DCT

5:25-cv-07780

Retail Services & Systems Inc v. S3G Technology LLC

Log In

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 S3G Technology LLC has its principal place of business within the district and is subject to personal jurisdiction there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that five of Defendant’s patents, relating to systems for remotely updating software applications using intermediate code, are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for modifying the functionality of client-server applications, such as mobile apps, by sending small packets of interpretable code rather than reinstalling the entire software package.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a lawsuit filed by S3G Technology LLC against Retail Services & Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 7, 2025. In that action, S3G alleges infringement of the same patents at issue here. Plaintiff disputes that venue is proper in the Texas action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-23 Patent Priority Date (’897, ’124, ’758, ’995, ’830 Patents)
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 original complaint against RSSI in E.D. Tex.
2025-09-26 S3G files first amended complaint in Texas Action
2025-10-20 S3G files second amended complaint in Texas Action
2025-10-29 RSSI files Declaratory Judgment Complaint in N.D. Cal.

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 addresses the inefficiency and difficulty of updating software applications distributed across a network of remote devices, particularly wireless devices with limited bandwidth. Distributing a full, newly compiled version of an application is described as impractical due to file size and slow transfer rates (’897 Patent, col. 2:38-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-node system (update server, service provider machine, terminal machine) to modify application behavior without replacing the entire software package (’897 Patent, Fig. 1). An update server sends small “dialogue modules” containing “intermediary code, such as Java Byte Code” to the other machines (’897 Patent, col. 2:4-5, Fig. 3A). This code, which must be translated by a virtual machine on the device, modifies a portion of the application’s functionality—specifically its “dialogue sequence”—without altering the underlying, pre-installed computer-executable instructions (’897 Patent, col. 3:20-33).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for dynamic, network-efficient updates to an application's user interface and logic, which is particularly valuable for managing large fleets of remote or mobile devices (’897 Patent, col. 3:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative for its § 101 analysis (Compl. ¶27).
  • Claim 1 of the ’897 Patent recites a system comprising:
    • An update server machine operable for sending a “terminal dialogue module” to a terminal machine and a “provider dialogue module” to a service provider machine.
    • A terminal machine running an application comprising a first set of computer-executable instructions and a first set of code.
    • A service provider machine running an application comprising a second set of computer-executable instructions and a second set of code.
    • The dialogue modules modify the respective sets of code to produce updated code, adapting the applications to use a modified dialogue sequence, without modifying the computer-executable instructions.

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 family, to which the ’124 Patent belongs, addresses the technical challenge of efficiently modifying software on remote devices over networks with limited data transmission capabilities (’124 Patent, col. 2:40-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’124 Patent claims a method performed on a terminal machine that interacts with a remote service provider. The method involves displaying prompts, receiving user data, and then receiving a “terminal dialogue module” that modifies the application’s underlying code (’124 Patent, Abstract). This module, containing information that requires translation (e.g., intermediate code), adapts the application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence without replacing the core executable software (’124 Patent, col. 7:5-13).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a specific process for a client device to dynamically update its interactive workflow based on instructions received from a server, improving flexibility and reducing data overhead (’124 Patent, col. 3:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative for its § 101 analysis (Compl. ¶33).
  • Claim 1 of the ’124 Patent recites a method of conducting a dialogue, comprising the steps of:
    • Providing a first prompt by running a terminal application comprising computer-executable instructions and first code.
    • Receiving an 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.

U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 - "MODIFICATION OF TERMINAL AND SERVICE PROVIDER MACHINES USING AN UPDATE SERVER MACHINE"

  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the ’897 and ’124 patents, this patent discloses technology for dynamically updating remote software. It claims a method focused on the user device (terminal machine) receiving updated code to modify its dialogue sequence with a server (’758 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted as representative (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges S3G accuses RSSI's mobile application of infringing by performing a method of updating its user interface prompts via instructions from a server (Compl. ¶20, 39-40).

U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - "NETWORK EFFICIENT LOCATION-BASED DIALOGUE SEQUENCE USING VIRTUAL PROCESSOR"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent builds on the family's core technology of updating applications via translatable code modules. It specifically claims a method for conducting a dialogue sequence between two user devices, coordinated by a provider application, where authorizations are sent to each device and code is exchanged to facilitate the dialogue (’995 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted as representative (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges S3G accuses RSSI's mobile application of infringing by coordinating software updates between multiple devices to enable a dialogue sequence (Compl. ¶20, 45-46).

