US 8732085

A search of the USPTO database for patent number US8732085B2 provides the following information:

Patent Number: US8732085B2

Title: Proxy card providing indirect funds access

Assignee: Enpulz, L.L.C., Chicago, IL (US) (at the time of issue)
Note: The Google Patents entry shows Paypulz LLC as the "Current Assignee" and Enpulz LLC as the "Original Assignee". For the purpose of this summary, the assignee at the time of issue as listed on the patent document is used.

Inventors: James D. Bennett

Filing Date: October 30, 2012 (Application No. 13/664,136)

Issue Date: May 20, 2014

Abstract: A proxy card used at an ATM, or at any vendor store, that has a legacy point of sale unit or at a store with the smart point of sale. In general, it can be used with any vendor and otherwise as any credit or debit card might be used. The point-of-sale unit interacts with a multi-source processing system (MSPS) that, instead of servicing a single money source, interacts with more than one of a plurality of monetary sources that may be associated with the proxy card. The money transferred from credit or debit accounts of the user may be either transferred directly or indirectly via a proxy central account associated with the MSPS that a user maintains.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a proxy card management system for a first buyer who has a first card linked to a first monetary account and a second card linked to a second monetary account. The proxy card itself doesn't directly represent an account. The system includes a processing infrastructure that allows the buyer to associate the proxy card with both the first and second cards. The buyer can also set up transaction rules, such as how to allocate a purchase amount between the first and second monetary accounts. When a merchant initiates a transaction using the proxy card, the system, following these rules, provides a single approval code. Crucially, if the proxy card is reported lost, the system can disassociate both the first and second cards from the proxy card without requiring the cancellation of the underlying first or second cards.
• Claim 7: This claim describes the proxy card itself in relation to a management system. The proxy card has a unique number stored in the management system, linked to the first and second provider's cards of a first buyer. The proxy card does not have its own monetary account. It facilitates purchases indirectly through the management system based on a transaction rule for allocating a purchase amount between the two provider's cards. The card can be deactivated by disassociating it from the linked provider's cards without closing the underlying monetary accounts.
• Claim 16: This claim outlines a proxy card management system that works with at least a first and second provider's card and a proxy card. Similar to Claim 1, the first provider's card represents a first monetary account, and the proxy card has no independent monetary account association. The system's processing infrastructure includes a proxy card setup system where the first buyer links the proxy card to the provider's cards and can modify transaction rules for allocating purchase amounts. When a merchant initiates a transaction with the proxy card, the system, adhering to these rules, generates an approval indication by applying the purchase amount to the first monetary account. If a request is made to terminate the proxy card, the processing infrastructure is configured to disable any future generation of approval indications by the multi-source processing system that refer to the terminated proxy card.

No results were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets specifically mentioning patent number 8732085. The search returned general information about patent cases in the Federal Circuit for 2026.

As a patent attorney, I have conducted a search for litigation involving US patent 8732085.

As of April 26, 2026, no specific litigation cases directly involving US patent 8732085 were found in the available search results from Unified Patents, CAFC dockets for May 2026, or general PACER information.

While PACER provides a nationwide index for federal court cases and allows searching by patent number, the specific patent number 8732085 did not yield direct litigation results in the conducted search. Similarly, Unified Patents, which tracks patent litigation and inter partes reviews (IPRs), did not list any active litigation for this specific patent number in the general search results. My review of the CAFC 2026 dockets also did not reveal any scheduled cases for this patent.

Therefore, based on the current search, there is no known litigation involving US patent 8732085.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8732085B2. This means the patent has not been subjected to Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this implies that the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB, and all claims are currently presumed valid.

Strategic summary

As of today, May 22, 2026, all claims of US8732085B2 (claims 1-18) are currently SUSTAINED, as they have not been challenged or invalidated through any PTAB trial proceedings. There is no estoppel landscape from prior PTAB decisions, meaning a potential defendant is free to raise any available prior art grounds (§ 102 / § 103) in a future PTAB petition, if desired. The absence of PTAB activity could indicate that the patent has not been extensively asserted, or that prior art challenges have been handled through other means (e.g., litigation).

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US8732085B2, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent would be:

1. Conduct a robust prior art search: Without the benefit of prior PTAB challenges, a defendant should conduct a thorough search for prior art to evaluate the patent's validity.
2. Evaluate IPR/PGR potential: Assess whether the identified prior art is strong enough to support an IPR (for anticipation under § 102 or obviousness under § 103) or a PGR (if eligible, covering additional grounds like § 112).
3. Monitor for future filings: Keep an eye on the PTAB's Public Search facility for any newly filed petitions against US8732085B2, as this landscape can change rapidly if the patent owner begins to assert the patent more widely.

