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

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

Let me verify the patent numbers, docket details, and the judge.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. This was a contest between two operating companies in the nascent biometric-payments industry, not a classic NPE/PAE dispute. Plaintiff Solidus Networks, Inc. (San Francisco), doing business as Pay By Touch, was the larger, better-funded rival; its co-plaintiff Indivos Corporation was the patent-holding affiliate that Solidus acquired in 2002, giving it a portfolio of several dozen patents on finger-scan authentication for retail payments (American Banker, "Biometrics: Getting in Touch with a Growing Trend"). Pay By Touch was led by founder/chairman/CEO John Rogers and had just closed $130 million in financing (Sept. 2005). Defendant BioPay, LLC (Herndon, Va.), founded in 1999 by Tim Robinson, was the leader in biometric check-cashing (its "Paycheck Secure" product), with roughly 1,600 retail locations, ~2 million enrolled consumers, and more than $7 billion in biometrically authenticated transactions (insideARM; Progressive Grocer). So both sides were competitors selling overlapping point-of-sale fingerprint-authentication systems — BioPay focused on check cashing/payroll cashing at smaller retailers, Pay By Touch on in-lane grocery payments and loyalty (Piggly Wiggly, Albertsons, Cub Foods, etc.).

The accused technology and patents. The accused technology was BioPay's fingerprint-based check-cashing and ACH payment platform, which competes directly with the check-cashing capability Pay By Touch was trying to add. Pay By Touch's Feb. 15, 2005 countersuit accused BioPay of willful infringement of two patents and sought treble damages: (1) the '042 patent, described in the company's own press release as covering "tokenless biometric transactions," and (2) the '397 patent, covering "biometric check-cashing services" (insideARM, "Pay By Touch Files Patent Infringement Suit Against BioPay"). The '397 patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,728,397 B2, "Check verification system" (inventor Joan Tibor McNeal; filed June 17, 1999; priority to a June 1998 provisional; granted April 27, 2004; 25 claims). In one technical sentence: it claims a point-of-sale system that scans a negotiable instrument (MICR/check number), captures biometric data such as a fingerprint, and transmits both to remote databases to verify the presenter's identity and that the account is in good standing — optionally scanning a driver's license/signature and printing the fingerprint on the check (Google Patents; RPX Insight). Pay By Touch acquired '397 from Biometric Payment Systems (Atlanta) on or about Jan. 28, 2005 — days after BioPay sued (Digital Transactions). Verification caveat: the exact full number of the '042 "tokenless biometric" patent is not confirmed in the sources I reviewed (only the shorthand '042 appears in press coverage); I would not represent its number without checking PACER/Patent Center.

Procedural posture, venue, and resolution. This affirmative suit was the mirror image of the earlier declaratory-judgment action: BioPay, LLC v. Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch and Indivos Corporation, C.A. No. 1:05-cv-00025-SLR (D. Del.), filed Jan. 18, 2005, in which BioPay sought a declaration that Pay By Touch's patents were invalid and not infringed (Finextra). Both actions landed in the District of Delaware before Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson, with Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge also assigned (per the parties' Jan. 4, 2006 letter to the court). Delaware mattered because it is a preferred patent forum and was where BioPay chose to file against two related entities; the court's docket shows active case management (a mediation was scheduled for January 2006). The litigation never reached the merits: on Dec. 6, 2005, the parties announced Pay By Touch would acquire BioPay for $82 million in stock and cash, taking over BioPay's assets including its patent portfolio (Law.com; insideARM). The deal closed Jan. 17, 2006, and on Feb. 22, 2006 the parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) dismissing all claims and counterclaims without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs (Case 1:05-cv-00025-SLR, Dkt. 34-2). Lead Delaware counsel of record included Richard L. Horwitz (Potter Anderson & Corroon) for BioPay and M. Duncan Grant (Pepper Hamilton) for the Pay By Touch/Indivos defendants, per that stipulation.

