US 6601759

I'll search for this specific patent and any related appellate docket activity.

Let me run more targeted searches to check for litigation/appellate activity and confirm bibliographic data.

Let me check specifically for litigation or PTAB proceedings asserting this patent.

US Patent 6,601,759 — Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the exact identifier "6601759" against patent databases and Federal Circuit docket sources. No 2026 CAFC docket activity involving this patent surfaced. Hits from the CAFC-oriented query were unrelated — they matched docket numbers containing the string "2159" (e.g., OpenSky Industries v. VLSI, No. 23-2159; Archroma U.S. v. Commerce, No. 24-2159) and a Brazilian design registration "DI 6601759-9." These are coincidental string matches, not the patent. I found no IPR, PGR, or district court assertion of the '759 patent in the retrieved results either. I am flagging that as an absence of evidence, not proof of absence — PACER/PTAB coverage of 2026 filings may not yet be fully indexed.

Bibliographic data (per the USPTO/Google Patents record)

Assignment chain: American Express Travel Related Services → III Holdings 1, LLC (recorded April 21, 2014) → Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC (recorded March 16, 2018). Liberty Peak is widely reported as a Dominion Harbor entity, but the assignee listed on the face of the Google Patents record is the authoritative datum here.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and method for presentation of feedback cues to a user of an interactive payment system is disclosed, wherein in one application, a payment product logo is displayed substantially concurrent with user entry of a payment product identifier, such as a credit card number. The subject invention further provides for the reduction of user confusion and errors with respect to entry of information related to a payment transaction. Moreover, the invention provides for reinforcement of payment product and/or service loyalty and branding."

Independent claims in plain language

The disclosed mechanism is essentially: (1) take a payment identifier as the user types it, (2) parse it (e.g., BIN, first six digits) to fingerprint the product, and (3) render a matching branded cue — an icon/logo — back to the user, locally or from a server.

• Claim 1 — Method. The base independent claim. Four steps: receive data corresponding to a payment method tied to a financial instrument; analyze that data to determine the instrument type; correlate the analyzed data with a suitable cue for that instrument; and present the cue. No timing limitation — presentation is not required to be concurrent.

• Claim 10 — Method (concurrency variant). Identical to claim 1 except the final step requires presenting the cue substantially concurrent with receipt of the data. This is the claim that captures the "logo appears as you type the card number" concept, and it is the limitation that distinguishes it from claim 1.

• Claim 18 — System (means-plus-function). A system comprising means for receiving the payment data, means for analyzing it to determine instrument type, means for correlating the analyzed data to retrieve a cue, and means for presenting the cue. Written in §112 ¶6 style throughout; the corresponding structure in the specification is the CPU (106/126), memory (108/110/128/130), datastores (104/124), and display (114).

• Claim 29 — System (payor-facing). A system framed from the payor's side: means for a payor to enter payment data, means for receiving it, means for analyzing to determine instrument type, means for correlating to a cue, and means for presenting the cue to the payor. The distinguishing feature versus claim 18 is that the presentation is directed back to the entering party.

• Claim 32 — System (visual-feedback variant). Specifies that the data corresponds to at least one of a credit card account number, stored value account number, or charge account number; that the cue is a visual cue; and that presentation is substantially concurrent with receipt of the customer data. This is the narrowest of the five, stacking the visual-cue limitation on top of the concurrency limitation.

Notable dependent-claim coverage

• Cue modality (claims 5, 6, 7, 14–16, 31, 32): visual, audible, tactile, kinesthetic, and olfactory cues; visual cues narrowed to GUI cues, then to icons.
• Data parsing (claims 4, 13): BIN number, checksum, fraud indicia, merchant product capabilities, member group, issuing locale, loyalty points, promotion eligibility.
• Biometrics (claims 3, 12): the received data may comprise biometric information — an unusual breadth for this claim family.
• Presentation devices (claims 8, 17, 19, 28): Bluetooth appliances, wireless phones, PDAs, smartcards, smartcard readers, transponders and transponder readers.
• Datastores (claims 22–27): LDAP, relational, flat-file, SQL, or XML cache.

Drafting observations worth noting

Claims 25, 26, and 27 each recite "according to any one of claims 22 / 23 / 24" — the "any one of" language is vestigial from what appears to be copied multiple-dependent-claim boilerplate, while each actually depends on a single claim. This is a formality defect, not a substantive one, but it is the kind of thing that draws scrutiny in validity challenges. Also note claim 1's preamble ("interactive payment transaction") and claim 18/29/32's systems uses create a method/system mix within one patent, typical of software-era claims from this period.

Uncertainty statement

The bibliographic fields above are taken from the authoritative full patent text and are reliable. The one thing I cannot confirm with confidence is the litigation/appellate posture: I found no record of US 6,601,759 appearing in a 2026 CAFC docket, and no IPR or district court case asserting it. Given the patent expired January 18, 2022 (per the record's own disclaimer-flagged data), a 2026 appeal on this patent would be unusual, though not impossible if it were a legacy damages case or an appeal from an earlier-filed action. If you need a definitive docket check, that would require a direct PACER/PTAB API query rather than general web search.

I'll search litigation databases and related sources for US patent 6601759.

The initial results are mostly noise. Let me run more targeted searches on litigation-specific databases.

Let me search dedicated litigation databases and docket sources.

Bottom line

Based on the searches I was able to run, I found no litigation — district court, Federal Circuit, or PTAB — involving U.S. Patent No. 6,601,759 ("System and method for providing feedback in an interactive payment system," Fife et al.). I could not identify any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for this specific patent, because no case tied to this patent number surfaced in any of the sources I checked.

Because I was cut off by a tool step-limit before exhausting every database, treat this as "none found so far," not as a definitive "none exists." Absence of evidence in a limited search is not proof of absence — this patent's post-2014 owners (see below) are non-practicing entities that are plausible enforcement candidates, so a negative result warrants verification in a full docket database.

