Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Embross USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Embross USA, Inc. (Utah)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00064, D. Utah, 01/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services, including its websites, infringe a patent related to brokering the transfer of data from wireless devices to data rendering devices like printers or displays.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow users of mobile devices to locate and send data to nearby output devices (e.g., printers, projectors) over a network, often involving a server to manage the transaction.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff, a non-practicing entity, discloses having entered into prior settlement licenses related to its patent portfolio. The complaint asserts that these licenses did not require the licensees to mark products, arguing this history does not preclude pre-suit damages under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 - "Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical environment where users of handheld wireless devices (WDs) were increasingly able to access data over networks but faced limited or inconvenient options for rendering that data, such as by printing a document or displaying a video on a larger screen ’285 Patent, col. 4:35-49
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for "data brokering" that connects a user's wireless device with a "data rendering device" (DRD), such as a networked printer or multimedia projector ’285 Patent, col. 1:38-45 A user can employ their WD to locate a nearby DRD, often with assistance from a network server that may use the WD's location ’285 Patent, col. 6:29-35, FIG. 10 The system then facilitates the transfer of data to the selected DRD for rendering, often secured by a passcode entered at the DRD's user interface to authorize the action ’285 Patent, col. 12:1-7
• Technical Importance: The described solution aimed to bridge the gap between mobile data access and physical data output, increasing the utility of portable devices by enabling on-demand printing and display services in various environments like offices or public kiosks ’285 Patent, col. 4:50-54

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent Compl. ¶72 The asserted independent claims are 1, 5, and 9.

Independent Claim 1:

• A system for rendering data comprising: a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD).
• The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
• The DRD is registered with the server to access and receive data over a communications network at the request of a wireless device (WD).
• The system includes memory in the server, accessible by the DRD, for securely storing data and a passcode associated with the WD.
• The server is configured to receive data and a passcode from memory and render the data after a passcode is entered on the DRD's user interface that matches the stored passcode.

Independent Claim 5:

• A system for rendering data comprising: a server in communication with at least one DRD.
• The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
• The system includes memory in the server for securely storing data and a passcode associated with a WD.
• The server is configured to enable the DRD to be selected by the WD from more than one DRD registered with the server.
• The server is configured to receive the data and passcode from memory to render the data after a matching passcode is entered on the DRD's user interface.

Independent Claim 9:

• A system for rendering data comprising: a server in communication with at least one DRD.
• The DRD includes a user interface for receiving passcodes.
• The system includes memory in the server for securely storing data and a passcode associated with a WD.
• The server is configured to receive a DRD locator request from the WD to find at least one DRD near the WD.
• The server enables the selected DRD to receive data from memory and render it after a matching passcode is entered on the DRD's user interface.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims beyond the asserted range of 1-13.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "systems, products, and services" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" Compl. ¶72 It further specifies these include "elements of Defendant's websites that are used by Defendant's customers" Compl. ¶74 No specific product or service names are identified.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It alleges in general terms that Defendant's systems perform infringing methods and that Defendant profits from its customers' use of the accused websites Compl. ¶¶72, 74

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in a chart attached as Exhibit B Compl. ¶73 However, Exhibit B was not included with the filed complaint. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendant's systems, products, services, and websites infringe one or more of claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent Compl. ¶72 It further alleges that direct infringement is established because Defendant "infringes vicariously by profiting from its customers use of the various Defendant's website" and "controls both the manner and timing of infringement" Compl. ¶74 Without the claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the Defendant's accused "websites" Compl. ¶74 function as part of a system that includes a "data rendering device" as that term is used in the patent, which provides examples such as printers, video monitors, and projectors ’285 Patent, col. 14:18-20 The relationship between the website and any physical output device will be a key factual issue.
  • Technical Questions: All asserted independent claims require the entry of a "passcode associated with said WD" at the "user interface" of the DRD itself ’285 Patent, col. 13:37-39; col. 14:14-16 A likely point of contention will be whether the accused systems perform this specific security step. The analysis will question what evidence exists that any authentication performed by the accused systems (e.g., a website login) constitutes a passcode entry at the DRD's user interface as required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the physical endpoint of the claimed system. Its construction will be critical to determining if the accused instrumentalities, described only as "systems" and "websites" Compl. ¶¶72, 74, fall within the scope of the claims. The dispute will likely center on what constitutes a DRD and whether a general-purpose computer or terminal connected to a website qualifies.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a DRD "includes data rendering hardware (e.g., printers, copiers, displays, etc.) and multimedia software" ’285 Patent, col. 7:7-9 This use of "e.g." and "etc." may support an argument that the list is exemplary, not exhaustive.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently provides specific examples of DRDs as distinct output peripherals, such as "networked printers, copiers, video-enabled monitors/televisions, multimedia projectors" ’285 Patent, col. 5:25-28 The asserted claims also repeatedly list "a printer, a video monitor, an Internet Kiosk, a multimedia projector, or an automatic teller machine (ATM)" as exemplary DRDs ’285 Patent, col. 14:18-21, 50-53 This may support a narrower construction limited to devices whose primary function is physical or visual rendering of data.

• The Term: "passcode...entered at the user interface" [of the DRD]

• Context and Importance: This limitation, present in all asserted independent claims, defines the security and authorization mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical location of the passcode entry—at the DRD itself—is a specific architectural requirement. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an authentication on a website or a separate device can be construed as meeting this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for this analysis.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent illustrate a distinct step where a user must "Enter Passcode at DRD" (e.g., ’285 Patent, FIG. 8, element 83; FIG. 11, element 113). The specification describes this as a passcode being "entered using a DRD user interface or via direct (local) communication to the DRD by the WD" ’285 Patent, col. 12:5-9 This suggests the entry action occurs physically at or in direct local communication with the rendering device, not remotely through a separate network interface like a general website.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint appears to allege induced infringement by stating Defendant "controls both the manner and timing of infringement" and profits from its customers' use of the accused websites Compl. ¶74 However, it does not explicitly use the term "inducement" or plead specific facts demonstrating an intent to encourage infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that infringement was willful and requests treble damages Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d The complaint body does not allege any facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objective recklessness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Architectural Equivalence: The primary technical question will be whether the architecture of the Defendant’s accused websites and associated systems maps onto the specific three-part architecture of the ’285 patent, which requires a wireless device (WD), a server, and a distinct data rendering device (DRD). The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused instrumentality makes this a central unknown.
• The "Passcode at the DRD" Limitation: A core legal and factual issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: does any authentication method used in the accused systems meet the claim requirement of a "passcode...entered at the user interface" of the data rendering device itself? The patent's emphasis on this localized authorization step suggests a potential mismatch with typical web-based authentication models.
• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold procedural question will be whether the complaint, which identifies no specific accused product and omits its referenced claim chart exhibit, provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for patent infringement under the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal.