`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FORT WORTH DIVISION
`
`AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-576
`
`ADVANCED TRANSACTIONS, LLC,
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. (“American” or “Plaintiff”) files this Original Complaint
`
`against Defendant Advanced Transactions, LLC (“Advanced Transactions” or “Defendant”) and
`
`hereby alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`American files this declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,065,555 (the “’555 Patent”), 7,386,594 (the “’594 Patent”), 7,693,950 (the “’950 Patent”),
`
`7,979,057 (the “’057 Patent”), 8,150,736 (the “’736 Patent”), 8,175,519 (the “’519 Patent”),
`
`9,747,608 (the “’608 Patent”), and 10,783,529 (the “’529 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents”)
`
`(attached as exhibits 1–8, respectively) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202, and the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and for other
`
`relief the Court deems just and proper.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Advanced Transactions is a patent “monetization”
`
`entity. Ex. 9 at 2. Advanced Transactions claims its Patents “broadly relate to online marketing
`
`and e-commerce systems.” Id. at 2. On information and belief, Advanced Transactions pursues a
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 31 PageID 2
`
`monetization strategy that minimizes the risk of subjecting its Patents to a substantial challenge.
`
`That is why Advanced Transactions has assiduously avoided asserting its Patents against the tech
`
`industry—the very industry that develops the kinds of products and services that relate to the
`
`Patents—and has, instead, targeted the tech industry’s customers. On information and belief,
`
`Advanced Transactions further insulates its Patents from challenge by offering to license them for
`
`well below the cost to defend a patent infringement suit, which encourages quick settlement.
`
`3.
`
`This strategy has been on full display in recent cases Advanced Transactions has
`
`filed. For example, Advanced Transactions sued Fiesta Mart, LLC (a grocer) for infringement, but
`
`voluntarily dismissed its case about three months after filing. Advanced Transactions, LLC v.
`
`Fiesta Mart, LLC et al., No. 6:22-cv-563 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2022) (Dkt. 21). Advanced
`
`Transactions did the same in a suit against Regis Corporation (a beauty salon company), again
`
`dismissing about three months after filing. Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Regis Corporation et
`
`al., No. 6:22-cv-926 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2022) (Dkt. 16). And Advanced Transaction’s suit
`
`against Marco’s Pizza (a pizza restaurant) was no different, again dismissing about three months
`
`after filing. Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Marco’s Pizza Holdings, LLC et al., No. 2:22-cv-441
`
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 2023) (Dkt. 17). All in all, Advanced Transactions has filed at least seven lawsuits
`
`(six in a Texas federal court) asserting these Patents:
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Belk, Inc. et al., No. 6:22-cv-176 (W.D. Tex. Feb.
`
`18, 2022)
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Fiesta Mart, LLC et al., No. 6:22-cv-563 (W.D.
`
`Tex. June 1, 2022)
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Advanced Auto Parts, Inc. et al., No. 6:22-cv-775
`
`(W.D. Tex. Jul. 12, 2022)
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 31 PageID 3
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Regis Corporation et al., No. 6:22-cv-926 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Sep. 8, 2022)
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. Marcos Holdings, LLC et al., No. 1:22-cv-1197
`
`(E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2022)
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. The Gap, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-163 (W.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`3, 2023)
`
` Advanced Transactions, LLC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-270 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
`
`12, 2023)
`
`4.
`
`On April 26, 2023, Advanced Transactions formally served American, through its
`
`registered agent, with a letter (the “Letter,” attached as exhibit 9). The Letter accuses American’s
`
`“marketing products and service offerings [of] infring[ing] one or more claims of the [Patents].”