What I searched

Important — do not confuse with adjacent numbers

My searches surfaced several unrelated hits that share digits but are not U.S. 6,601,759. Flagging these so they aren't mistakenly imported as "litigation for 6,601,759":

• U.S. 6,600,175 (Baretz) — appears in PTAB case IPR2017-00552, Vizio Inc. v. Nichia Corp. This is a different patent number and a different technology.
• Brazilian industrial-design registration DI 6601759-9 (Duratex S.A.) — not the U.S. patent.
• U.S. trademark Registration No. 6601759 (EDRXIE) — not the patent.
• Various financial/registry records keyed to the integer "6601759" (e.g., a 10jqka Chinese court-filing ID, a USDA catalog record) — coincidental numeric matches.

Ownership context relevant to enforcement

Per the assignment record on the patent page, the patent's chain of title is:

Liberty Peak Ventures is an active litigant generally (Unified Patents describes it as a Dominion Harbor entity asserting patents such as U.S. 8,066,181 against Citigroup), but I found no record that it — or III Holdings 1 before it — ever asserted 6,601,759 in a case.

How to confirm definitively

Since my search was not exhaustive, a definitive "no litigation" conclusion should be confirmed by running the exact number in docket-level tools:

• Unified Patents Portal — portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation (search "6601759"; also shows PTAB/IPR activity)
• RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com) — search the patent number for asserted-patent records
• Docket Alarm / CourtListener (RECAP) — search "6,601,759" and "6601759"
• PACER / Dockets (Justia) — party search for "American Express," "III Holdings 1," and "Liberty Peak Ventures" filtered by patent
• CAFC — search the patent number for any appeal

If those return nothing, the well-supported conclusion is that U.S. 6,601,759 has no known asserted litigation. I'd rather give you that verified negative than fabricate case details, which is what a strict "no auto-correct / cite what you find" standard requires here.

Would you like me to run any of the specific database searches above in a fresh pass?

I'll start by verifying the canonical list (empty per the structured block) and then searching for any PTAB proceedings the ODP ingest may have missed.

Let me dig deeper with targeted queries on the patent number in PTAB contexts and CourtListener.

No IPR on this patent has surfaced yet. Let me check litigation/PTAB trackers and CourtListener directly.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 6,601,759: zero. The structured ODP block is the canonical list and it is empty — no IPR, PGR, or CBM has ever been instituted (or, so far as searchable, filed) against this patent. I also ran independent web searches against the patent number, the "6601759" family, and the current assignee (Liberty Peak Ventures / Dominion Harbor) and found no PTAB proceeding naming this patent, so the ODP result is not an ingest gap I can identify. That places the patent in the "never stress-tested at the Board" bucket rather than the "hardened by surviving IPRs" bucket. Because there is no FWD, there is no claim-level validity adjudication to lean on: claims 1–32 all remain untested at the PTAB, and a defendant gets no free invalidity win — but it also means no petitioner-triggered § 315(e)(2) estoppel constrains what a defendant can assert, and the leading art was never run past an APJ panel.

Important framing caveats before the defendant relies on this:

• US 6,601,759 has a priority date of 2000-10-04 and a filing date of 2001-10-04, i.e., a pre-AIA patent. Post-Grant Review is unavailable (PGR applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16).
• CBM review is no longer an option for a new petitioner: § 18 of the AIA sunset CBM petitions for proceedings filed after 2020-09-16. CBM was the natural vehicle for a "financial transaction processing" patent of this vintage, and that door is closed.
• The patent's legal status per the structured record is Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2022-01-18. That does not bar an IPR (the Board will institute on expired patents), but it materially changes the economics — patent owner cannot amend, and recovery is limited to the pre-expiration damages window.

Proceedings

None. There are no AIA trial proceedings to report for US 6,601,759. Consistent with the instructions, I am not going to construct entries, docket numbers, panels, or dispositions that do not exist. Any output purporting to show an IPR number, institution date, or FWD for this patent should be treated as fabricated unless it can be verified on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) or CourtListener.

Related-but-distinct activity worth knowing about (different patents, not this one): Liberty Peak Ventures is a Dominion Harbor entity whose portfolio has been attacked at the Board by a defensive aggregator. On 2021-10-21 Unified Patents filed IPR2022-00024 against US 8,066,181, and on 2023-03-23 the Board issued a final written decision holding all challenged claims of the '181 patent unpatentable (see Unified's report: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/3/28/dominion-harbor-entity-liberty-peak-ventures-rfid-patent-held-invalid; docket overview: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/13909-unified-patents-v-liberty-peak-ventures-llc-ipr-of-181). That is a signal about the portfolio's vulnerability to Unified-style challenges, but it says nothing about the validity of US 6,601,759 and cannot be cited as precedent against it.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of the patent — independent claims 1, 10, 18, 29, and 32, and all dependents (2–9, 11–17, 19–28, 30–31) — is UNTESTED in any post-grant forum. Nothing is canceled; nothing is confirmed. If a demand letter cites claim 1 or claim 10, there is no FWD you can point to that kills it. The full claim set survives at the USPTO as issued. Any invalidity position has to be built and won in district court (or in a newly filed IPR).

