Litigation summary

US Patent 5,910,988, titled "Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage," has been the subject of extensive litigation initiated by its assignee, DataTreasury Corporation, against a multitude of financial institutions and technology companies. The litigation campaign, primarily centered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, has resulted in numerous settlements and significant judgments.

Below is a list of known litigation involving this patent.

DataTreasury Corporation v. Major Banks and Financial Services Companies (2002-2006)

In the early 2000s, DataTreasury launched a widespread litigation campaign asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 and its companion, U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137. These initial lawsuits targeted a large portion of the U.S. banking industry.

• Plaintiff: DataTreasury Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Notable Defendants and Outcomes:

• JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank One Corp.: Sued in 2002, this case resulted in a settlement in July 2005. As part of the settlement, JPMorgan Chase entered into a consent judgment acknowledging the validity and infringement of the patents and agreed to a licensing deal.
• U.S. Bank: This case went to trial, and in March 2010, a jury found U.S. Bank to have willfully infringed DataTreasury's patents, awarding $27 million in damages. A judge later doubled this amount to over $50 million. The parties eventually settled in December 2011.
• Bank of America: A lawsuit against Bank of America went to trial, which ultimately resulted in a settlement during the trial proceedings.
• Wells Fargo & Company, et al.:
  • Case Number: 2:2006cv00072
  • Filing Date: February 24, 2006
  • Outcome: This case involved numerous defendants. Many, including major banks, settled with DataTreasury. The case docket reflects extensive legal proceedings over several years.
• Citigroup, SVPCO, and First Data Corp.: These entities were also among the defendants in the broader litigation campaign. DataTreasury reached settlements with many of these parties.
• NCR Corp.: DataTreasury settled its patent infringement lawsuit with NCR in January 2006.
• Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC and The Clearing House Payments Company, LLC: These entities, involved in check clearing and imaging, were also defendants and were part of the jury verdict against U.S. Bank.

DataTreasury Corporation v. Technology Service Providers and Banks (2013)

In May 2013, DataTreasury initiated a new wave of lawsuits, again in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting financial technology service providers and the banks that utilize their services.

• Plaintiff: DataTreasury Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Filing Date: May 28, 2013

Key Cases:

• DataTreasury Corp. v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., et al.:
  • Case Number: 2:13-cv-00433
  • Defendants: Jack Henry & Associates and various client banks.
  • Outcome: This lawsuit led to a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the related '137 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The district court case was subject to appeals at the Federal Circuit.
• DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS), et al.:
  • Defendants: Fidelity National Information Services and its client banks.
  • Outcome: This case also saw related proceedings at the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.
• DataTreasury Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., et al.:
  • Defendants: Fiserv, Inc. and its client banks.
  • Outcome: Similar to the other 2013 lawsuits, this case was litigated in federal district court and involved appeals.

DataTreasury's enforcement of U.S. Patent 5,910,988 has been a long-running and impactful chapter in the history of financial technology patent litigation, reportedly securing the company over $350 million in licensing and settlement fees.