3:25-cv-07780
Retail Services & Systems Inc v. S3G Technology LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Retail Services & Systems, Inc. (Maryland)
- Defendant: S3G Technology LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker Botts LLP.
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-07780, N.D. Cal., 10/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant is a California entity with its principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that five of Defendant's patents are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, alleging they are directed to the abstract idea of remotely updating software.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to systems and methods for dynamically modifying software applications distributed across a network, a foundational concept for managing modern mobile apps and other remote services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this action follows a lawsuit filed by Defendant S3G against Plaintiff RSSI in the Eastern District of Texas, where S3G alleges that RSSI's mobile application infringes the same five patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-23 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2015-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 Issued |
| 2016-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 Issued |
| 2018-04-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Issued |
| 2023-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 Issued |
| 2024-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 12,099,830 Issued |
| 2025-07-07 | S3G files initial complaint against RSSI in the E.D. Tex. |
| 2025-09-26 | S3G files first amended complaint in the E.D. Tex. |
| 2025-10-20 | S3G files second amended complaint in the E.D. Tex. |
| 2025-10-29 | RSSI files this Declaratory Judgment complaint in the N.D. Cal. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - "Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor," Issued May 30, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of updating software applications distributed across a network, particularly for wireless mobile devices with limited bandwidth, where distributing a newly recompiled version of an entire application is often impractical and time-consuming (’995 Patent, col. 2:37-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for facilitating a "dialogue sequence" between at least two user devices. The system sends authorizations to the devices and then receives "second code" from a first device that supplements existing "first code" on a provider application. This creates an "updated code" that adapts the application to facilitate the dialogue sequence. A key aspect is that this updated code comprises "information that must be translated before it can be executed," allowing the application to be modified "during continuous operation" without altering the underlying executable instructions (’995 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-10).
- Technical Importance: This architectural approach of separating executable instructions from updatable, translatable "code" aims to enable dynamic and efficient modification of distributed software without requiring users to download large, complete application updates (’995 Patent, col. 2:41-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as representative (’995 Patent, col. 41:26-42:3; Compl. ¶45).
- Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
- Sending authorizations to first and second user devices to enable them to conduct portions of a dialogue sequence.
- Receiving "second code" from the first device that supplements "first code" to produce "first updated code" which adapts a provider application.
- The second code comprises "information that must be translated before it can be executed," and the updated code adapts the application "during continuous operation."
- Determining that the second user device satisfies one or more criteria.
- Sending "third code" to the second user device to facilitate its portion of the dialogue sequence.
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,830 - "Network Efficient and User Experience Optimized Dialogue Sequence Between User Devices," Issued September 24, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the related ’995 Patent, the background addresses the technical challenge of efficiently modifying software on remote devices over bandwidth-limited networks (’830 Patent, col. 2:40-67).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the invention from the perspective of the user device. The method involves the user device receiving an authorization signal, determining that certain criteria are satisfied, and then receiving "second code." This code allows the application to conduct an "updated portion of the dialogue sequence" while the application "continues to operate." The received code is again defined as "information that must be translated before it can be executed" (’830 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The solution purports to enable client-side applications to be updated on-the-fly, enhancing functionality or changing user interaction flows without recompiling or reinstalling the core application software (’830 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as representative (’830 Patent, col. 41:19-42:1; Compl. ¶51).
- Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
- Receiving, at a user device, an authorization signal to enable it to conduct a portion of a dialogue sequence.
- Determining that the user device satisfies one or more criteria.
- Receiving "second code" at the user device that allows the application to conduct an updated portion of the dialogue sequence.
- The second code must be translatable before execution, and the application "continues to operate when the second code is received."
U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine," Issued July 14, 2015
Technology Synopsis
The complaint alleges this patent describes a system where an "update server machine" sends a "terminal dialogue module" and a "provider dialogue module" to a terminal machine and service provider machine, respectively. These modules allegedly modify the "code" on each machine to adapt the application for a "modified dialogue sequence" (Compl. ¶28).
Asserted Claims
The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative (Compl. ¶27).
Accused Features
The complaint states that Defendant's infringement allegations in a separate action target the functionality of Plaintiff's mobile application (Compl. ¶20).
U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine," Issued April 10, 2018
Technology Synopsis
The complaint alleges this patent recites a method of conducting a dialogue by displaying a prompt, accepting a data entry, communicating the information, and then receiving a "terminal dialogue module." This module updates the application's code to display a new prompt (Compl. ¶34).