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM ever reached a final written decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone with respect to this patent. A defendant today can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground on any patent or printed-publication art — including art that would otherwise have been "reasonably could have raised" in an abandoned IPR. There is no Unified Patents petition to piggyback on and no prior petitioner whose grounds you are stuck with. Correspondingly, nothing protects the patent owner either — the art cited on the face of the patent (US 6,152,591, US 5,845,263, US 5,878,141) and the biometrics reference (US 5,787,186) were before the examiner during prosecution, so § 325(d) discretionary-denial risk is real if a petitioner leads with exactly those; better to lead with art outside the file history.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has ever filed against this patent — the "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" heuristic cuts the other way here. Two structural reasons likely explain the silence: (1) expiry on 2022-01-18 removes most of the incentive to spend $500k+ invalidating claims whose damages tail is short and shrinking; and (2) the CBM window closed before Liberty Peak's assertion campaigns against Citigroup, Fiserv, Mastercard, Zions, Comerica, and others ramped up, and the patent's pre-AIA status forecloses PGR. Liberty Peak/Dominion Harbor has not been a prolific PTAB appellant on this patent because it has never had to be. I could not confirm any Federal Circuit appeal touching US 6,601,759, and I did not find this patent specifically named in any of the Liberty Peak complaints I reviewed — so treat "this patent is being actively asserted" as unverified.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing an assertion of US 6,601,759: do not expect a pre-existing PTAB kill. Pull the prosecution history and the four references cited above, and evaluate (a) a district-court § 102/§ 103 case built on art outside the file history, and (b) whether an IPR is still worth filing. Note the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of the complaint, and that IPR of this expired patent is legally available but strategically marginal.
• Timing: the patent expired 2022-01-18. Any damages exposure is limited to the statutory look-back before suit; confirm the assertion campaign is still live before investing in invalidity work, and check whether the claim you're accused of practicing is one of the untested independent claims (1, 10, 18, 29, 32) — each is a separate battleground.
• Verify the negative. Before finalizing strategy, confirm the empty ODP result on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%226601759%22) — the absence of PTAB activity is the single most important fact in this report and is worth a five-minute double-check.
• What I could not verify and am not asserting: no IPR/PGR/CBM; no institution or FWD; no settlement; no CAFC appeal; no judge panel; no FWD claim-level disposition. None of that exists for this patent on the public record I can access, and I have not invented any of it.

I'll reconstruct this from the authoritative patent record I already have, then try to fill gaps (reel/frame, correspondents) via search.

Good leads. Now let me pin down the specific reel/frame numbers, correspondents, and any litigation on this patent.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 6,601,759 B2

Data provenance caveat (read first): Everything below is grounded in (a) the Google Patents legal‑events / reassignment feed for US 6,601,759 (which mirrors the USPTO assignment record) and (b) the assignment documents themselves as quoted inside the record. I was not able to query the USPTO Assignment Center directly for this patent within this task, and the Google Patents legal‑events feed does not expose the correspondent‑of‑record field. Accordingly:

• Reel/frame is available for the two 2002 inventor assignments (because the 2013 corrective assignments recite them).
• Reel/frame for the 2014 and 2018 transfers, and all corresponded names, are NOT in my retrieved data. I will not guess them. Signal 3 (repeat correspondent) is therefore scored as not determinable rather than "not present."

Verify/pull the missing fields at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 6601759) and compare against https://patents.google.com/patent/US6601759/en.

Inventors

Pattern note: All three inventors executed assignments of their entire interest to the original assignee in Jan 2002, roughly three months after the 2001‑10‑04 filing. That is ordinary employment‑obligation assignment, not the "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire‑sale precursor. Notably, the 2013 corrective filings recite a defect in "the execution date of the second inventor" (Fife/Birbara record) — i.e., a ministerial date error in the original instrument, not an ownership dispute. I have no data on post‑filing employment changes for any inventor; do not read a departure pattern into this record.

Original assignee

American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. ("AETRSC") — the operating, wholly‑owned subsidiary of American Express Company (NYSE: AXP). The 2013 corrective assignments exist specifically to fix the assignee name from the truncated "American Express Travel Related Services" to the correct "…Company, Inc.," and to correct an inventor execution date.

• Primary line of business: consumer/commercial charge and credit cards, cardmember account management, travel‑related services, and online account servicing.
• Status: operating; no bankruptcy, no acquisition, no dissolution. AETRSC remains a going concern today.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Partly — an inference, flagged as such. The claims cover presenting a cue (e.g., a card brand icon) to a user of an interactive payment system substantially concurrently with entry of a payment identifier. AETRSC operated (and operates) cardmember‑facing online card‑entry and account‑management interfaces where card brand art is displayed as the number is entered — a plausible practice. There is no cited evidence of AETRSC asserting this patent, and I found no product‑marketing evidence tying the '759 to a specific AmEx product. Treat "shipped an embodying product" as unclear.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, from the recorded legal events. Execution dates are shown where the record states them; otherwise the date shown is the recordation/assignment event date.

• 2000‑10‑04 — Provisional Application 60/237,851 filed (priority document; not an assignment).
• 2001‑10‑04 — Non‑provisional US 09/970,838 filed by AETRSC.
• 2002‑01‑07 (recorded) — Reel 012443/0775
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: John P. Fife; Linda H. Birbara
  • Assignee: American Express Travel Related Services (name later corrected to …Company, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: not available in source data — pull from Assignment Center. No recurrence assessment possible.
  • Context: Ordinary inventor‑to‑employer assignment (employment obligation).
• 2002‑01‑09 (recorded) — Reel 012349/0731
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Laura K. Van Winkle
  • Assignee: American Express Travel Related Services (name later corrected)
  • Correspondent: not available in source data.
  • Context: Same — inventor‑to‑employer assignment; separate instrument, separate reel.
• 2003‑08‑05 — Patent issues as US 6,601,759 B2; assignee of record AETRSC.
• 2013‑11‑21 (recorded) — Corrective Assignment 1 of 2, correcting matter previously recorded at Reel 012443/0775
  • Conveyance: Correction (correct execution date of second inventor; correct assignee name)
  • Assignor: John P. Fife; Linda H. Birbara
  • Assignee: American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in source data — but note this is the recording that would reveal the firm handling AmEx title cleanup.
  • Context: Title‑cleanup / administrative correction, ~11 years post‑recording, and ~5 months before the sale to Intellectual Ventures' holding entity. Cleanup immediately ahead of a transfer is a classic due‑diligence tell.
• 2013‑11‑21 (recorded) — Corrective Assignment 2 of 2, correcting matter previously recorded at Reel 012349/0731
  • Conveyance: Correction (correct inventor's last name as shown in the assignment; correct assignee name)
  • Assignor: Laura K. Van Winkle
  • Assignee: American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in source data.
  • Context: Same title‑cleanup event as above.
• 2014‑04‑21 (recorded) — Reel/frame not in source data (Plainsite indexes this transfer as assignment record id 7573857)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
  • Assignee: III Holdings 1, LLC
  • Correspondent: not available in source data — this is the key field to retrieve. Recurrence flag: cannot yet score; if the same attorney/firm appears here as on the 2018 Liberty Peak recording, the signal fires.
  • Context: Transfer to an IV holding vehicle — the pivot out of the operating company.
• 2018‑03‑16 (recorded) — Reel/frame not in source data
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: III Holdings 1, LLC
  • Assignee: Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC
  • Correspondent: not available in source data — retrieve and compare against the 2014 entry.
  • Context: Transfer into a Dominion Harbor assertion vehicle ("the fourth peak venture"). Interval from the 2014 transfer: ~47 months.
• 2022‑01‑18 — Adjusted expiration; patent expired. Status: "Expired – Lifetime."

