where an early settlement might be reached, or the case may be strategically dropped.

The patent infringement litigation, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01274, was filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware on August 7, 2013, and concluded with a dismissal on November 20, 2013. The patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382.

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

• Filing: Intellectual Ventures I LLC initiated the lawsuit on August 7, 2013, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 against Bank of America Corporation and several other financial entities.
• Dismissal: The case was terminated relatively quickly, with the court issuing an order of dismissal on November 20, 2013. The prompt indicates the case was dismissed, and given the short duration, it is highly probable this was an early, voluntary dismissal, likely stipulated by the parties, rather than a dismissal based on substantive pre-trial motions or a trial.
• Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial, and Post-Trial Motions: Due to the swift dismissal of the case within approximately three months of its filing, there were no substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions for summary judgment or Markman hearings), extensive discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: A review of PTAB filings for U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 does not indicate any Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) patent proceedings specifically instituted against this patent during the period of this litigation or shortly thereafter. While Intellectual Ventures has been involved in numerous CBM proceedings for other patents, there is no direct evidence found of such proceedings for patent 7,603,382 that would have affected this specific case.
• Outcome: The case was ultimately dismissed on November 20, 2013. The prompt indicates a "Dismissed" status, and while the exact terms of dismissal (e.g., with or without prejudice, via settlement) are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the quick termination suggests an early resolution between the parties.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

In the patent infringement case Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al., case number 1:13-cv-01274, filed in the District of Delaware, Henry A. Petri, Jr. has been identified as counsel for the plaintiff, Intellectual Ventures I LLC.

Here is the information for the identified attorney:

• Name: Henry A. Petri, Jr.
• Role: Counsel for Plaintiff (likely lead or primary counsel)
• Firm and Office Location: Polsinelli PC, Washington, D.C.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Henry Petri is an experienced litigator focusing on patent litigation, post-grant matters in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (including inter partes review and covered business method review proceedings), and licensing. He has experience in developing litigation strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants, preparing witnesses and experts, and handling all phases of discovery, pretrial motion practice, and trial. He also 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, remote sensing, data storage, data compression, and software.

While a specific local counsel for this particular case (1:13-cv-01274) was not explicitly identified in the available search results, it is standard practice for out-of-state firms litigating in the District of Delaware to engage local counsel. Firms like Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP are prominent in Delaware intellectual property litigation and frequently serve as local counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants, including for Intellectual Ventures in other cases. However, without direct docket entries for case 1:13-cv-01274, no specific local counsel can be confirmed for this case.

Due to the early dismissal of the case (just over three months after filing), detailed information about the counsel of record for the defendants, beyond their initial appearances, is not readily available in public summaries or easily searchable court documents. Patent litigation often involves numerous attorneys, and their specific roles (lead counsel, local counsel, in-house) become clearer as a case progresses through different phases like discovery, motions practice, and trial. Since this case was dismissed so quickly, such detailed roles likely never fully materialized or were publicly documented.

However, based on general practices in patent litigation and information about the defendants' typical legal representation in patent matters, we can infer some likely characteristics of their counsel.

General Observations about Defendant Counsel:

• Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.: Large financial institutions like Bank of America typically engage large national law firms with strong intellectual property litigation practices. They also have robust in-house legal teams that manage their IP strategy and oversee outside counsel. Keith Agisim, as Chief IP Counsel for Bank of America, has been instrumental in the bank's IP strategies and litigation management since 2006. Bank of America utilizes a dedicated intellectual property team, including senior members like Matthew Hayenga (Assistant General Counsel and SVP for intellectual property since 2022), to handle patent filings and related legal matters. Moore & Van Allen PLLC and Banner & Witcoff Ltd. are among the law firms that have filed the most US patents for Bank of America, suggesting potential relationships for litigation counsel as well.
• PNC Bank, N.A., PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.: Similarly, PNC Financial Services Group employs in-house staff counsel for intellectual property to manage and protect its IP assets, including collaborating with external counsel for litigation. WilmerHale is a prominent firm that has represented PNC Bank in significant patent litigation, particularly concerning mobile banking technology. For example, WilmerHale successfully represented PNC Bank in a patent suit related to mobile banking technology against USAA, achieving a significant victory where a jury awarded USAA less than 1% of the claimed damages, and the Federal Circuit later reversed earlier verdicts against PNC. Joe Mueller and Greg Lantier of WilmerHale were noted as leading the trial team in the USAA v. PNC Bank case.

Given the prompt dismissal of the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al. case, specific individual attorneys and their detailed roles for this particular case are not readily identified in the publicly available information. It is highly probable that any external counsel would have been from firms specializing in patent litigation, with local counsel in Delaware often being involved to meet local court rules. In-house counsel from both Bank of America and PNC would have played a role in directing the defense strategy.