Why it's notable. Three points stand out. (1) This was an early "patent war" in biometric payments between two commercial rivals, several years before the modern NPE/PAE wave and before the AIA's 2012 IPR regime existed — so any PTAB/IPR linkage is not part of this 2005–06 case itself; it would attach only to later patents in the same McNeal check-verification family (the '397 lineage later passed to Biometric Payment Solutions LLC, per Unified Patents' assignee data), so the family's subsequent assertion/PTAB history is a downstream story I could not verify in this pass (Unified Patents). (2) The case illustrates a "settle-by-acquisition" resolution pattern: analysts and BioPay's own president suggested the timing was tied to BioPay winning its first issued patent in November 2005 (on using negative customer data such as bounced checks to set transaction fees), which "level[ed] the playing field" and coincided with merger talks (American Banker, "BioPay Gets Its First Patent"). (3) The market context: biometric POS payments were being rolled out at major grocers, and the merger consolidated the two leading

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good grounding. Now let me pin down the companion case docket, pleadings, and any later proceedings.

Key Legal Developments — Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch et al. v. BioPay, LLC, D. Del. (filed 2005‑02‑15)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, business-resolved dispute. It never reached Markman, summary judgment, or trial. Both the BioPay declaratory-judgment action and the Pay By Touch affirmative infringement action (asserting U.S. Patent 6,728,397) were terminated by stipulated voluntary dismissal without prejudice in February 2006, after Pay By Touch's $82 million acquisition of BioPay collapsed the two litigants into one company. There was no adjudication of validity, infringement, or enforceability of the '397 patent, and no PTAB proceeding. Note: the sources that document this case are mostly litigation-report databases and press; I could not pull live PACER images, so docket-entry specifics (document numbers) below come from an OCR'd docket mirror (findforms.com) and should be treated as good-but-not-authoritative.

---

1. Pre-suit context (2004)

• 2004‑06 (reported): Pay By Touch/Solidus prevailed in a suit by a former employee who claimed ownership of 15 of the Pay By Touch patents (Digital Transactions News, June 1, 2004). This is the backdrop to the "who owns the biometric payment patents" fight with BioPay.
• By early 2005, Pay By Touch claimed 24 issued and 12 pending patents on tokenless biometric authentication; BioPay had no issued patents but ~29 pending applications and the leading position in biometric check cashing (1,600 locations, 2 million enrolled consumers). BioPay CEO Tim Robinson accused Pay By Touch of using patent threats to steer merchants away — the direct precipitant of the DJ suit. (Digital Transactions)

2. Filing & initial pleadings (2005)

• 2005‑01‑18 — BioPay's declaratory-judgment complaint. BioPay, LLC (Herndon, Va.) filed in the District of Delaware against Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch and Indivos Corporation, seeking declarations that the asserted patents are invalid and not infringed. Public announcement came 2005‑01‑24/25. (Finextra press release; Patently-O predecessor blog post) This is C.A. No. 05‑025‑SLR before Judge Sue L. Robinson.
  • Patents pleaded: U.S. Patent 6,581,042 B2 (issued 2003‑06‑17; Indivos Corporation) and U.S. Patent 6,728,397 B2 (issued 2004‑04‑27)

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

The case metadata points to a separate affirmative suit (filed 2005-02-15), distinct from the BioPay DJ action (05-cv-00025). Let me locate that docket and counsel.

I found the key press release. Now I need the separate docket for the affirmative suit (Solidus/Indivos v. BioPay) and its counsel.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiffs (Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch; Indivos Corporation)

Important sourcing caveat up front: The searches surfaced the companion declaratory-judgment action in full — BioPay, LLC v. Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch and Indivos Corporation, C.A. No. 05-25-SLR (D. Del.), filed Jan. 18, 2005 — where the parties' roles are reversed (BioPay is plaintiff; Solidus/Indivos are defendants). I was unable to retrieve the docket sheet for the separate affirmative infringement action captioned Solidus Networks v. BioPay (filed Feb. 15, 2005) before my search budget was exhausted, so I cannot confirm its docket number or its counsel list directly from PACER. What follows is therefore (a) what the record shows for the same two parties in the companion action, and (b) a clear flag on what is inferred rather than directly verified.