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6601759
    2000 : Provisional application filed
    2001 : Utility application filed
    2002 : Inventors assign to American Express
    2003 : Patent issued
    2013 : Corrective assignments recorded
    2014 : Assigned to III Holdings 1 LLC
         : Intellectual Ventures subsidiary
    2018 : Assigned to Liberty Peak Ventures LLC
         : Dominion Harbor entity
    2022 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Two consecutive transfers out of an operating company into non-practicing vehicles: 2014‑04‑21 AETRSC → III Holdings 1, LLC, and 2018‑03‑16 III Holdings 1 → Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC. III Holdings 1 is an Intellectual Ventures subsidiary/vehicle (Unified Patents, 2014‑11‑05, identifying "a subsidiary called III Holdings 1, LLC" as owner of US 7,702,781; onscope lists its parent as Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC). Liberty Peak is a Texas LLC whose alleged principal place of business is 200 Crescent Ct. Suite 482, Dallas, TX 75201 — Dominion Harbor's address — and which is served via its agent DelGiorno IP Law, PLLC, 941 Marie Drive, Allen, TX 75013 (both pleaded in Zoho Corp. v. Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC, W.D. Tex. 1:22‑cv‑00037, ¶¶5–6) and is pleaded to have "operations … limited to patent enforcement" (¶12). Suffix "Holdings/Ventures," no products, IP‑law‑firm registered agent, single‑purpose LLC — the pattern is complete. Caveat: reel/frame for both transfers still needs pulling.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Both current/prior non-operating owners appear on public NPE rosters. III Holdings 1, LLC was publicly characterized by Unified Patents (5 Nov 2014) as a subsidiary of "Intellectual Ventures … a well known NPE." Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC is identified by both RPX ("Dominion's fourth 'peak venture'… in receipt of a large portfolio of former American Express patents," 19 Apr 2020) and Unified Patents ("a Dominion Harbor entity," re IPR2022‑00024 on US 8,066,181; institution 26 Apr 2022, final written decision 23 Mar 2023 invalidating all challenged claims) as a Dominion Harbor assertion vehicle. LPV is a serial filer: LPV v. Citigroup (W.D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑00710/00711, filed 8 Jul 2021), LPV v. Regions, LPV v. Zions/Amegy (E.D. Tex. 2:22‑cv‑00195), LPV v. Visa (1:23‑cv‑00716), LPV v. Fiserv (2:23‑cv‑00518), LPV v. Fifth Third (N.D. Tex. 3:23‑cv‑00611), LPV v. MasterCard (S.D. Fla. 1:24‑cv‑20453/20455).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT DETERMINABLE (data gap). Correspondent fields were not reproduced in any source I could retrieve. Do not score this either way on naming alone. To close it out, pull the correspondent for Reel 012443/0775, Reel 012349/0731, both 2013‑11‑21 corrections, and the 2014 and 2018 recordings at Assignment Center; the signal fires only if one firm/attorney recurs across the 2014→2018 links (and/or matches a known IV/Dominion Harbor recording firm). One related recurrence worth noting — but not the same thing — is LPV's litigation counsel: Terry Afif Saad (with Jeffrey Bragalone, Mark Douglass, Marcus Benavides, Brandon Zuniga) filed for LPV in Citigroup (2021), Zions (2022), and Fiserv (2023). That is counsel of record in court, not correspondent of record on an assignment, and RPX/Unified do not list Saad as an NPE correspondent.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT in structure; timing prong NOT met. The chain is AETRSC → III Holdings 1 (2014‑04‑21) → Liberty Peak Ventures (2018‑03‑16): two consecutive transfers through non-operating LLCs with no shared operating business. But the <24‑month element fails (the interval is ~47 months), so this is a chained‑shell structure rather than a fast cascade. Note the whole chain — including both 2013 corrective recordings — was assembled inside a ~5‑year window bracketed by 2013 title cleanup at the front and the 2018 thesis vehicle at the back.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT as to this patent. No complaint I found names US 6,601,759. LPV's first AmEx‑portfolio assertions came years after the 2018‑03‑16 transfer (Citigroup, 8 Jul 2021), and RPX reported in April 2020 that LPV had not yet asserted the AmEx portfolio. The '759 also expired 2022‑01‑18, closing the assertion window. This patent reads as an unasserted portfolio asset, not an assertion instrument.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No bankruptcy, receivership, or 363 sale involving AETRSC appears in the record. The 2014 exit was a negotiated portfolio sale by a solvent operating company — a different fact pattern from Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR (suggestive, not established). Contextual point: American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. is listed as an investor with a "Financial Interest" in Intellectual Ventures' Invention Investment Fund I, per IV's own investor disclosures in Xilinx v. Intellectual Ventures Investment Fund I, L.P. (May 2011), as reproduced in the Santa Clara Law "Giants Among Us" appendix (2011‑10‑07). AmEx then sold to IV's III Holdings 1 in 2014. That pattern looks like fund‑investor‑to‑vehicle transfer, but I have no SEC 10‑K/8‑K disclosure, and no Patent Progress/EFF coverage, establishing that AmEx directed or benefited from assertion against competitors. Do not upgrade this to a finding without one of those documents.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC, an active plaintiff, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The inverse is in fact documented: Unified Patents has attacked LPV's patents (IPR2022‑00024 against US 8,066,181, instituted 26 Apr 2022, all challenged claims held unpatentable 23 Mar 2023).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong, independently sourced signals: (i) a shell‑entity transfer out of the operating original assignee — AETRSC → III Holdings 1, LLC on 2014‑04‑21, then III Holdings 1 → Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC on 2018‑03‑16, with the terminus being a single‑purpose Texas LLC sharing Dominion Harbor's Dallas address and served via an IP‑law‑firm agent; and (ii) a known asserter in the chain — III Holdings 1 publicly identified as an Intellectual Ventures subsidiary/NPE (Unified Patents, 5 Nov 2014) and Liberty Peak publicly identified as a Dominion Harbor entity by both RPX (19 Apr 2020) and Unified Patents (IPR2022‑00024, 2022–2023), with a documented multi‑defendant filing record (Citigroup, Regions, Zions, Visa, Fiserv, MasterCard, Fifth Third). The verdict is about ownership, not assertion: US 6,601,759 itself appears never to have been asserted and expired 2022‑01‑18, so it is best characterized as an unasserted asset inside an NPE‑controlled portfolio.

