DCT
3:25-cv-07780
Retail Services & Systems Inc v. S3G Technology LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 12/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant S3G Technology LLC resides in the district and maintains its principal place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Defendant's patents related to dynamic software updates, and that those patents are invalid for ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and for failing to meet other statutory requirements.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for modifying distributed software applications, such as mobile apps, by transmitting updates of interpretable "intermediate code" rather than recompiling and redistributing the entire application.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute originated with a lawsuit filed by S3G against Retail Services & Systems, Inc. (RSSI) in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit. After S3G served infringement contentions and amended its complaint multiple times to add patents, RSSI initiated this declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California, challenging the validity, eligibility, and enforceability of S3G’s patents and disputing S3G's infringement allegations.
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 Issues |
| 2016-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 Issues |
| 2018-04-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Issues |
| 2023-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 Issues |
| 2024-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 12,099,830 Issues |
| 2025-07-07 | S3G files initial complaint against RSSI in E.D. Texas |
| 2025-09-16 | S3G discloses infringement contentions for the ’897, ’124, and ’758 Patents |
| 2025-09-26 | S3G files first amended complaint in E.D. Texas |
| 2025-10-16 | S3G discloses infringement contentions for the ’995 and ’830 Patents |
| 2025-10-20 | S3G files second amended complaint in E.D. Texas |
| 2025-10-29 | RSSI files its first amended complaint for declaratory judgment |
| 2025-12-02 | RSSI files Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (this action) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of updating software applications distributed across a network of remote devices, particularly when network bandwidth is limited or physical access to the devices is impractical ('897 Patent, col. 1:40-2:10). Recompiling and distributing an entire application for minor changes is described as a technical challenge ('897 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-node system (update server, service provider machine, terminal machine) where the update server sends a "dialogue module" to the other machines ('897 Patent, Abstract). This module contains "intermediary code," such as Java Byte Code, which adapts the existing software application to use a modified dialogue sequence without altering the application’s underlying "computer-executable instructions" ('897 Patent, col. 2:3-6; col. 2:11-30). This allows for targeted updates to application logic and user interface flow.
- Technical Importance: This architecture enables efficient, platform-independent updates to distributed software, a key requirement for mobile and web-based services that must evolve their functionality without forcing users to download entirely new application versions for each change ('897 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative for its analysis (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An update server machine comprising a processor.
- The server is operable for sending a terminal dialogue module to a terminal machine and a provider dialogue module to a service provider machine.
- The terminal dialogue module "modifies the first set of code to produce a first set of updated code."
- The provider dialogue module "modifies the second set of code to produce a second set of updated code."
- The system distinguishes between "computer-executable instructions" that can execute directly on a processor and "code" that cannot.
- The updated code adapts the respective applications to use a "modified dialogue sequence."
- The complaint asserts claims against Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-18, and 20-25 of the ’897 Patent (Compl. ¶60).
U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares a specification with the ’897 patent, addresses the difficulty and inefficiency of distributing updates to software applications across a network, especially to remote or mobile devices with limited bandwidth (’124 Patent, col. 1:40-2:10).
- The Patented Solution: The claimed invention is a method performed at a terminal machine for conducting a dialogue. The method involves providing a prompt, receiving user data, communicating that data, and then receiving a "terminal dialogue module." This module "modifies at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code," which in turn "adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence" (’124 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). The core concept is the dynamic adaptation of a client-side application via a received module of interpretable code.
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a technical pathway for applications on devices like cell phones to update their user interface and transaction flows dynamically, improving user experience and developer flexibility without requiring a full application reinstall (’124 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative for its analysis (Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method of conducting a dialogue at a terminal machine.
- Providing a first prompt by running a terminal application comprising "first computer-executable instructions and first code."
- Receiving entry of first data.
- Communicating information associated with the data to a provider application.
- Receiving a "terminal dialogue module that modifies at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code."
- The first updated code "adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence."
- The complaint asserts claims against Claims 1-14, 16-34, 36-58, 60-103, and 105-135 of the ’124 Patent (Compl. ¶64).
U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method focused on updating an application by receiving a "terminal dialogue module" that "replaces at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code" in order to display a second prompt (’758 Patent, Claim 1). It emphasizes replacing, rather than just modifying or supplementing, a portion of the interpretable code.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative (Compl. ¶43) out of asserted Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-21, and 23 (Compl. ¶68).
- Accused Features: The accused features are functionalities of RSSI's mobile application related to updating its user interface (Compl. ¶22, ¶69-70).
U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - "Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for coordinating a dialogue sequence between at least two user devices. The method involves a provider application sending "authorizations" to the devices, receiving "second code" from a first device that "supplements first code" to adapt the application, and then sending "third code" to a second device to facilitate its part of the dialogue (’995 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶50).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative (Compl. ¶49) out of asserted Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 (Compl. ¶72).
- Accused Features: The accused features are functionalities of RSSI's mobile application and its associated systems that facilitate user interactions and updates (Compl. ¶22, ¶73-74).
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,830 - "Network Efficient and User Experience Optimized Dialogue Sequence Between User Devices"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed at a user device that receives an "authorization signal" and then receives "second code" that allows an application to conduct an updated portion of a dialogue sequence. A key aspect is that the application "continues to operate when the second code is received" (’830 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶56).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative (Compl. ¶55) out of asserted Claims 1, 2, 7-15, and 18-20 (Compl. ¶76).