U.S. Patent No. 12,099,830 - "NETWORK EFFICIENT AND USER EXPERIENCE OPTIMIZED DIALOGUE SEQUENCE BETWEEN USER DEVICES"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also builds on the family's core technology and claims a method performed on a single user device. The method involves receiving an authorization, determining that criteria are satisfied, and then receiving updated code that modifies the application's dialogue while the application continues to operate (’830 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted as representative (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges S3G accuses RSSI's mobile application of infringing by remotely updating application code to modify its functionality while continuing to operate (Compl. ¶20, 51-52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The primary instrumentality accused of infringement in the related Texas Action is a mobile application developed and maintained by Plaintiff RSSI (Compl. ¶16, 20). RSSI also develops and maintains a website, which may also be implicated (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The mobile application and website are provided as support services for retailers operating under the “Total Wine & More” brand, allowing customers to interact with local stores (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide specific technical details of the accused application's functionality. It frames the accused functionality in terms of the patents' technology: a system involving a “terminal machine” (e.g., a mobile device) and a “service provider machine” (e.g., a server) for modifying software applications distributed across a network (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint for declaratory judgment does not contain specific infringement allegations or claim charts from the Plaintiff (RSSI). Instead, it refers to a second amended complaint filed by S3G Technology LLC in a related case in the Eastern District of Texas (Ex. 6), an exhibit which was not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶2). The complaint alleges that S3G’s infringement theory targets the functionality of RSSI’s mobile application (Compl. ¶20). According to the complaint, S3G contends that the accused application infringes by implementing systems and methods of “transmitting dialogue modules to terminal and service provider machines to modify and/or update software applications running on those machines” (Compl. ¶23). Without the referenced infringement contentions, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Based on the complaint's arguments, a central question for the court will be whether the claims, when properly construed, are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of "remotely updating software on a computer" (Compl. ¶28). The dispute may hinge on whether the claimed "dialogue modules" are specific, concrete data structures or merely a generic term for any software update packet.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the patents’ use of "intermediate code, such as Java Byte Code" is a "well-known, routine, or conventional" practice (Compl. ¶24, p. 7:4-6). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the specific manner in which the accused application allegedly receives and processes updates is indistinct from this conventional practice, versus implementing the specific, claimed method of modifying a "dialogue sequence" without altering underlying executables.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dialogue module" (’897 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central component transmitted by the claimed system to effectuate an update. The patentee (S3G) may argue it is a specific, structured data object, while the accused infringer (RSSI) may argue it is a generic term for any packet of update information, thereby broadening the claim to cover conventional updates and supporting its abstract idea argument.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the module as including "one or more portions of code or instructions" that "are able to modify the dialogue protocol" (’897 Patent, col. 7:30-33), which could suggest any collection of code that achieves the result is a "dialogue module".
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the module "modifies the first and second set of code to produce a first and second set of updated code" but "does not modify the first or second set of computer-executable instructions" (’897 Patent, Summary). This distinction could support a narrower definition limited to code that interacts only with an application's interpretable layer, not its compiled, executable base.

  • The Term: "code comprising information that must be translated before it can be executed on the computer processor" (’830 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the technical nature of the update itself. Its construction is critical to the § 101 analysis, as RSSI argues this describes nothing more than conventional "intermediate code" like "Java Byte Code," which it alleges is a fundamental and long-standing practice in computing (Compl. ¶22, 28, 53).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly equates this concept with "intermediary code, such as Java Byte Code" (’830 Patent, col. 2:4-5), potentially tying the claim scope to any system using a virtual machine or interpreter, a widely used technology.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims consistently tie this "code" to the specific purpose of adapting a "dialogue sequence" while an application "continues to operate" (’830 Patent, Claim 1). This may support an interpretation limiting the term to code used for dynamic, on-the-fly UI/logic modifications in a specific client-server context, as opposed to any general use of interpreted code.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of ineligibility, does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement allegations that may have been asserted by S3G in the parallel Texas litigation.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to be a threshold challenge to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, framed by the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice test. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of conceptual characterization: Are the patents-in-suit directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of “remotely updating software,” as Plaintiff contends, or do they claim a specific and concrete improvement to computer network architecture and application functionality?
  • A key legal question will be one of inventive concept: If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, do the recited elements—such as the three-node architecture, the use of “dialogue modules,” and the reliance on translatable “intermediate code”—, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application, or do they merely amount to applying an abstract idea using conventional computer components and well-understood programming techniques?