Two open items to close before this is filing‑grade: (1) retrieve the reel/frame and correspondent of record for the 2014 III Holdings 1 and 2018 Liberty Peak recordings (plus both 2013 corrections) to score signal 3 — this is the single highest‑value missing data point; (2) confirm via Assignment Center whether any undischarged security‑interest or license recording sits between the 2014 and 2018 links.

Verification links: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search 6601759) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US6601759/en

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent. Let me run several searches in parallel.

I have good data on the background-cited references. Now let me pull the formal "References Cited" table (cited by examiner) for this patent.

Prior Art Analysis — US 6,601,759 B2 ("System and method for providing feedback in an interactive payment system")

Scope and a necessary caveat about the "patent citations"

Two different things get called "citations for 6601759," and they must not be mixed up:

Building on the earlier sections: the "Cited By (141)" list shown on the record is a forward-citation list, not prior art. Do not import any of those into a § 102 analysis.

Retrieval limitation — flagged honestly: The authoritative full text supplied in this task contains the patent's Background of the Invention citations and its incorporated-by-reference documents, but it does not contain a separate front-page "References Cited" (examiner-cited) table. My attempts to pull that exact table separately from Justia/FPO/Google were cut off by the tool step limit. So the universe analyzed below is every patent and printed publication the '759 specification itself cites, which is the citation set available in the authoritative text. If a distinct examiner-cited list exists on the face of the patent, it was not retrievable in this pass — treat that as "not yet verified," not "empty."

Source for the patent itself: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6601759B2](/patent/US6601759B2)/en

---

The claim framework the references must be measured against

To anticipate under § 102, a single reference must disclose every element of a claim, arranged as claimed, with the reference's own dates qualifying it as prior art (priority date here: Oct 4, 2000 provisional / Oct 4, 2001 filing).

The five independent claims share a common core (from the earlier claim walk-through):

1. Receive data corresponding to a method of payment tied to a financial instrument;
2. Analyze that data to determine the type of the financial instrument;
3. Correlate the analyzed data with a cue corresponding to that instrument; and
4. Present the cue (claims 10/32 add "substantially concurrent").

The linchpin element is (2)+(3): derive the instrument's identity/type from the entered identifier and render a matching cue (e.g., a card logo). Any reference that does not disclose that combination cannot anticipate.

---

Reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 6,152,591 — "Interactive Graphics Display System for a Fuel Dispenser"

Brief description: A retrofit graphics display system for a fuel dispenser — video display terminal, touch screen, multimedia controller, pump interface — that presents instructions and commercials to the customer, accepts customer inputs, and determines whether the customer has used the dispenser before to decide whether to show extra instructions.

§ 102 relevance: Pre-dates the priority date (issued 2000-11-28; filed 1997) → qualifies as § 102(b) art. It is the reference the '759 Background cites for the generic proposition that an interactive payment-adjacent terminal can display graphical instructions/advertising, and it involves a card reader in a dispensing environment.

Anticipation? No. It discloses no step of receiving a payment identifier, analyzing it to determine the type of financial instrument, or correlating to a cue that identifies that instrument. Its graphics are instructions/commercials keyed to customer history, not to an instrument type.

Potentially relevant claims (but not anticipatory): claim 1 (preamble "interactive payment transaction"), the cue-modality/GUI/presentation sub-claims 5–8, 14–17, 31, 32 (it shows GUI/icon/touch-screen presentation on a payment terminal). I would not characterize it as anticipating any of claims 1–32.

---

2. US 5,845,263 — "Interactive Visual Ordering System"

Brief description: A portable interactive visual ordering system using full-color images so a restaurant customer can order menu items from an interactive display; it tabulates a running bill, and — in the networked embodiment — allows the customer to pay the bill by credit card or debit means at the table.

§ 102 relevance: Filed 1995 / issued 1998 → § 102(b) art. It is the closest cited reference on the "interactive display + payment in the same transaction" concept, which is why the '759 Background cites it and even criticizes pre-existing systems for processing the payment identifier only "near the conclusion of the transaction."

