On Thursday, the visa will be Mobile wallet provider Cortex sued Located in West Texas. The complaint alleges that Visa infringed several patents owned by plaintiffs.
Cortex is a company that specializes in developing technology that enables users to make payments using their mobile devices. Plaintiffs developed this technology because “the adoption of mobile wallets and mobile payments has lagged behind the rapid growth of smartphones, even though these applications were naturally suited to these devices.” The primary reason mobile wallets have not been accepted by consumers and merchants is that existing payment methods such as credit cards have proven unsuitable for storage on mobile devices, for example in early mobile wallet applications. required a “secure element chip” to be physically embedded in the user device to ensure the security of stored data. Most mobile phones, including the iPhone, did not contain these chips. “
To address this problem, Cortex invented the “officially verifiable electronic representation” or “OVER file”. OVER files allow users to store credit card data and all information associated with that card on their mobile device without worrying about the threat of information theft. As explained in the filing, the OVER file is “a token unique to the user and device. When the customer presents the OVER file ID at the POS, the merchant can validate the user’s credentials through authentication.” This file is also compatible with the POS technology used by merchants.
To protect this technology, Cortex has filed multiple patents related to OVER file technology since February 2, 2016. All four patents are entitled “File Formats and Platforms for Credential Storage and Validation” and describe the same subject. technology. The patent describes this technology as being able to receive, transmit, generate and verify OVER files.
Earlier in the same year, Visa reached out to Cortex to outline potential synergies between the two companies. The abstract includes and explicitly cites Cortex’s OVER file to notify Visa of existing and impending patent issuance. Finally, we said that almost all existing wallet solution providers infringe this patent.
Cortex argues, however, that this did not stop Visa from infringing its patents, nor did it induce others to infringe their patents. Actively induced merchants, retailers, and/or end-users of the accused product to directly infringe the ‘531 patents throughout the United States, including in this jurisdiction, including product descriptions, operating manuals, and ‘531 Advertise and promote the use of the accused product on various websites, including providing and distributing other instructions on how to implement and configure the accused product.
Plaintiff also argues that “Visa’s infringement of the ‘531 patent is willful and willful…” Even after discussing the ‘531 patent with Cortex representatives, Visa continues to sell and sell infringing products, including the Visa Token service. We are continuing to offer sales.”
Despite multiple notices notifying Visa of the infringement, Visa is alleged to have continued to infringe. Considering the defendants’ refusal to stop this act, the plaintiffs felt legal action was their only remedy. and demand compensation from defendants.
The plaintiff Sussman Godfrey When Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love.