Inventors

• James D. Bennett (Employer at time of filing: Not determinable from the patent text or Google Patents)

Unusual patterns: Not determinable from the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the issued patent US8732085B2, is Enpulz, L.L.C.

• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Not determinable from the provided patent text.
• Primary line of business: Not explicitly stated, but the patent describes a "Proxy card providing indirect funds access" which suggests a focus on financial transaction systems and services.
• Current status: Google Patents lists "Paypulz LLC" as the "Current Assignee" and "Enpulz LLC" as the "Original Assignee". This suggests a change in ownership since the original issue.

Assignment timeline

To reconstruct the full assignment record, I will perform a search on the USPTO Assignment Center.

No recorded assignments for US8732085B2 were found on the USPTO Assignment Center when searching by patent number (as of May 22, 2026).

However, Google Patents indicates a "reassignment" on "2025-07-25 Assigned to ENPULZ, LLC" and another "reassignment" on "2025-07-24 Assigned to PAYPULZ LLC". Additionally, a Patentcloud search result from July 21, 2025, shows a transaction involving "ENPULZ LLC" as assignor and "PAYPULZ LLC" as assignee, recorded on 2025-07-24, with execution date 2025-07-07, and involving 8 patents, including those related to a proxy card for multiple monetary sources. This indicates a discrepancy with the direct USPTO Assignment Center search, which currently yields no results for this patent number. It is possible these recent assignments are pending full public availability in the USPTO Assignment Center's primary search interface, or there may be a delay in updating. Given the Patentcloud information, I will include this assignment in the timeline.

• 2025-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2025-07-24 — Reel 71822/827 (from Patentcloud, not direct USPTO search)
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ENPULZ LLC
  • Assignee: PAYPULZ LLC
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the Patentcloud snippet.
  • Context: Transfer to a new entity, Paypulz LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8732085
    2007 : Priority date 2007-08-06
    2012 : Filed by Enpulz LLC
    2014 : Granted to Enpulz LLC
    2025 : Assigned to Paypulz LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. Enpulz LLC, the original assignee, and Paypulz LLC, the current assignee according to Google Patents and Patentcloud, do not immediately suggest shell entities by name alone. Without information about their products, physical addresses (beyond registered agent services), or corporate structure (e.g., single-member LLCs), it's unclear if they are operating companies or licensing-only entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Enpulz LLC nor Paypulz LLC appear on common public NPE lists based on the provided information.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The correspondent information for the 2025 assignment to Paypulz LLC is not available from the Patentcloud snippet, and the USPTO Assignment Center search currently yields no records for this patent directly.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment from Enpulz LLC to Paypulz LLC is indicated in the provided information.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. No litigation information is available for this patent, making it impossible to determine if the 2025 transfer occurred within 6 months of a first infringement suit.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no information to suggest that Enpulz LLC filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information in the provided context to suggest privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data
The USPTO Assignment Center search for US8732085B2 yielded no direct records as of today, 2026-05-22. While Google Patents and Patentcloud suggest a transfer from Enpulz LLC to Paypulz LLC in 2025, the lack of full USPTO assignment records (including reel/frame and correspondent details) prevents a confident assessment of NPE patterns. Without more detailed information on the nature of these entities (products, business model, address, attorney of record), it is impossible to determine if any NPE signals are present.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search for patent number 8732085).

The provided patent text for US8732085B2 does not explicitly list a "References Cited" or "Prior Art Documents" section, which typically enumerates the prior art considered during its examination. However, the "Description" section of US8732085B2 states: "The present application is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 11/834,294 filed Aug. 6, 2007, co-pending, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes." U.S. Ser. No. 11/834,294 matured into US Patent 8326758B2. As US8732085B2 is a continuation of this earlier application, the prior art cited in US8326758B2 is highly relevant to US8732085B2.

To identify the most relevant prior art, a search for US8326758B2's cited references is necessary.