`
`Ex. 9 at 2. The Letter further demands that American “enter into a licensing negotiation” no later
`
`than May 12, 2023, or face “a lawsuit.” Id. Indeed, the Letter included a draft complaint accusing
`
`various American products and services of infringing at least one method claim of each of the
`
`Patents (the “Draft Complaint”). See generally id.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`American is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`1 Skyview Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76155.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Advanced Transactions is a Georgia limited liability
`
`company with at least some of its members, officers, employees, and/or agents located at the Day
`
`Building, Suite 230, 4725 Peachtree Corners Circle, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 4 of 31 PageID 4
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`American files this Complaint against Advanced Transactions pursuant to the
`
`patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, with a specific remedy sought
`
`based upon the laws authorizing actions for declaratory judgment in the federal courts of the United
`
`States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1–390.
`
`8.
`
`As evident by the facts alleged in this Complaint, this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this action, which arises under the United States’ patent laws, pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201(a).
`
`9.
`
`As evident by the facts alleged in this Complaint, this Court has both general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction over Advanced Transactions.
`
`10.
`
`As evident by the facts alleged in this Complaint, this District is the proper venue
`
`under 29 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`11.
`
`On information in belief, Advanced Transactions’ exclusive business is licensing
`
`patents, and it continuously and systematically does so within Texas to such a degree that it is at
`
`home in this State. Of the seven-patent infringement suits Advanced Transactions has filed, six
`
`have been filed in a Texas federal court. Advanced Transactions has not filed one in a Georgia
`
`federal court.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, Advanced Transaction’s members, officers, employees,
`
`and/or agents regularly send communications into and/or travel to Texas to advance its licensing
`
`business and it generates revenue from its licensing activities in Texas and in this District.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Advanced Transactions (a) regularly solicits business
`
`from companies located in Texas and in this District, and (b) purposefully directs its patent
`
`enforcement activities at companies located in Texas and in this District. As mentioned above,
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 5 of 31 PageID 5
`
`Advanced Transactions asserted the Patents against Fiesta Mart, LLC in a Texas federal court.
`
`Fiesta Mart, LLC has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. See Contact Us, FIESTA,
`
`https://www.fiestamart.com/contact-us (last visited May 11, 2023). Further, Advanced
`
`Transactions purposefully directed the Letter into this District by addressing it to American’s Chief
`
`Legal Officer, Priya Aiyar, who is located at American’s headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas:
`
`
`
`Ex. 9 at 2.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Advanced Transactions regularly consents to litigate
`
`patent infringement suits in Texas. As explained above, at least some of its members, officers,
`
`employees, and/or agents are located in Georgia, yet it has repeatedly chosen a federal court in
`
`Texas to file complaints asserting the Patents. On information and belief, Advanced Transactions
`
`similarly intends to litigate in Texas its accusations that American infringes the Patents. The Draft
`
`Complaint is captioned in the Western District of Texas:
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 6 of 31 PageID 6
`
`
`
`Ex. 9 at 4. Further, Advanced Transactions has already engaged a Texas licensed attorney to
`
`litigate a suit against American for infringement of the Patents, as evidenced by the Draft
`
`Complaint’s signature block:
`
`Ex. 9 at 157.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Advanced Transactions will suffer little to no burden
`
`having to litigate this suit in Texas. In addition to its extensive experience already litigating
`
`infringement of the Patents in this State, advances in technology—for example, electronic filing,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 7 of 31 PageID 7
`
`electronic mail, and video conferencing—have removed any remaining burden to Advanced
`
`Transactions facing a suit in this District.
`
`16.
`
`American has an interest in protecting itself from patent infringement accusations
`
`by obtaining relief from a nearby federal court in its home forum (Fort Worth).
`
`17.
`
`The State of Texas and this District have a well-defined interest in commerce and
`
`scientific development, as well as in protecting their residents from claims of patent infringement
`
`that may be unwarranted.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, litigating this suit in this District will be more efficient
`
`than in any other district. The substantial majority, if not all, of the documents, things, and
`
`witnesses required to litigate American’s non-infringement are located at its headquarters in Fort
`
`Worth.
`
`19.