Asserted Claims
The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative (Compl. ¶33).
Accused Features
The complaint states that Defendant's infringement allegations in a separate action target the functionality of Plaintiff's mobile application (Compl. ¶20).
U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine," Issued April 5, 2016
Technology Synopsis
The complaint alleges this patent recites a method of updating an application by replacing a portion of its "Java Byte code" (the "first code") without modifying the underlying "computer-executable instructions." This process is framed as part of a sequence of displaying a prompt, receiving user input, and receiving instructions for a new prompt (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41).
Asserted Claims
The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative (Compl. ¶39).
Accused Features
The complaint states that Defendant's infringement allegations in a separate action target the functionality of Plaintiff's mobile application (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Plaintiff's mobile application and website developed and maintained for retailers operating under the “Total Wine & More” brand (Compl. ¶16). The complaint states the mobile application is the primary instrumentality accused of infringement by Defendant in a separate litigation (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the application as allowing customers to "interact with local stores" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused technical functionalities. Instead, it focuses on the patent-eligibility of the patents-in-suit, characterizing the technology they claim as the abstract idea of "remotely updating software to change the prompts a user sees on a screen" (Compl. ¶5).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of ineligibility and does not contain infringement allegations or claim charts. It summarizes Defendant's infringement theory from a separate lawsuit as being directed at the "standard operation of the mobile application" provided by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff frames Defendant's theory as targeting the abstract idea of "remotely updating software on a computer" (Compl. ¶28) or "coordinating software on multiple devices to enable communication between users" (Compl. ¶46). Without access to Defendant's infringement contentions or claim charts from the related Texas action, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible based on the provided complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
The core dispute presented in the complaint is not over factual infringement but over patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The primary points of contention, as framed by the Plaintiff, are legal and technical questions related to the Alice framework:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the claims, which recite elements like sending "dialogue modules" or "code," are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of updating information on a remote device, as Plaintiff alleges (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 33, 39).
- Technical Questions: Plaintiff alleges that the patents' reliance on an architecture using "intermediate code (like Java Byte Code) that is distinct from computer-executable instructions" was "well-known, routine, and conventional" at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶7). This raises the question of whether the claimed methods and systems provide an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the alleged abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, or if they merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and conventional programming techniques (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 35).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "code comprising information that must be translated before it can be executed"
(asserted in claims of the ’995 and ’830 patents)
Context and Importance
This term is central to the patent eligibility dispute. Its construction will influence whether the claims are seen as reciting a specific, concrete technical implementation or merely invoking the general concept of interpreted code. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to simply mean conventional technologies like Java Byte Code, it may support Plaintiff's argument that the claims lack an inventive concept under the Alice framework.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not limited to a specific type of translatable code, suggesting it could cover various forms of interpreted code, scripts, or configuration data that modify application behavior (’995 Patent, col. 41:51-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides "Java Byte Code" as a specific example of "intermediary code," which could be used to argue that the invention is grounded in this conventional context (’995 Patent, col. 2:4-5; ’830 Patent, col. 2:4-5). The complaint leverages this, stating the patents' own specification admits the technology was "well-known" (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7).
Term: "dialogue sequence"
(asserted in claims of the ’995 and ’830 patents)
Context and Importance
The definition of this term will help frame what exactly is being updated. A narrow definition could support patentability by suggesting a specific type of complex, interactive process, while a broad definition could support the argument that the claims cover any generic user interface update.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally in the claims, and the specification describes its application to different fields like banking and medicine, suggesting it covers a wide range of user-machine interactions (’995 Patent, Figs. 5A-7B).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate structured, multi-step transactional dialogues between a "terminal machine" and a "service provider machine" (’995 Patent, Fig. 4A). This could support an interpretation limited to such structured, networked transactions rather than any simple change to a user interface.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action will likely center on two key questions of patent eligibility under the Supreme Court's Alice framework:
- A primary issue will be one of characterization: Are the asserted claims, as a whole, directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of "remotely managing and updating software," or are they directed to a specific, concrete technical improvement in the architecture of distributed computing systems that allows for more efficient software modification?
- Should the claims be found abstract, a critical question will be one of inventiveness: Does the claims' recitation of an architecture separating executable instructions from updatable, translatable "code" (such as Java Byte Code) constitute an "inventive concept," or does it merely describe the application of the abstract idea using what Plaintiff alleges were well-understood, routine, and conventional components and programming methods at the time of the invention?