Anticipation? No. It discloses image-based menu presentation and card acceptance, but not the parsing of a financial-instrument identifier to determine the instrument type and rendering a cue corresponding to the instrument. No card-brand logo derived from the account number appears anywhere in its disclosure.

Potentially relevant claims (not anticipatory): the visual/GUI-cue sub-claims 5–7, 14–16, 31, 32, and the general "presentation in a payment transaction" concept of claim 1. It cannot anticipate because elements (2)+(3) of the claim core are absent.

---

3. US 5,878,141 — "Computerized Purchasing System and Method for Mediating Purchase Transactions Over an Interactive Network"

Brief description: An interactive-network (e.g., interactive-TV) purchase mediating system with a purchaser database (personal payment methods) and a merchant database (accepted payment methods). A processor computes the intersection of the two sets to derive the common set of available payment methods, presents those to the purchaser for selection, and consummates the sale with a digital signature.

§ 102 relevance: Filed 1995 / issued 1999 → § 102(b) art. Of the four cited patents, this one is the most conceptually adjacent to "the system determines something about the payment method and shows it to the payor."

Anticipation? No. The critical gap: '141 operates on preset sets of payment methods stored in databases; it does not analyze an entered financial-instrument identifier to determine the instrument's type, and it does not correlate a cue (logo/icon) to the instrument. It presents a list of accepted payment options, not an instrument-identifying cue generated from the entered account data. Elements (2)+(3) again fail.

Potentially relevant claims (not anticipatory): claims 4 and 13 (analysis of payment data — though '141 indexes databases rather than parsing account digits), and the payor-facing presentation elements of claims 18, 29, 30, 31. It does not anticipate any claim.

---

4. US 5,787,186 — "Biometric Security Process for Authenticating Identity and Credit Cards, Visas, Passports and Facial Recognition"

Brief description: A facial-image biometric process — analyzes a face image, matches it to templates each carrying a number, and prints the resulting numeric code on an identity/credit card, visa, or passport; a remote computer can reconstruct the face image from transmitted parameters.

§ 102 relevance: Issued Jul. 28, 1998 → § 102(b) art. The '759 specification cites it purely for a general discussion of biometrics, and the '759 claims explicitly recite biometrics (claims 3, 12). This is the only cited patent that has a direct claim-text hook.

Anticipation? No. Even against claims 3/12: '186 is an authentication process. It does not disclose analyzing a payment identifier to determine instrument type and presenting a corresponding cue; it uses biometrics to authenticate a person/document, not to select or confirm a payment product. It cannot anticipate the claim core.

Potentially relevant claims (not anticipatory): 3 and 12 (the "received data comprises biometric information" limitations), and secondarily the identity/biometric-input sub-claims 19. Not anticipatory of anything.

---

5. Printed publications cited in the specification (non-patent literature)

None of these discloses receiving and parsing a payment account identifier to render an instrument brand cue; none anticipates any claim.

---

Bottom line on § 102

Conclusion: On the citation set available in the authoritative text, no reference anticipates any of claims 1–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Every cited patent/doc lacks the claim core's distinguishing combination — parse the entered payment identifier → determine the financial-instrument type → present a cue corresponding to that instrument (and, for claims 10 and 32, do so substantially concurrently).

These references are, however, plausibly § 103 supporting art, and the closest pairings would likely be:

• US 5,845,263 + US 5,878,141 — visual/interactive display in a payment context ('263) combined with a payment-method-determination database ('141), if a validity challenge argued it was obvious to display a bank's logo once the payment method is known; and
• US 6,152,591 for the generic GUI/icon presentation element in a card-reading terminal.

That combination argument would still have to supply the missing teaching of deriving an instrument-identifying cue from the identifier itself (e.g., BIN parsing) — which is precisely the point the '759 Background asserts the prior art did not provide, and which the earlier claim walk-through identified as the novel core.

Cross-reference / contradictions with the earlier sections

• No contradiction with the earlier bibliographic or litigation sections. The bibliographic data (priority Oct. 4, 2000; app. 09/970,838; issued Aug. 5, 2003; expired Jan. 18, 2022) is consistent with everything retrieved here.
• One clarification that builds on the earlier "Litigation summary": that section correctly warned against importing adjacent numbers (US 6,600,175, etc.). The analogous warning here is against importing the "Cited By (141)" list as prior art — it is forward-citation data only.

What I could not verify

1. The front-page examiner "References Cited" table for '759 — not present in the authoritative text and not retrieved before the step limit. If you need the exact examiner citation list (including any foreign/JP/EP references on the face of the patent), that requires a direct USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "Patent Citations" pull.
2. The filing dates/assignees of US 6,152,591 and US 5,787,186 beyond what the retrieved hits showed (I flagged those cells rather than guess).

Want me to do a fresh, narrowly-scoped pass to extract the literal examiner citation table from the USPTO/Google front page?

I'll verify the teaching of each prior-art reference cited on the page before building the § 103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 6,601,759 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on sources: This analysis uses the references identified on the patent page itself — the four references discussed in the '759 Background, the "Referenced Cited" list from the prosecution record, and the "Cited By" list. I pulled and read the full text of the four Background references. I am tagging which statements I verified and which I am inferring, and I flag one important contradiction with the earlier-generated summary at the end.

---

1. Framework

Governing law / date. Priority date October 4, 2000; filed October 4, 2001. Pre-AIA § 103(a) applies, starting from the effective filing date of the provisional (US 60/237,851). The KSR factors (predictable combination of known elements, known technique, design incentive, reasonable expectation of success) govern motivation.

PHOSITA. Bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or information systems (or equivalent), with 2–4 years' experience building networked, customer-facing electronic payment and GUI/data-entry software. That person is presumed to know the ISO/IEC 7812 numbering convention (issuer identification numbers/BIN ranges, in force since 1989), the Luhn mod-10 checksum, and standard web/terminal form-entry techniques such as field-level validation on keystroke. This skill level matters because the '759 specification itself asserts that "Algorithms for deducing the card type from the account number on the card are well known to those skilled in the art" and treats the BIN (first six digits) as a routine parsing target — an applicant admission usable as evidence of the state of the art.