`
`A substantial part of the events giving rise to Advanced Transactions’ accusations
`
`of infringement of the Patents have occurred in this District. The vast majority of the accused
`
`systems, devices, functionalities, and processes are developed and/or located in Fort Worth. For
`
`example, the marketing team charged with emails to American’s customers—the accused
`
`infringing process for at least three of the Patents—principally works in American’s headquarters
`
`in Fort Worth. Similarly, the information technology team responsible for the technical aspects of
`
`the accused infringing functionality for the remaining Patents principally works in American’s
`
`Fort Worth headquarters as well.
`
`THE PATENTS
`
`20.
`
`Advanced Transactions characterizes the Patents as “broadly relat[ing] to online
`
`marketing and e-commerce systems.” Ex. 9 at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 8 of 31 PageID 8
`
`A.
`
`21.
`
`The ’555 Patent Family
`
`On their faces, the ’555, ’594, and ’950 Patents purport to be “directed to a method
`
`and system for generating and tracking an email campaign.” Ex. 1 at 3:12–13; Ex. 2 at 3:16–17;
`
`Ex. 3 at 3:16–17. Advanced Transactions concedes that all three patents share the “same”
`
`specification. Ex. 9 at ¶¶ 34, 40.
`
`1.
`
`The ’555 Patent — System and Method Related to Generating and
`Tracking an Email Campaign
`
`22.
`
`The ’555 Patent is entitled “System and Method Related to Generating and
`
`Tracking an Email Campaign.” Ex. 1 at 1. USPTO assignment records indicate that the ’555 Patent
`
`is assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`2.
`
`The ’594 Patent — System and Method Related to Generating an Email
`Campaign
`
`23.
`
`On its face, the ’594 Patent purports to be a continuation of the ’555 Patent. Ex. 2
`
`at ¶ 63. The ’594 Patent is entitled “System and Method Related to Generating an Email
`
`Campaign.” Ex. 2 at 1. USPTO assignment records indicate that the ’594 Patent is assigned to
`
`Advanced Transactions.
`
`3.
`
`The ’950 Patent — System and Method Related to Generating and
`Tracking an Email Campaign
`
`24.
`
`The ’950 Patent on its face purports to be a continuation of the ’594 Patent, and that
`
`the ’594 Patent is a continuation of the ’555 Patent. Ex. 3 at ¶ 63. The ’950 Patent is entitled
`
`“System and Method Related to Generating and Tracking an Email Campaign.” Ex. 3 at 1. USPTO
`
`assignment records indicate that the ’950 Patent is assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 9 of 31 PageID 9
`
`B.
`
`25.
`
`The ’057 Patent Family
`
`On their faces, the ’057, ’519, ’608, and ’529 Patents purport to be related to
`
`“electronic handheld devices . . . and electronic commerce.” Ex. 4 at 1:18-20. Advanced
`
`Transactions concedes that all four patents share the “same” specification. Ex. 9 at ¶¶ 75, 81, 87.
`
`1.
`
`The ’057 Patent — Third-Party Provider Method and System
`
`26.
`
` The ’057 Patent is entitled “Third-Party Provider Method and System.” Ex. 4.
`
`USPTO assignment records indicate that the ’057 Patent is assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`2.
`
`The ’519 Patent — Third-Party Provider Method and System
`
`27.
`
`The ’519 Patent is entitled “Third-Party Provider Method and System.” Ex. 6.
`
`USPTO assignment records indicate that the ’519 Patent is assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`3.
`
`The ’608 Patent — Third-Party Provider Method and System
`
`28.
`
`The ’608 Patent is entitled “Third-Party Provider Method and System.” Ex. 7.
`
`USPTO assignment records indicate that the ’608 Patent is assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`4.
`
`The ’529 Patent — Third-Party Provider Method and System
`
`29.
`
`The ’529 Patent is entitled “Third-Party Provider Method and System.” Ex. 8.
`
`USPTO assignment records indicate that the ’529 Patent is assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`C.
`
`30.