The attorneys who appeared for Solidus Networks / Indivos (the "plaintiffs" here)

In the companion action 05-25-SLR, Solidus/Indivos appeared as defendants through Pepper Hamilton LLP:

Sources: D.I. 14 (Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, filed 4/28/2005) and D.I. 33 / 34-2 (Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, filed 2/2/2006), both in 05-25-SLR — both signed by M. Duncan Grant and listing Melnik and Miller as of counsel for "Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch and Indivos Corporation" (findforms copy of D.I. 14; findforms copy of D.I. 33).

Inference (flagged, not verified): Because Pepper Hamilton was the firm of record for Solidus/Indivos throughout the parallel Delaware litigation in 2005–2006 — and the affirmative suit is the same two plaintiffs asserting the same patents ('042 and '397) against the same defendant — the Pepper Hamilton team above is the natural and most probable plaintiffs' counsel of record in Solidus Networks v. BioPay. I could not confirm this from the affirmative case's own docket sheet, so treat the docket-level identification of the affirmative-case counsel as unverified.

What is confirmed about the affirmative suit itself

• Filing/facts: The affirmative infringement suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in mid-February 2005 (metadata: Feb. 15, 2005), in partial response to BioPay's declaratory-judgment action, alleging willful infringement of U.S. Patent 6,728,397 (biometric check-cashing) and U.S. Patent 6,581,042 (tokenless biometric transactions), seeking treble damages (insideARM press release; American Banker, Oct. 11, 2005).
• Disposition: Both actions were resolved when Pay By Touch (Solidus) acquired BioPay for ~$82M in cash and stock; the 05-25 case was dismissed without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs (D.I. 33/34-2, Feb. 2, 2006).

For contrast — the other side's counsel (BioPay, defendant here)

In 05-25-SLR BioPay appeared as plaintiff through:

• Richard L. Horwitz (I.D. No. 2246) and David E. Moore (I.D. No. 3983) — Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Hercules Plaza, 1313 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE (local counsel); and
• James G. Goggin (Verrill Dana LLP, One Portland Square, Portland, ME) and George P. Field (Verrill Dana LLP, One Boston Place, Suite 2330, Boston, MA) — of counsel.
  In the affirmative case these roles would reverse (BioPay as defendant).

Transactional (non-litigation) counsel — noted for completeness

• Cooley Godward LLP (San Francisco) advised Pay By Touch/Solidus on the BioPay acquisition, not on the patent litigation (Law.com, "Biometrics Deal Settles Suits").

Bottom line / limitations

• Verified: Pepper Hamilton (M. Duncan Grant, Wilmington; W. Joseph Melnik and Raymond A. Miller, Pittsburgh) was counsel of record for Solidus/Indivos in the companion D. Del. action; Potter Anderson/Verrill Dana represented BioPay there.
• Not verified from primary sources: The specific counsel-of-record entries on the docket of the affirmative Solidus Networks v. BioPay action itself, and its docket number. No sealed filings are at issue that I could identify; the gap is simply that I could not pull that docket sheet within my research budget. If exact confirmation matters, the affirmative case's docket (Delaware CM/ECF, Feb. 2005 filing term) should be checked directly before relying on the Pepper Hamilton attribution.

I'll research the defendant's (BioPay, LLC) counsel of record in this affirmative action. Let me run several searches in parallel.

The searches keep returning the companion DJ action (05-25-SLR). Let me hunt specifically for the affirmative suit's docket and its defense counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendant BioPay, LLC

Bottom-line up front: BioPay, LLC was represented in this dispute by a two-firm team — Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) as local/Delaware counsel and Verrill Dana LLP (Portland, Maine and Boston, Massachusetts) as lead out-of-state/of-counsel. This is verified from the docket of the companion declaratory-judgment action, BioPay, LLC v. Solidus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Pay By Touch and Indivos Corporation, C.A. No. 05‑25‑SLR (D. Del.), where the same lawyers appeared for BioPay. I was not able to pull the docket sheet of the separate affirmative suit (Solidus Networks v. BioPay, filed 2005‑02‑15) itself, so the attribution to this case is a well-grounded inference from the parallel litigation rather than a direct docket read. I flag that distinction explicitly below and do not invent any attorney not appearing in the record.