Claim construction of claim 1 (the broadest claim):

• "receiving data substantially corresponding to a method of payment associated with a financial instrument" — receiving an account/identifier (card number, account code) or account data read from a card.
• "analyzing said data to determine the type of associated financial instrument" — parsing the identifier to identify the card brand/product.
• "correlating said analyzed data with at least a suitably adapted cue" — mapping the identified product to a display element. "Cue" is defined in the specification to include "literal…, referential…, or iconic…" representations; dependent claims narrow it to visual → GUI → icon.
• "presenting said cue" — no timing limit in claim 1.

Claim 1 is thus: read the card identifier → identify the card brand → show a corresponding graphic. Claim 10 adds only concurrency. Claims 18/29/32 are means-plus-function systems whose corresponding structure is the generic CPU + memory + datastore + display that the specification itself calls conventional.

---

2. Prior-art inventory (verified)

Also on the page (prosecution "Referenced Cited" list, i.e., already before the Examiner): US 5,276,311 (Hennige), 5,578,808 (Taylor), 5,590,038 (Pitroda), 5,594,493 (Nemirofsky), 5,637,845 (Kolls), 5,661,517 (Budow), 5,869,822 (Meadows II), 5,921,865 (Scagnelli), 5,963,925 (Kolling), 6,029,141 (Bezos), 6,119,934 (Kolls), 6,149,055 (Gatto), 6,193,152 (Fernando), 6,199,051 (Gifford), 6,209,104 (Jalili), 6,269,348 (Pare, Jr.), 6,464,146 (Ito). I did not independently verify the disclosures of these in this pass; they should be pulled before any invalidity contention is finalized, because several appear to be card/account-processing and biometric-payment references that could supply a hard teaching of the "analyze/identify the instrument" step.

---

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 (and 10–17, 30) obvious over US 5,878,141 in view of US 6,152,591 and the admitted/known account-number-recognition art.

Claim 10 (concurrency): adds only that presentation is "substantially concurrent with said reception."

• '141 already runs the transaction in real time ("the subscriber is given an opportunity to confirm or deny the purchase in real-time") and presents the payment method on the UI as the purchase flow proceeds.
• '591 is stronger still: the controller monitors the card reader and handles the card message at the moment of insertion and drives the display in that instant.
• A PHOSITA implementing the '141 log-om on a web/terminal form would naturally render the logo as the account field is populated, because the whole point of the asserted benefit — catching a wrong card before authorization — requires it. That is a predictable, result-effective design choice, not an inventive leap.

Motivation to combine (KSR):

1. Same field, same problem. '141 and '591 are both customer-facing, networked payment/display terminals whose stated goals include telling the purchaser what payment method is being used. '591's dispenser and '141's ITV/PC terminal are analogous art. '263 is likewise a customer-facing payment terminal.
2. '141 supplies the express recognition/branding rationale. Its own "Field"/"Background" complain that the electronic purchaser is "often blind" and that accepted/allowed methods should be surfaced; it puts logos in the payment UI to make the method recognizable. That is the identical problem the '759 Abstract claims to solve ("reinforcement of payment product and/or service loyalty and branding").
3. '591 supplies the express real-time, data-driven display rationale. It teaches detecting the payment-card event and immediately driving the graphic display with tailored/logo content, and it teaches that the display should vary with what the terminal knows about the customer.
4. The identification step is a known technique. Card-type-from-account-number was a decades-old routing practice (ISO/IEC 7812), and the applicant admitted it. Combining a known identification technique with a known display technique is the paradigm of predictable use of prior-art elements.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Every step is a software lookup + graphic render on hardware the references already disclose. No technical uncertainty.

Claim 2 (credit/stored-value/charge account) — '141 expressly lists credit cards, debit cards, and merchant charge cards; claim 2 is met. Claim 4 (BIN, checksum, fraud, member group, issuing locale, loyalty points, promotions) — BIN parses to issuer/locale/product/member group; checksum is the standard Luhn digit; fraud and locale analysis of account numbers are conventional; loyalty/promotions are taught by '141's use of the subscriber database for "coupons or frequent buyer programs." Claims 5–7 (visual → GUI → icon) — '591's touch-screen GUI and '141's bitmap logos are exactly GUI cues/icons; '591 also shows an audible channel (speaker). Claim 9 (concurrency) — as above.

Ground 2 — Alternative for the cue/display limitation: US 5,878,141 in view of US 5,845,263

'263 teaches the core mapping the '759 claims as novel: store a library of graphic assets, then display the asset corresponding to the user's input ("display the images… in response to the user-generated input signals"), in a system that also takes credit-card payment and even displays a "business logo" screen. Substituting '263's stored-image-lookup-and-display for '591's dispenser graphics yields claim 1's "correlating… with a suitably adapted cue… presenting said cue" with the same motivation (instant visual recognition of the selected item/instrument).

Ground 3 — System claims 18–24, 25–27, 28, 29, 30, 32

These are § 112 ¶ 6 claims whose disclosed structure is the generic CPU (106/126), RAM/ROM, datastore (104/124), and display (114) that the specification calls conventional. '141 is itself a system claim (claims 6, 20, 54) with a processor, databases, terminals and a UI displaying the method/logo; '591 is a system with a controller, card reader, display and I/O. When the method is obvious over these references, the corresponding means are obvious. Claim 32 (visual cue + specific account-number types + concurrency) is met by '141's logo display (credit/debit/charge cards) plus '591's immediate response; claim 21 of '141 even recites the "displayed as part of the user interface" limitation almost verbatim in substance.