`
`The ’736 Patent — Global Electronic Commerce System
`
`The ’736 Patent is entitled “Global Electronic Commerce System.” Ex. 5. USPTO
`
`assignment records indicate the ’736 Patent assigned to Advanced Transactions.
`
`COUNTS I–III: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’555 FAMILY
`
`31.
`
`Advanced Transaction’s Letter accuses American’s AAdvantage Program
`
`enrollment process hosted on AA.com (“Enrollment Process”) of infringing at least the ’555
`
`Patent’s claim 1, ’594 Patent’s claim 1, and ’950 Patent’s claim 21.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 10 of 31 PageID 10
`
`32.
`
`On its face, the ’555 Family Specification explains “the present invention is
`
`directed to a method and system for generating and tracking an email campaign.” Ex. 1 at 3:12–
`
`13. An email campaign, as defined by the specification, requires “[a] system for sending email to
`
`a number of email targets” for “purposes such as marketing, information acquisition, or
`
`otherwise.” Id. at 1:22–25. The specification further explains that prior art email campaigns
`
`“suffered from difficulties in locating a pool of relevant individuals to be contacted,” as well as in
`
`“tailoring the large number of required email messages to the individuals for more effective
`
`contact.” Id. at 1:26–33. The specification purports to solve those problems by using “[a]n email
`
`campaign generator” that “generates an email campaign template from an email target database.”
`
`Id. at 1:49–51. From there, “[a]n email campaign engine generates a custom email corresponding
`
`to each of the email targets in the email target database,” the email campaign engine “form[ing]”
`
`the custom emails “from the email campaign template.” Id. at 1:52–55. The specification’s Figure
`
`9 “illustrat[es] a sequence of operation according to an embodiment of the present invention”:
`
`Id. at 2:54–55 & Fig.9.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 11 of 31 PageID 11
`
`33.
`
`An email campaign template, as defined by the ’555 Family Specification, is
`
`formed from “a text message file 320 and a configuration file 330”:
`
`
`Id. at 5:16–17 & Fig.3A. The “[e]mail campaign engine . . . copies [the] text message file 320, and
`
`replaces each custom tag in [the] text message file 320 with corresponding data in [the]
`
`configuration file 330[] to generate [a] custom email message.” Id. at 6:66–7:2. A configuration
`
`file, as defined by the specification, “contain[s] data related to each email target or recipient” and
`
`that “data for each email target is insertable in the message template created from [the] text
`
`message file.” Id. at 5:31–34.
`
`COUNT I: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’555 PATENT
`
`34.
`
`American repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1–33 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`35.
`
`Advanced Transactions accuses American’s Enrollment Process of infringing the
`
`’555 Patent’s claim 1. In support, Advanced Transactions points to the AAdvantage Program
`
`enrollment page located at https://www.aa.com/loyalty/enrollment/enroll (“Enrollment Page”).
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 12 of 31 PageID 12
`
`Ex. 9 at ¶ 91. The Enrollment Page presents a form that prompts the entry of personal
`
`information—for example, “Your name,” “Address,” and “Email and phone.” Id. Advanced
`
`Transactions also points to an email sent from loyalty@loyalty.ms.aa.com (“Welcome Email”).
`
`Id. at ¶ 90. On its face, the Welcome Email’s subject line reads “Welcome to the AAdvantage
`
`Program,” and includes as its salutation “Hello JOHN.” Id.
`
`36.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process has not and does not infringe the ’555 Patent
`
`because it does not perform the methods claimed in at least claim 1. Claim 1 states:
`
`1. A method for conducting an email campaign, comprising the steps
`of:
`
`
`(1) receiving an email target database;
`
`(2) generating an email campaign template related to at least
`one email target in the received email target database,
`wherein step (2) comprises:
`
`
`(a) generating a message template, and
`
`(b) generating a configuration file to contain data
`related to each of the at least one email target,
`wherein the data is insertable in the generated
`message template;
`
`(3) sending to each of the at least one email target a
`corresponding custom email, wherein the custom email is
`formed from the email campaign template; and
`
`(4) tracking the custom email sent to each of the at least one
`email target.
