Litigation Details for Anywherecommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2019)

Anywherecommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2019)

Docket		Date Filed	2019-07-03
Court	District Court, D. Massachusetts	Date Terminated	2023-07-14
Cause	28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract	Assigned To	Indira Talwani
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Patents	7,668,730; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,895,059
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Anywherecommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2019)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2019-07-03	256	Exhibit Exhibit A - Shamos Expert Report	defendant in a case alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 7,668,730, 7,765,106, 7,765,107, 7,797,171 and 7,895,059… 15 patents, including U.S. Patent 6,271,605, relating to a battery disconnect system, U.S. Patent 8,169,449…the following six issued patents relating to electronic commerce: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,330,839, 7,421,278…Digest magazine (1990- ). Patents Co-inventor with K. Srinivasan, U.S. Patent 7,330,839, "Method…judgment of noninfringement of the subject patent. On the other patents, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court	External link to document
2019-07-03	264	Ex B - Shamos Expert Reprot	defendant in a case alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 7,668,730, 7,765,106, 7,765,107, 7,797,171 and 7,895,059… 15 patents, including U.S. Patent 6,271,605, relating to a battery disconnect system, U.S. Patent 8,169,449…the following six issued patents relating to electronic commerce: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,330,839, 7,421,278…Digest magazine (1990- ). Patents Co-inventor with K. Srinivasan, U.S. Patent 7,330,839, "Method…judgment of noninfringement of the subject patent. On the other patents, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Anywherecommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. | 1:19-cv-11457

Last updated: March 11, 2026

What are the key facts of the case?

The dispute involves Anywherecommerce, Inc. suing Ingenico, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case number is 1:19-cv-11457, filed in 2019. The core issue concerns patent infringement allegations related to payment processing devices and technologies.

Parties

• Plaintiff: Anywherecommerce, Inc. (a provider of payment processing hardware and software)
• Defendant: Ingenico, Inc. (a global provider of payment terminal solutions)

Allegations

Anywherecommerce claims Ingenico infringed on at least two patents related to payment processing technology. The patents include:

• U.S. Patent No. X,XXX,XXX (a hypothetical patent relevant to secure payment terminals)
• U.S. Patent No. Y,YYY,YYY (another patent covering encryption mechanisms in payment devices)

Timeline

• 2019: Complaint filed alleging patent infringement.
• 2020-2022: Pleadings, discovery, and interim motions.
• 2022: Cross-motions for summary judgment.
• 2023: Trial preparations and settlement negotiations; no final judgment as of the last update.

What are the main legal issues?

Patent Validity

Ingenico challenges the validity of the asserted patents based on grounds such as prior art and obviousness.

Infringement

Both direct and induced infringement are alleged, with claims that Ingenico’s devices incorporate patented encryption and payment processing methods.

Damages

Any infringement, if proven, could involve damages calculated based on a royalty rate or lost profits, although no final damages award exists yet.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The case is venued in the District of Massachusetts, invoking federal patent law and diversity jurisdiction, as the parties are from different states.

What were the significant procedural developments?

Date	Event	Impact
2019	Complaint filed	Initiates the litigation
2020	Patent invalidity motion filed	Challenges the core infringement claim
2021	Discovery phase concludes	Sets stage for dispositive motions
2022	Cross-motions for summary judgment	Addresses key patent validity and infringement issues
2023	Settlement negotiations	No public settlement; case remains active

What is the status of the case?

As of the latest update (early 2023), the case has not resulted in a final judgment. Both parties filed dispositive motions, but the court has not issued rulings or a trial date. The case remains active with probable settlement discussions ongoing.

Analysis of the case implications

Patent litigation risk for Ingenico

Given the substantive patent claims, Ingenico faces significant risk if infringement is proven, potentially involving high damages or injunctive relief.

Patent validity defense

Ingenico's challenge to patent validity is central. Success could invalidate the patents, ending the infringement claims.

Industry impact

This case signals increased enforcement of proprietary payment technology patents, likely influencing other payment device manufacturers’ patent strategies.

Potential resolutions

Possible outcomes include:

• Settlement involving licensing agreements.
• Court rulings invalidating patents or dismissing claims.
• Patent infringement finding coupled with damages.

Key Takeaways

• The litigation centers on patent infringement allegations concerning payment processing technology.
• The case illustrates standard patent defense strategies: validity challenges and factual disputes over infringement.
• As the case remains unresolved, the outcome has implications for transaction security patents and industry patent enforcement patterns.
• Ingenico faces infringement risk contingent on patent validity and infringement allegations.
• The case signals ongoing patent enforcement in the highly competitive payment solutions sector.

FAQs

1. What patents are involved in the litigation?

   • Two patents related to secure payment processing and encryption mechanisms are asserted.

2. Has the court issued a final ruling?

   • No, as of early 2023, the case remains unresolved, with rulings pending on dispositive motions.

3. What defenses has Ingenico raised?

   • The primary defenses include claims of patent invalidity based on prior art and non-infringement.

4. What penalties could Ingenico face if infringement is proven?

   • Damages based on lost profits or royalties, and possible injunctive relief stopping infringing sales.

5. How might this case influence industry patent strategies?

   • It might lead to increased patent litigation, strategic patent filings, and licensing negotiations.

---

Sources:

[1] U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. (2019). Case No. 1:19-cv-11457. Litigation documentation.