Ground 4 — Claims 3 and 12 (biometric data) — weakest ground; '759 in view of US 5,787,186

'186 links a biometric (facial image → numeric encoding) to a credit card and a database lookup. One could argue a PHOSITA would apply that to claim 3's alternative ("received data comprises biometric information") to strengthen authentication and to auto-identify the account. Honest caveat: '186's purpose is authenticating the cardholder, not classifying the type of financial instrument, so using biometric data as the "data… corresponding to a method of payment" requires an inferential step that is weaker than Grounds 1–3, and claim 3 depends from claim 2 (account number) as well. Treat this as a secondary, contestable ground rather than a lead argument.

---

4. Where the obviousness case is strong, and where it is exposed

Strongest. Claim 1. It is almost a verbatim functional description of '141's payment-method identification + logo display plus '591's card-event-driven display. The only element a tribunal might say is missing from any single reference is the "analyzing [the entered number] to determine the type" step, because '141 identifies methods from stored sets, not by parsing the digits the customer types. That gap is filled by the applicant's own admission that card-type-from-account-number is well known — a legally usable admission about the state of the art, though a tribunal is more comfortable when a reference supplies it. That is why the "Referenced Cited" card/account-processing references (Hennige '311, Kolls '845/'934, Kolling '925, Taylor '808, Gatto '055) should be read next.

Weakest. (a) Claim 3/12 biometrics (above). (b) Claims 8/17/28's long Markush of devices (Bluetooth appliance, phone, PDA, smartcard, transponder…): no single reference teaches all, but the claim requires only one, and rendering a card icon on a handheld display was routine by 2000; expect a "design choice, no unexpected result" treatment. (c) The exotic cue modalities in claims 5/14/31 (kinesthetic, olfactory) are Markush alternatives — if any one species is known, the claim is met; '591 teaches the audible species, and '141/'263/'591 teach the visual species.

Secondary considerations / expected rebuttals. No teaching away: '591 is a fuel dispenser but plainly analogous (customer-facing card-payment terminal with a graphics display); '141 is the same field. No unexpected results: the specification offers no comparative data, and the asserted benefits (fewer entry errors, brand reinforcement) are the ordinary, expected consequences of showing the customer the right logo at the right moment — and '141 already articulated the recognition/branding benefit. The strongest patent-owner arguments will be (i) that no reference teaches deriving the cue from the entered account number, and (ii) that the combination is impermissible hindsight. Argument (i) is answered in district court by the admitted-known BIN art; argument (ii) is blunted by '141 and '591 both expressly motivating logo display on a payment terminal.

§ 325(d) caution (procedural, not substantive). All four Background references plus the "Referenced Cited" list were before the Examiner. A petitioner who leads with exactly those faces real discretionary-denial risk under § 325(d) and should lead with art outside the file history. In district court, that concern does not apply, and the considered art remains fully usable.

---

5. Contradictions and open items (per the strict "flag it" rule)

• No contradiction with the previously generated sections. The earlier summary/PTAB sections concluded the patent was never asserted and never challenged at the Board; nothing in the prior-art record on the page contradicts that.
• One mismatch to flag inside the page itself: the Google Patents text shows only the four Background references, while the mirrored USPTO record shows a "Referenced Cited" list of ~20 granted patents considered during prosecution (Hennige, Taylor, Pitroda, Nemirofsky, Kolls, Budow, Meadows II, Scagnelli, Kolling, Bezos, Gatto, Fernando, Gifford, Jalili, Pare Jr., Ito). That list is not on the Google Patents page. I have not verified their disclosures, so I have not relied on them in the grounds above — but they should be pulled before any invalidity position is finalized, because they were already before the Examiner and several look like card/account-processing and biometric-payment art.
• "Cited By" is not prior art. The 141 items in the "Cited By" list are later filings that cite '759; the only ones with a pre-10/04/2000 priority that might theoretically qualify under § 102(e) (e.g., US 2002/0174030 A1, 1999-09-28) were published after the '759 filing and are not usable as § 102(a)/(b) art. I am not relying on any "Cited By" item as prior art.
• Not verified this pass: the specific disclosures of the "Referenced Cited" references; whether any single reference teaches parsing a user-entered number to identify card brand; and the prosecution history (whether the Examiner articulated the allowance reason). A definitive invalidity opinion should be built on the prosecution history plus at least one hard "number→brand" reference outside the file history.

---

6. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is the most vulnerable and is reasonably rejected as obvious over Daly '141 + McCall '591 in view of the admitted/well-known account-number ("BIN") recognition technique. The identification of the payment method and the display of a corresponding logo are both in Daly; the card-event-driven, immediate graphic display is in McCall; the number-classification step is an admitted known technique. Replace McCall with Camaisa '263 and claim 1 still falls.
• Claim 10 (and 32) are only modestly narrower (concurrency / "visual" cue) and fall on the same combination, because both Daly and McCall run in real time and both display logos/graphics.
• Claims 18–30 and 32 follow as § 112 ¶ 6 system counterparts of an obvious method; claim 32 is met by Daly's logo display plus McCall's immediacy.
• Claims 3 and 12 (biometrics) are the weakest of the grounds and rest on Schroeder '186; expect a real fight there.
• The case would be materially stronger if a "number→card-brand" reference is located outside the '759 file history (to convert the applicant-admission into a reference-based teaching), and would be materially stronger or weaker depending on what the ~20 "Referenced Cited" patents actually teach — which I have not verified and which was not on the Google Patents page.

Sources consulted: US6601759B2 (patents.google.com/patent/US6601759B2/en); US5878141 (patentimages…/US5878141.pdf; uspto.report/patent/grant/5878141); US6152591 (patentimages…/US6152591A.pdf; uspto.report/patent/grant/6152591); US5845263 (patentimages…/US5845263.pdf; uspto.report/patent/grant/5845263); US5787186 (uspto.report/patent/grant/5787186; JP2009543176A).