`
`Ex. 1 at claim 1.
`
`37.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process does not perform the method of claim 1 at least
`
`because it does not meet the email campaign limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that, in the context of claim 1, an email campaign requires that “each of the at least one
`
`email target” existing in “an email target database” be sent “a corresponding custom email.”
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 13 of 31 PageID 13
`
`American performs its Enrollment Process not once, as part of a campaign, but as part of an
`
`individual enrollment process. The Welcome Email is triggered each time an individual member
`
`enrolls into the AAdvantage Program. Therefore, American’s Enrollment process does not perform
`
`an email campaign as understood in the context of the ’555 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process does not perform the method of claim 1 at least
`
`because it does not meet the message template limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that, in the context of claim 1, a message template cannot preexist an email
`
`campaign because, among other reasons, claim 1 requires generating a message template only
`
`after receiving an email target database. American’s Enrollment Process uses a Welcome Email
`
`based on a common design that preexists any member receiving it enrolling into the AAdvantage
`
`Program. Therefore, American’s Enrollment Process does not use a message template as
`
`understood in the context of the ’555 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual, justiciable,
`
`substantial, and immediate controversy within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 between American
`
`and Advanced Transactions regarding whether American has performed or performs any method
`
`of any claim of the ’555 Patent in an infringing way.
`
`40.
`
`American is thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that its Enrollment Process does
`
`not infringe any claims of the ’555 Patent directly, indirectly, literally, or by equivalence.
`
`COUNT II: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’594 PATENT
`
`41.
`
`American repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1–40 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`Advanced Transactions accuses American’s Enrollment Process of infringing the
`
`’594 Patent’s claim 1. In support, Advanced Transactions again points to American’s Enrollment
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 14 of 31 PageID 14
`
`Page. Ex. 9 at ¶ 102. The Enrollment Page presents a form that prompts the entry of personal
`
`information—for example, “Your name,” “Address,” and “Email and phone.” Id. Advanced
`
`Transactions also points again to the Welcome Email. Id. at ¶ 101. On its face, the Welcome
`
`Email’s subject line reads “Welcome to the AAdvantage Program,” and includes as its salutation
`
`“Hello JOHN.” Id.
`
`43.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process has not and does not infringe the ’594 Patent
`
`because it does not perform the methods claimed in at least claim 1. Claim 1 states:
`
`1. A method for conducting an email campaign, comprising the steps
`of:
`
`
`(1) receiving an email target database;
`
`(2) generating an email campaign template related to at least
`one email target in the received email target database,
`wherein step (2) comprises:
`
`
`(a) generating a message template, and
`
`(b) generating a configuration file to contain data
`related to each of the at least one email target,
`wherein the data is insertable in the generated
`message template; and
`
`(3) sending to each of the at least one email target a
`corresponding custom email, wherein the custom email is
`formed from the email campaign template.
`
`Ex. 2 at claim 1.
`
`44.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process does not perform the method of claim 1 at least
`
`because it does not meet the email campaign limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that, in the context of claim 1, an email campaign requires that “each of the at least one
`
`email target” existing in “an email target database” be sent “a corresponding custom email.”
`
`American performs its Enrollment Process not once, as part of a campaign, but as part of an
`
`individual enrollment process. The Welcome Email is triggered each time an individual member
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 15 of 31 PageID 15
`
`enrolls into the AAdvantage Program. Therefore, American’s Enrollment process does not perform
`
`an email campaign as understood in the context of the ’594 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process does not perform the method of claim 1 at least
`
`because it does not meet the message template limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that, in the context of claim 1, a message template cannot preexist an email
`
`campaign because, among other reasons, claim 1 requires generating a message template only
`
`after receiving an email target database. American’s Enrollment Process uses a Welcome Email
`
`based on a common design that preexists any member receiving it enrolling into the AAdvantage
`
`Program. Therefore, American’s Enrollment Process does not use a message template as
`
`understood in the context of the ’594 Patent.