As US8732085B2 is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 11/834,294 (which matured into US8326758B2), the prior art cited in US8326758B2 is highly relevant. A review of the patent citations for US8326758B2 reveals numerous prior art documents. The following U.S. patent applications and patents are identified as particularly relevant, given the focus of US8732085B2 on proxy cards, multi-source processing, transaction rules, and account management.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US8732085B2

1. US20020103753A1: Charge splitter application

   • Full Citation: US20020103753A1 (Schimmel)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: January 31, 2001; Published: August 1, 2002
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a system and method for splitting charges for goods or services among multiple accounts. It allows a user to define how a charge will be split among different accounts, which could be credit cards, debit cards, or other financial instruments. The system processes the transaction by interacting with the various accounts based on the predefined splitting rules.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 1: This reference potentially anticipates the aspect of "allocating a purchase amount between the first monetary account and the second monetary account" found in claim 1. The "charge splitter application" directly addresses the concept of distributing a single purchase amount across multiple financial sources. While it doesn't explicitly mention a "proxy card" or "disassociating without canceling," the core functionality of allocating funds between multiple accounts based on rules is present.
     • Claim 7: The concept of a transaction rule defining the allocation of a purchase amount between different cards is directly addressed by this prior art. The "charge splitter application" performs this function.
     • Claim 16: The idea of a processing infrastructure "supporting modification by the first buyer of at least one transaction rule that defines allocating purchase amounts between the first provider's card and the second provider's card" and the "generation involving an application of the purchase amount to the first monetary account" aligns with the charge splitting functionality described.

2. US20020087469A1: Technique of registration for and direction of electronic payments in real-time

   • Full Citation: US20020087469A1 (Ganesan)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: December 28, 2000; Published: July 4, 2002
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a system for real-time electronic payment registration and direction. It involves a central system that registers payment options for a user and then directs electronic payments to the appropriate payment instrument in real-time based on transaction details. This system facilitates a user using a single identifier (or proxy) to access multiple payment accounts.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 1: This reference potentially anticipates the general concept of a system that acts as an intermediary for financial transactions, linking a user's identifier to multiple monetary accounts and directing payments. While not explicitly a "proxy card" in the physical sense, the functionality of a "proxy card management system" that responds to a merchant communication by delivering an approval code based on underlying monetary sources is conceptually similar to directing payments in real-time from registered payment options.
     • Claim 7: The system described enables a user to conduct transactions using an intermediary, accessing multiple monetary sources without direct interaction with each underlying card. This aligns with the proxy card's role in supporting a purchasing transaction indirectly with support of a management system.
     • Claim 16: The processing infrastructure receiving a "merchant communication" and generating an "approval indication" by applying a purchase amount to an account, based on a system that registers and directs payments, shows significant overlap.

3. US20030061157A1: System and method for processing payment transactions from multiple accounts through a single transaction account

   • Full Citation: US20030061157A1 (Hirka, et al.)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: July 24, 2001; Published: March 27, 2003
   • Brief Description: This patent application discloses a system and method that allows a user to conduct payment transactions through a single transaction account, which then draws funds from multiple underlying payment accounts (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts). The system manages these underlying accounts and processes the transaction by appropriately allocating the amount across them, potentially based on predefined rules or user selection.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 1: This prior art directly addresses the core concept of using a "single transaction account" (analogous to the proxy card's role) to access "multiple accounts" (first and second monetary accounts) and allocate a purchase amount between them. The modification of "at least one transaction rule" for allocation is also a strong point of overlap. The "disassociating without having to cancel" feature, however, may be a distinguishing characteristic.
     • Claim 7: The description of a single transaction account supporting purchases by drawing from multiple underlying accounts without direct access to those underlying accounts is a very close match to the functionality described for the proxy card. The transaction rules for allocating amounts are also covered.
     • Claim 16: The system's ability to process transactions by applying purchase amounts to multiple underlying accounts, managed by a central system, directly parallels the "processing infrastructure" generating approval indications and applying purchase amounts to monetary accounts based on transaction rules. The "proxy card termination request" and "disabling any further generation of subsequent approval indications" without canceling underlying accounts is a key area for differentiation.

Obviousness Analysis of US8732085B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of claims 1, 7, and 16 of US patent 8732085B2, considering the prior art available before its priority date of August 6, 2007.

1. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) relevant to US8732085B2 would be a professional in financial transaction systems, such as a software engineer, systems architect, or product developer with experience in payment processing, credit/debit card networks, banking IT systems, and point-of-sale (POS) technologies. This individual would be familiar with the operation of credit cards, debit cards, ATMs, POS terminals, and the underlying infrastructure for processing electronic funds transfers. They would also understand the challenges associated with managing multiple financial accounts and ensuring transaction security and convenience.

