Affinity Technology Group, Inc.: Court of Appeals Publishes Opinion in Patent Cases

COLUMBIA, S.C.--(Business Wire)--
Affinity Technology Group, Inc. (OTCBB: AFFI) today announced that
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the
"Appeals Court") has published its opinion in the cases of its
subsidiary, decisioning.com versus Federated Department Stores, TD
Ameritrade and HSBC Finance Corporation. The principal issues decided
by the Appeals Court involved the definition of certain terms which
were the basis for the summary judgment order issued by the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina in which the
cases against Federated, TD Ameritrade and HSBC were dismissed in
2007. The terms in dispute were the result of a Markman hearing held
in December 2006 and included the terms "remote interface," "verify
the applicant's identity" and "compare...and...."

In its opinion, the Appeals Court unanimously overturned and
revised the District Court's definitions of all the disputed claim
terms. The Appeals Court revised the terms "verify the applicant's
identity" and "compare...and..." in the exact manner requested by and
favorable to decisioning.com. However, the Appeals Court in a split
decision (2-1) revised the term "remote interface" in a manner
unfavorable to decisioning.com. In summary, the Appeals Court ruled
that a remote interface as used in U.S. Patent No. 6,105,007,
decisioning.com's patent which covers the automated establishment of
financial accounts, does not include a personal computer owned by a
consumer. Rather, the Appeals Court limited the term "remote
interface" to those that are publicly accessible and specifically
excluded consumer-owned personal computers from the definition. One
Judge on the panel wrote a dissenting opinion construing remote
interface in a manner consistent with the request of decisioning.com.

Joe Boyle, Affinity's President and Chief Executive Officer,
stated, "We are very disappointed with this decision, especially given
that one judge's dissent adopted and fully supported our position. If
the dissent had been adopted as the majority opinion, summary
judgments would have been fully overturned in decisioning.com's favor.
The decision clearly represents a major setback for Affinity. The
decision significantly and materially limits the scope of our patents.
The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the case against Federated
and vacated in part and remanded the cases against TD Ameritrade and
HSBC; however, we do not believe that the systems used by TD
Ameritrade and HSBC, or in the market in general, that would infringe
our patents under the restrictive definition of 'remote interface' is
even close to the level of infringing systems if 'remote interface'
had been defined in the manner we believe is appropriate. We are in
the process of evaluating our strategic alternatives and the courses
of action we may take in response to this decision. Our capital
resources are nearing exhaustion and we expect that this decision will
impede our ability to access new capital resources."

About Affinity Technology Group, Inc.

Through its subsidiary, decisioning.com, Inc., Affinity Technology
Group, Inc. owns a portfolio of patents that covers the automated
processing and establishment of loans, financial accounts and credit
accounts through a remote interface, as applicable. Affinity's patent
portfolio includes U.S. Patent No. 5,870,721C1, No. 5,940,811C1, and
No. 6,105,007C1.

Forward-looking statements in this news release are made pursuant
to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. Affinity cannot offer any assurances that the
value of its patents and business will not be permanently and
materially limited by the adverse ruling of the Appeals Court
described above or that it will be able to pursue or obtain any
reconsideration of, or recourse from, this adverse ruling. Investors
are cautioned that the Company's business is subject to several
substantial risks and uncertainties, including the results of ongoing
litigation, including the Appeals Court ruling discussed above, which,
combined with the Company's very limited capital resources may make it
difficult or impossible to raise additional capital in amounts
sufficient to permit it to continue operations or pursue further legal
options for vindicating its patent claims; the risk that the Company
may further lose all or part of the claims covered by its patents as a
result of challenges to its patents; the risk that its patents may be
subject to additional reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office or challenge by third parties; and, unanticipated costs and
expenses affecting the Company's cash position. Additionally, the
Company does not have the cash resources to pay the judgment that will
be entered against it in the Temple Ligon litigation. If the Company
is unable to raise additional capital, obtain reconsideration of or
relief from the adverse ruling of the Appeals Court described above or
resolve or postpone the judgment in the Temple Ligon matter in a
manner which will alleviate the payment of more than an insignificant
amount of cash in the near term, it would be forced to consider
alternatives for winding down its business, which may include offering
its patents for sale or filing for bankruptcy protection. These and
other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from
those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements are
discussed in greater detail in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 and other filings Affinity
makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time.
The Company is not responsible for updating the information contained
in this press release beyond the publication date, or for changes made
to this document by wire services or Internet Services.

Affinity Technology Group, Inc.
Joe Boyle, 803-758-2511
Chief Executive Officer

Copyright Business Wire 2008