`
`46.
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual, justiciable,
`
`substantial, and immediate controversy within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 between American
`
`and Advanced Transactions regarding whether American has performed or performs any method
`
`of any claim of the ’594 Patent in an infringing way.
`
`47.
`
`American is thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that its Enrollment Process does
`
`not infringe any claims of the ’594 Patent directly, indirectly, literally, or by equivalence.
`
`COUNT III: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’950 PATENT
`
`48.
`
`American repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1–47 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`Advanced Transactions accuses American’s Enrollment Process of infringing the
`
`’950 Patent’s claim 21. In support, Advanced Transactions again points to American’s Enrollment
`
`Page. Ex. 9 at ¶ 112. The Enrollment Page presents a form that prompts the entry of personal
`
`information—for example, “Your name,” “Address,” and “Email and phone.” Id. Advanced
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 16 of 31 PageID 16
`
`Transactions also points again to the Welcome Email. Id. at ¶ 111. On its face, the Welcome
`
`Email’s subject line reads “Welcome to the AAdvantage Program,” and includes as its salutation
`
`“Hello JOHN.” Id.
`
`50.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process has not and does not infringe the ’950 Patent
`
`because it does not perform the methods claimed in at least claim 21. Claim 21 states:
`
`21. A method for producing a custom email template, comprising:
`
`
`receiving, at a computing device, email addresses for a
`plurality of target recipients of custom email messages; and
`
`producing at the computing device, as the custom email
`template, a configuration file and a message file,
`
`wherein the configuration file includes, for each of the
`plurality of target recipients, data related to the target
`recipient and a custom uniform resource locator unique to
`the target recipient,
`
`wherein the message file includes a textual message for each
`of the custom email messages, and
`
`wherein the message file includes a plurality of custom tags
`configured to receive, for each target recipient, the data
`related to the target recipient and an executable link
`configured to receive the custom uniform resource locator
`unique to the target recipient.
`
`Ex. 3 at claim 21.
`
`51.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process does not perform the method of claim 21 at least
`
`because it does not meet the message file limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that, in the context of claim 21, a message file cannot preexist a custom email template
`
`because, among other reasons, claim 21 requires producing the message file only after receiving
`
`the email addresses for a plurality of target recipients of custom email messages. American’s
`
`Enrollment Process uses a Welcome Email that preexists any member receiving it enrolling into
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 17 of 31 PageID 17
`
`the AAdvantage Program. Therefore, American’s Enrollment Process does not use a message file
`
`as understood in the context of the ’950 Patent.
`
`52.
`
`American’s Enrollment Process also does not perform the method of claim 21 at
`
`least because it does not meet the computing device limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that, in the context of claim 21, the claimed method requires performing its
`
`limitations exclusively on a single computing device because, among other reasons, claim 21
`
`plainly refers to the same “a[/the] computing device” to both receive email addresses and produce
`
`the custom email template. American’s Enrollment Process uses a plurality of computing devices.
`
`Therefore, American’s Enrollment Process does not use a computing device as understood in the
`
`context of the ’950 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual, justiciable,
`
`substantial, and immediate controversy within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 between American
`
`and Advanced Transactions regarding whether American has performed or performs any method
`
`of any claim of the ’950 Patent in an infringing way.
`
`54.
`
`American is thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that its Enrollment Process does
`
`not infringe any claims of the ’950 Patent directly, indirectly, literally, or by equivalence.
`
`COUNT IV–VII: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’057 FAMILY
`
`55.
`
`Advanced Transaction’s Letter accuses American’s iOS and Android applications
`
`(“American’s Applications”) of infringing at least the ’057 Patent’s claim 1, ’519 Patent’s claim
`
`1, ’608 Patent’s claim 21, and ’529 Patent’s claim 8.