- Accused Features: The accused features are functionalities of RSSI's mobile application related to receiving updates while the application is running (Compl. ¶22, ¶77-78).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are RSSI's mobile application for the "Total Wine & More" brand, as well as its associated "systems, methods, computing devices, including servers, software, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium" that support the application's use (Compl. ¶6, ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
The mobile application allows customers to interact with local retail stores (Compl. ¶6). The functionality targeted by S3G's infringement allegations is the standard operation of the application, particularly how it updates its user interface and dialogue sequences (Compl. ¶13, ¶22). The complaint states that S3G's infringement theory identifies the transmission of JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) data to the mobile app as the infringing act corresponding to the patents' claimed "dialogue module" or "second code" (Compl. ¶62, ¶66, ¶70, ¶74, ¶78). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The following analysis is based on Plaintiff RSSI's characterization of Defendant S3G's infringement theories, as presented in the declaratory judgment complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a terminal dialogue module that modifies the first set of code to produce a first set of updated code | S3G alleges that JSON data transmitted to the RSSI application constitutes the "terminal dialogue module." | ¶62 | col. 10:45-50 |
| wherein the first set of code is not able to execute directly on a terminal processor | S3G alleges the application's code that is modified by the JSON data is not directly executable. | ¶61 | col. 10:50-52 |
| wherein the first set of updated code adapts the terminal application to use a modified dialogue sequence | S3G alleges that after processing the JSON data, the application presents an updated dialogue sequence (e.g., updated "My Lists" items). | ¶62 | col. 10:54-57 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a terminal dialogue module | S3G alleges that the RSSI mobile application's receipt of JSON data constitutes receiving the claimed "terminal dialogue module." | ¶66 | col. 10:54-55 |
| that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code | S3G alleges that the received JSON data updates a portion of the application's code. | ¶65 | col. 10:55-57 |
| the first updated code adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence | S3G alleges that after processing the JSON data, the application presents a modified dialogue sequence (e.g., updated "My Lists" items). | ¶66 | col. 10:57-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central point of contention, as articulated by RSSI, is whether receiving structured data (JSON) that an application's existing logic interprets to alter its display constitutes receiving a "module" that "modifies," "updates," or "replaces" the application's "code" as required by the claims (Compl. ¶62, ¶66, ¶70). This raises the fundamental question of whether "code" as claimed can be construed to read on what is conventionally understood as "data."
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises the technical question of whether JSON data, which it describes as "content data," can perform the function of modifying application code (Compl. ¶62, ¶66). The patents describe the "code" as "intermediary code, such as Java Byte Code" ('897 Patent, col. 2:5-6). The case may turn on evidence showing whether the accused JSON data operates like executable or interpretable code, or if it is merely data processed by the application's pre-existing, unmodified executable instructions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"dialogue module" (and variants like "terminal dialogue module")
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because RSSI's non-infringement defense rests on the argument that the JSON data its application receives is not a "dialogue module" (Compl. ¶62). The nature of this "module" will determine whether S3G's infringement theory is viable.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the module may include "portions of code and/or instructions" ('897 Patent, col. 7:42-43) and that the code represents "information that must be translated before it can be implemented" ('897 Patent, col. 5:1-3). S3G may argue that JSON is "information" that is "translated" or interpreted by the application's rendering engine to produce a new dialogue.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "intermediary code, such as Java Byte Code" as the primary example of the "code" within the module ('897 Patent, col. 2:5-6). Practitioners may focus on this language to argue that a "dialogue module" must contain executable or semi-executable instructions, not merely a data structure like JSON.
"modifies" / "updates" / "replaces" ... code
- Context and Importance: This term defines the action performed by the "dialogue module." RSSI argues that its JSON data does not "modify" or "update" the application's code, but is merely processed by it (Compl. ¶62, ¶66). The construction of this active verb will be central to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '897 patent states the result of the modification is that the updated code "adapts the terminal application to use a modified dialogue sequence." S3G may argue that "modifies" should be interpreted by its functional result—if receiving the JSON causes the application to present a new dialogue, it has functionally "modified" the application's behavior.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: RSSI's complaint suggests a plain technical reading, where "modifying code" means altering the instructions of the application itself, not simply providing new inputs for existing, unchanged instructions to process (Compl. ¶62). The distinction in the claims between "computer-executable instructions" (which are not modified) and "code" (which is) may support an interpretation where the "code" is still a form of instruction, distinct from passive data.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement "directly or indirectly" but does not provide specific facts alleged by S3G to support theories of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶60). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope and claim construction: Can the term "code" that "modifies" or "updates" an application, as taught in a specification centered on "intermediary code" like Java Byte Code, be construed to cover structured "data," like JSON, which is interpreted by an application's existing, unmodified logic to alter its user interface?
- A second central issue will be patent eligibility: Are the claims directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of "remotely updating information on a computer screen," and if so, does the claimed use of generic components and "intermediary code"—which the patents' own specification acknowledges was a "common way to build applications"—provide a sufficient inventive concept to render the claims patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101? (Compl. ¶7, ¶26).
- A threshold procedural question will be one of venue: The dueling lawsuits raise the question of whether the case will proceed in the Eastern District of Texas, where patent-holder S3G first filed, or in the Northern District of California, where accused infringer RSSI alleges S3G is headquartered and subsequently filed its declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶1, ¶15, ¶21).