Frost Bank in San Antonio is facing a patent infringement lawsuit in regard to its mobile banking app, but the company that has served the Frost Bank lawsuit is a mystery.
Like many other banks that use a mobile application, customers can deposit checks electronically by taking a photo of the front and back of the check. The suit states that “the Frost Mobile App is a computer-implemented method performed by an image submission tool on a user device.” This quote is taken from the claim in U.S. Patent 9,386,094 that is assigned to Lupercal in 2016.
The company claims that Frost allegedly infringed on Lupercal’s patent. However, the suit doesn’t specify how much in financial damages Lupercal is seeking from the Frost Bank lawsuit.
The suit explains that the issue with the application is that it allows, “a user to submit one or more pre-processed images”
Frost, which is the largest regional bank based in San Antonio has yet to file a response to the lawsuit. Frost spokesman Bill day says he does not wish to comment on impending litigation.
Lupercal also has a pending suit, filed in February, against JPMorgan Chase. These two suits are not the first the company has filed. In fact, Lupercal’s lawsuits against Citibank, Comerica Bank, and PlainsCapital Bank, all filed last year, have been resolved and dismissed — but not before the banks counter-sued.
In its response, Dallas-based PlainsCapital said Lupercal “lacks standing to enforce” the patent because no certificate of formation for Lupercal was filed with the Texas Secretary of State.
PlainsCapital bank also said the “purported” assignment of the patent to Lupercal is “void or ineffective” because it “either does not exist or is not a properly formed limited liability company under the laws of the State of Texas.”
In its counterclaims, PlainsCapital noted that Lupercal “does not manufacture, advertise, make, sell or import any produce that embodies any claim” of the patent.
PlainsCapital explains that it did not directly infringe on the patent, but added that the patent’s claims are invalid. The bank believed that it’s likely there is evidence to show that the technology already existed prior to the filing of the patent application.