`
`56.
`
`On its face, the ’057 Family Specification defines a point of sale device as a device
`
`at “a retail establishment.” E.g., Ex. 4 at 1:31–33. The figures further discuss using a POS system
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 18 of 31 PageID 18
`
`using a scanner which further indicates that the point of sale device is a cash register or similar
`
`device. See, e.g., id. Figs. 5–12, 25.
`
`Ex. 4 at Figs. 5 and 25.
`
`
`
`COUNT IV: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’057 PATENT
`
`57.
`
`American repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1–56 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`Advanced Transactions accuses American of infringing the ’057 Patent’s claim 1
`
`when users use a smart phone with American’s Applications installed to make payments using
`
`“American Airlines Coupons, American Airlines AAdvantage Rewards, American Airlines
`
`Payment Wallet, [and] American Airlines Gift Cards.” Ex. 9 at ¶ 121. In support, Advanced
`
`Transactions points to the same four screenshots of the iOS app store, the Android app store, and
`
`from American’s Applications. Id. at ¶¶ 121–126. American’s Applications do not infringe as they
`
`do not store the negotiable credit on the device.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 19 of 31 PageID 19
`
`See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 121–126
`
`
`
`
`
`59.
`
`In view of the facts and allegations set forth above, there is an actual, justiciable,
`
`substantial, and immediate controversy within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 between American
`
`and Advanced Transactions regarding whether American has performed or performs any method
`
`of any claim of the ’057 Patent in an infringing way.
`
`60.
`
`American has not and does not infringe the ’057 Patent because American’s
`
`Applications do not perform the methods claimed in at least claim 1. Claim 1 states:
`
`1. A method for processing negotiable economic credits through a
`wireless hand held device, the method comprising:
`
`
`storing a filter in a memory of a hand held device, wherein
`the hand held device comprises a display, user controls, the
`memory, and a wireless controller, wherein the wireless
`controller is configured to communicate with a wireless
`network, and wherein the filter is configurable via the user
`controls;
`
`receiving at least one negotiable economic credit from the
`wireless network at the hand held device based on the stored
`filter;
`
`storing the at least one negotiable economic credit in the
`memory of the hand held device;
`
`retrieving the at least one negotiable economic credit; and
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Document 1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 20 of 31 PageID 20
`
`
`transferring the at least one negotiable economic credit via
`the wireless network.
`
`Ex. 4 at claim 1.
`
`61.
`
`American’s Applications do not store the alleged negotiable credits—such as
`
`American’s Coupons, AAdvantage Rewards, or gift cards—on the handheld device.
`
`62.
`
`Thus American has not and does not infringe the ’057 Patent’s claim 1 at least
`
`because American’s Applications do not store negotiable credits as understood in the context of
`
`the ’057 Patent. Further, independent method claim 1 requires “storing the at least one negotiable
`
`economic credit in the memory of the hand held device; retrieving the at least one negotiable
`
`economic credit; and transferring the at least one negotiable economic credit via the wireless
`
`network.” Ex. 4 at claim 1. Yet, because American’s Applications do not store the credit they also
`
`cannot retrieve the credit or transfer the credit.
`
`63.
`
`American is thus entitled to a declaratory judgment that American’s Applications
`
`and other features do not infringe any claims of the ’057 Patent directly, indirectly, literally, or by
`
`equivalence.
`
`COUNT V: NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’519 PATENT
`
`64.
`
`American repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1–63 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`65.
`
`Advanced Transactions accuses American of infringing the ’519 Patent’s claim 1
`
`when users use a smart phone with American’s Applications installed to make payments using
`
`“American Airlines Coupons, American Airlines AAdvantage Rewards, American Airlines
`
`Payment Wallet, [and] American Airlines Gift Cards.” Ex. 9 at ¶ 138. In support, Advanced
`
`Transactions points to the same four screenshots of the iOS app store, the Android app store, and
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-00576-P Do