2. Prior Art References

For this analysis, the primary prior art references considered are:

• U.S. Serial No. 11/834,294 (which issued as US8326758B2, "Proxy card representing many monetary sources from a plurality of vendors"): This is the parent application of US8732085B2 and establishes its priority date. Its disclosure, therefore, represents significant prior art for assessing obviousness, particularly for any subject matter not common to both or new to the continuation. The abstract of US8326758B2 discloses: "A proxy card providing indirect funds access and representing many monetary sources from a plurality of vendors. The proxy card uses a multi-source processing system (MSPS) for financial transactions conducted from point of sale units, ATMs, and other financial transaction systems. The MSPS acts as a single point of entry to a plurality of monetary accounts, allowing the user to make a selection from these accounts to make a transaction. Alternatively, the MSPS can apply logic rules for automatic selection of accounts, for example, based on rules that determine lowest-interest credit card, highest balance accounts, or combination of accounts, etc. The MSPS stores information of rules for processing transactions with the plurality of monetary sources and it also stores security information (such as encryption keys) for secure transactions. The MSPS supports direct and indirect mode of financial transactions."
• General knowledge in the art: As described in the "Background" section of US8732085B2, the art already included:
  • The widespread use of multiple credit cards, debit cards, ATM cards, and other financial instruments by individuals.
  • Challenges associated with carrying numerous physical cards and the inconvenience of a "fat and heavy" wallet.
  • Difficulties in managing and tracking balances across multiple bank accounts and credit lines.
  • The risk and "complex process of cancellation" when a physical card or wallet is lost or stolen.
  • Embarrassment caused by transaction rejections due to insufficient funds, even when other accounts have available credit.
  • The existence of point-of-sale (POS) devices, legacy POS units, and automatic teller machines (ATMs) for conducting financial transactions.

3. Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Claim 1: Proxy Card Management System

Claim 1 describes a proxy card management system where a proxy card, without direct account representation, is associated with a first and second card/monetary account from different issuers. The system includes a processing infrastructure for a buyer to associate the proxy card, modify transaction rules (including allocating purchase amounts), deliver a single approval code in response to a merchant communication, and, crucially, disassociate the linked cards from the proxy card upon a "missing card indication" without canceling the underlying first or second cards.

Combination and Motivation:
The combination of US8326758B2 and the general knowledge in the art would render Claim 1 obvious.

• Proxy card with indirect funds access for multiple monetary sources: US8326758B2 explicitly teaches a "proxy card providing indirect funds access and representing many monetary sources from a plurality of vendors." This directly addresses the concept of a proxy card without direct account representation linked to multiple external monetary accounts from different issuers.
• Association and rule modification: US8326758B2 states that its "MSPS can apply logic rules for automatic selection of accounts... The MSPS stores information of rules for processing transactions." The problem of "managing all those accounts is not easy" and the need for "lookup, account balancing and tracking" is highlighted in the Background of US8732085B2. A PHOSITA, aiming to solve these problems and provide greater user control and convenience, would be motivated to enable users to define and modify these "logic rules" through a "proxy card setup system," including rules for "allocating a purchase amount between the first monetary account and the second monetary account" as a logical extension of managing multiple accounts. This is also explicitly described in the detailed description of US8732085B2 as part of the proxy card setup system (FIG. 2).
• Delivering a single approval code: US8326758B2 describes the MSPS as a "single point of entry to a plurality of monetary accounts" and supporting "direct and indirect mode of financial transactions." In an indirect mode, where the MSPS orchestrates sub-transactions with multiple monetary sources, it would be a natural and obvious design choice for the MSPS to consolidate the responses and deliver a single "first approval code" to the merchant, effectively abstracting the complexity of multiple underlying accounts from the merchant. This functionality is further detailed in US8732085B2 (FIG. 4, Block 440) where a "proxy code" is generated.
• Disassociating linked cards from a lost proxy card without cancellation: The "Background" section of US8732085B2 explicitly identifies the problem of "Lost cards often result from failing to retrieve a card from a vendor... A lost or stolen wallet requires a complex process of cancellation of all of one's cards." The patent then states that its MSPS "makes it easy to lock and unlock user accounts" and "conducts an account lock, an account delete and an account unlock operation, on the user accounts, as needed." FIG. 7 of US8732085B2 details a "proxy card deactivation operation" which sends information to "all relevant monetary sources" to "temporarily or permanently locked" accounts. Given that US8326758B2 already teaches a system that manages the association between a proxy card and multiple underlying accounts, a PHOSITA, motivated to solve the "complex process of cancellation" problem, would find it obvious to implement a feature allowing the central system to disassociate the proxy card from the underlying accounts upon a "missing card indication" without requiring the full cancellation of the individual primary cards. This provides a clear security benefit and user convenience directly addressing a stated problem in the art.

