April 23, 2014

Patent Case Transferred from Eastern District of Texas to Northern District of Georgia

Over the past year, Swipe Innovations, LLC ("Swipe"), a Houston, Texas-based company, has filed 30  cases in the Eastern District of Texas against over 50 defendants, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,351,296, titled "Financial Transmission System" ("the '296 patent").   One of the 30 cases was filed against Alpharetta, Georgia-based Ingenico Corp. and Ingenico Inc., and French company Ingenico S.A. d/b/a Groupe Ingenico (collectively, "Ingenico").  On March 5, 2013, Judge Ron Clark of the Eastern District of Texas granted Ingenico's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia.

Swipe is a non-practicing entity whose sole member and manager is Tyler Brochstein.  Swipe's business appears to entail licensing and enforcement efforts relating to the '296 patent.  Ingenico is a worldwide provider of payment systems, including the PIN pads accused by Swipe of infringement.  The claims of the '296 patent relate to a method and device for determining and securely transmitting a bank or credit card's account code over a communications network to a remote location, and allows for concurrent voice communications to be performed by telephone over the same communications network.  In its Amended Complaint, Swipe identified a number of Ingenico's encrypting PIN pads as accused products, including the two shown below. 


Ingenico's eN-Touch 1000

 Ingenico's 5100 PIN pad 

Ingenico filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties.  The Court first resolved the threshold jurisdictional question by determining that the case could have been filed in the Northern District of Georgia.  The Court then turned to the traditional private and public interest factors courts must weigh in considering a motion to transfer under 1404(a).  (For more on the transfer factors, see our previous post here.)  The Court noted that neither Swipe nor Ingenico have any connection to the Eastern District of Texas, while Ingenico's business, documents, employees, are all located in the Northern District of Georgia.  After weighing the appropriate factors, the Court granted Ingenico's motion and ordered the case to be transferred.

The case, now officially administratively transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, is Swipe Innovations, LLC v. Ingenico Corp. et al., 1:13-cv-00967-RLV, and is assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert L. Vining, Jr.

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Preston H Heard, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Intellectual Property Attorney

Preston Heard is an experienced patent litigation attorney who represents clients in a variety of industries, including the mechanical, computer and chemical sectors, in patent-related disputes.

 A registered patent attorney, Preston has represented patent clients in U.S. District Court in numerous states, as well as before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He works with patent owners to devise overall strategies to protect and enforce patent rights and to assess potential patent-related claims. He also works with clients to develop effective defenses against patent...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.