Xylon Licensing LLC v. Texas State Bankshares, Inc. dba Texas Regional Bank

On January 30, 2021, Xylon Licensing LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Raymond W Mort, III of The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Texas State Bankshares, Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271 for allegedly infringing Plaintiff’s intellectual property and thereby profiting, in an illegal and unauthorized manner, and without authorization and/or consent from Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has infringed and thereby profited in an illegal and unauthorized manner, and without authorization and/or consent from Plaintiff, from the U.S. Patent No 8,719,165 entitled “DELEGATED TRANSACTIONS OVER MOBILE” (“the ‘165 Patent” or the “Patent-In-Suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also alleged that “based on the allegations, it must be accepted as true at this stage, that Claim 1 of the ‘165 Patent recites a specific, plausibly inventive way of completing a secure transaction and using specific protocols rather than the general idea of transacting between merchant and customer. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Garmin USA, Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 907, 205 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2020).”

Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in at least one claim of the ‘165 Patent” and that the “Defendant has contributed to and induced others to infringe the ‘165 Patent by encouraging infringement, directing or controlling, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement” and that “as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ‘165 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.”

The Plaintiff has laid down one claim for relief for the violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 wherein the Defendant is allegedly now, and has been directly infringing the ‘165 Patent, and continues to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘165 Patent. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘165 Patent at least as of the service of the present Complaint.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court to pass an order for an injunction to prevent further alleged infringement of the Patents in suit and to hold that the Defendant has directly infringed the ‘165 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The Plaintiff also requested the court to account for all alleged infringing sales and damages to assess pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against Defendant, in addition to an award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284. The Plaintiff further requested the court to direct the Defendant to pay enhanced damages, including Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.