Claim 7: Proxy Card

Claim 7 describes the proxy card itself, noting its associated number stored in a management system with reference to a buyer's multiple provider cards, its lack of independent monetary account association, its configuration to support indirect purchasing via transaction rules, and its support for deactivation by disassociation without requiring monetary account closure.

Combination and Motivation:
The features of Claim 7 are rendered obvious by the teachings of US8326758B2 and the general knowledge in the art.

• Proxy card number associated with multiple provider cards/accounts: US8326758B2 discloses a "proxy card representing many monetary sources" and an "MSPS acts as a single point of entry to a plurality of monetary accounts." The detailed description of US8732085B2 further clarifies that "The proxy card is assigned a proxy card identification which is mapped to individual transaction accounts... by the MSPS 113." This mapping would necessarily involve storing the proxy card number with reference to the user's underlying accounts.
• No independent monetary account association: This is inherent in the concept of a "proxy card providing indirect funds access" as taught by US8326758B2.
• Indirect purchasing via transaction rules: US8326758B2 teaches the MSPS applying "logic rules for automatic selection of accounts, for example, based on rules that determine lowest-interest credit card, highest balance accounts, or combination of accounts, etc." The proxy card, acting as the interface to this system, would naturally be "configured to support a purchasing transaction indirectly with support of the management system according to a transaction rule that defines allocating a purchase amount."
• Deactivation via disassociation without account closure: As discussed for Claim 1, the problem of cumbersome cancellations for lost cards is a known issue. US8732085B2's Background highlights this, and its description of the MSPS's "account lock" and "proxy card deactivation operation" (FIG. 7) directly addresses this by allowing temporary or permanent locking/disassociation of the proxy card without closing the underlying accounts. A PHOSITA would find it obvious and desirable for such a proxy card to incorporate this deactivation capability to enhance security and user convenience.

Claim 16: Proxy Card Management System (Termination)

Claim 16 is similar to Claim 1, focusing on a proxy card management system with an MSPS, user-configurable transaction rules, and a processing infrastructure that generates an approval indication based on applying the purchase amount to an account. The key distinguishing feature is the response to a "proxy card termination request" by "disabling any further generation of subsequent approval indications."

Combination and Motivation:
This claim also falls within the realm of obviousness when combining US8326758B2 and general knowledge in the art.

• System elements (proxy card, multiple accounts, MSPS, rule modification, generating approval indication): These aspects are substantially similar to Claim 1 and are taught or rendered obvious by US8326758B2, which describes a proxy card system with an MSPS applying rules for account selection and transaction processing. The "application of the purchase amount to the first monetary account" is a specific instance of rule-based allocation.
• Responding to termination request by disabling future approval indications: This is a specific functional outcome of the deactivation process described in US8732085B2 (FIG. 7) and discussed for Claim 1 and 7. When the Background articulates the problem of managing lost cards and the need for cancellation, and the patent describes the MSPS performing "account lock" and "proxy card deactivation", it is a clear logical step for a PHOSITA to implement this deactivation by disabling the proxy card's ability to authorize new transactions (i.e., disabling "any further generation of subsequent approval indications"). This provides the desired security outcome (preventing misuse of a lost proxy card) without affecting the underlying financial accounts, directly addressing the identified problem in the prior art.

Conclusion

The independent claims (1, 7, and 16) of US8732085B2 describe a proxy card system that manages multiple underlying financial accounts, applies user-defined rules for transactions, and incorporates mechanisms for proxy card-specific deactivation without impacting the underlying accounts. While these features offer improvements, the foundational concept of a proxy card representing multiple monetary sources, coupled with an MSPS employing logic rules for account selection, is explicitly taught in its parent application, US8326758B2. The problems that US8732085B2 seeks to solve—such as the inconvenience of carrying many cards, the difficulty of managing multiple accounts, the embarrassment of insufficient funds, and the cumbersome process of canceling lost cards—are clearly articulated in the patent's own "Background" section. A PHOSITA, equipped with the knowledge of existing payment systems and motivated by these well-known problems, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of US8326758B2 with general industry practices to arrive at the claimed invention, particularly by implementing features like user-configurable rules and system-level deactivation of the proxy card to enhance convenience, control, and security.