---

Defendant: BioPay, LLC (Herndon, Virginia)

Sources (docket documents in 05‑25‑SLR — all bearing "Attorneys for Plaintiff BioPay LLC"):

• D.I. 20 (BioPay's Notice of Service, filed 5/24/2005) — Horwitz, Moore (Potter Anderson) and Goggin, Field (Verrill Dana) (findforms mirror).
• D.I. 27 (BioPay's Notice of Service, filed 8/15/2005) — same team (findforms mirror).
• D.I. 31 (Horwitz letter to Chief Judge Robinson and Magistrate Judge Thynge, 1/4/2006) — "counsel for plaintiff" (findforms mirror).
• D.I. 33 / 34‑2 (Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, 2/2/2006) — signed by Horwitz for BioPay (findforms mirror).

---

Why this attribution to the affirmative suit is strong but not docket-verified

1. Same two parties, same patents, both in D. Del. before Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson. The DJ action and the affirmative suit were litigated as a package (Press: "[i]n mid‑February, Pay By Touch also filed a suit, partly in response to BioPay's, alleging patent infringement" — Law.com, "Biometrics Deal Settles Suits"; American Banker, 10/11/2005). BioPay's trial team was already in place from January 2005; no separate defense team appears in any contemporaneous filing or press account.
2. Role reversal, same firms. In 05‑25‑SLR BioPay was plaintiff (thus captioned "Attorneys for Plaintiff BioPay LLC"); in the Feb. 15, 2005 affirmative suit BioPay is defendant, and the same Potter Anderson/Verrill Dana team would have entered appearances accordingly — with Solidus/Indivos's Pepper Hamilton team (M. Duncan Grant et al.) appearing on the plaintiff side (see prior section).

What I could NOT confirm: I did not retrieve the affirmative action's own docket sheet, its C.A. number, or its appearance entries within this research pass. Accordingly, treat the "counsel of record in C.A. No. [affirmative suit]" as unverified at the docket level; the firm/attorney identification above is verified only for the companion case. If exact confirmation is required, the D. Del. CM/ECF docket for the Feb. 2005 filing term should be checked directly.

---

Other counsel/roles to note

• In-house counsel: No BioPay in-house attorney appears in the documents I reviewed, and none is identified in press. BioPay president/CEO Tim Robinson spoke for the company publicly but was not counsel. No in-house appearance is confirmed or inferred.
• Transactional counsel (not litigation): Cooley Godward LLP (San Francisco) advised Pay By Touch/Solidus on the BioPay acquisition — i.e., plaintiff-side transactional counsel, not defense counsel (Law.com).
• No PTAB/IPR counsel: Not applicable — this 2005–06 dispute predates the AIA's 2012 IPR regime. Any later IPR work would attach to downstream patents in the McNeal check-verification family, not this case (see prior sections).
• Sealed filings: None identified; the gap here is a research-access limitation (could not pull the affirmative docket), not a sealing issue.

---

Two discrepancies to flag

1. Patents at issue. The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent 6,728,397 for this affirmative suit, but the contemporaneous press (insideARM; American Banker) and the companion case's D.I. 34 patent report list both 6,581,042 and 6,728,397. The affirmative suit was reported as asserting both the '042 ("tokenless biometric transactions") and '397 ("biometric check-cashing") patents, seeking treble damages for willful infringement. Per the operating rules, the metadata governs the patent at issue identification here, but the broader pleading is worth flagging (insideARM; findforms D.I. 34 patent report).
2. Filing date. Metadata says the affirmative suit was filed 2005‑02‑15; press consistently says "mid-February"/"on Feb. 15," which is consistent. Note the DJ action (05‑25‑SLR) was filed 2005‑01‑18, ~four weeks earlier.

Practice note: BioPay is a commonly searched name that also appears in unrelated TCPA fax class actions (Gene & Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008)) — those involve the same company's fax-marketing practices and different counsel (e.g., Louisiana/5th Circuit firms), and should not be confused with the Delaware patent team above.