DCT
5:25-cv-07780
Retail Services & Systems Inc v. S3G Technology LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Case Name: Retail Services & Systems, Inc. v. S3G Technology LLC
- 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 asserts that venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant maintains its principal place of business within the district and is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its mobile application and supporting systems do not infringe Defendant’s five patents related to dynamically updating software applications, and further alleges that those patents are invalid and patent-ineligible.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems and methods for remotely updating software applications on user devices by transmitting modules of translatable "intermediate code," a foundational concept for modern, network-distributed application platforms.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action arises from a prior lawsuit filed by S3G Technology LLC against Retail Services & Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. In that action, S3G alleges infringement of the five patents-in-suit and has served its infringement contentions, which created the "actual and justiciable controversy" forming the basis for the present suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-23 | Earliest 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 initial complaint against RSSI in E.D. Tex. |
| 2025-09-16 | S3G serves infringement contentions for '897, '124, '758 Patents |
| 2025-09-26 | S3G files first amended complaint in Texas Action |
| 2025-10-16 | S3G serves infringement contentions for '995, '830 Patents |
| 2025-10-20 | S3G files second amended complaint in Texas Action |
| 2025-10-29 | RSSI files first amended complaint for declaratory judgment |
| 2025-12-02 | RSSI files Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |
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 describes the technical challenge of efficiently updating software on numerous remote devices, such as mobile phones, over networks with limited bandwidth, where distributing a full, newly compiled application is impractical and time-consuming (’897 Patent, col. 1:40-2:10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-node system comprising an "update server machine," a "service provider machine," and a "terminal machine" (the user's device) (’897 Patent, Fig. 1). The update server sends a small "dialogue module" containing "intermediate code" (e.g., Java Byte Code) to the other machines. This module modifies portions of the application's existing code to alter its functionality or user interface—the "dialogue sequence"—without altering the underlying, compiled "computer-executable instructions" and without requiring a complete application reinstall (’897 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-34).
- Technical Importance: This architecture enables dynamic and bandwidth-efficient updates for distributed applications, a key enabler for the mobile app ecosystem where frequent feature changes are commercially important but network performance can be a constraint (’897 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as representative for its patent-ineligibility arguments (Compl. ¶31) and targets Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-18, and 20-25 for its noninfringement and invalidity allegations (Compl. ¶60).
- Independent Claim 1 (a system claim) requires:
- An update server machine for sending a terminal dialogue module and a provider dialogue module.
- A terminal machine running an application comprising first computer-executable instructions and a first set of code.
- A service provider machine running an application comprising second computer-executable instructions and a second set of code.
- 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 dialogue modules do not modify the computer-executable instructions.
- The updated code sets adapt their respective applications to use a "modified dialogue sequence."
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 '124 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the '897 Patent: the inefficiency of distributing full software application updates to remote devices over bandwidth-constrained networks (’124 Patent, col. 1:40-2:10).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method performed on a terminal machine. The method involves running a local application, communicating with a remote service provider, and then receiving a "terminal dialogue module." This module "updates" a portion of the application's "first code" to produce "first updated code," thereby adapting the application to conduct a new or modified dialogue sequence without altering the underlying computer-executable instructions (’124 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-34).
- Technical Importance: As with the '897 Patent, this method provides a mechanism for efficient, on-the-fly software modifications, which is critical for maintaining and enhancing features of deployed mobile and distributed applications (’124 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as representative for its patent-ineligibility arguments (Compl. ¶37) and targets Claims 1-14, 16-34, 36-58, 60-103, and 105-135 for its noninfringement and invalidity allegations (Compl. ¶64).
- Independent Claim 1 (a method claim) requires:
- Running a terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code.
- Communicating information from the terminal machine to a provider application.
- Receiving a terminal dialogue module that "updates 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 terminal dialogue module does not modify the first computer-executable instructions.
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 similar to the ’124 Patent, but focuses on a "terminal dialogue module" that "replaces at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code" (’758 Patent, Abstract). The underlying technical problem and solution framework are otherwise consistent with the related patents.
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-21, and 23 (Compl. ¶68).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges S3G's infringement theory targets the receipt of JSON data by RSSI's mobile application, which S3G allegedly contends constitutes the claimed "terminal dialogue module" (Compl. ¶¶ 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 conducting a dialogue between two user devices, orchestrated by one or more provider applications. The method involves sending authorizations, receiving a "second code" from a first user device to "supplement" the provider application's code, determining if a second user device meets certain criteria, and then sending a "third code" to that second device (’995 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 (Compl. ¶72).
- Accused Features: The complaint states S3G alleges that a received JSON or HTTP message constitutes the claimed "second code" that supplements the application code (Compl. ¶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, determines criteria are satisfied, and then receives "second code" that allows the application to conduct an updated dialogue portion while the application "continues to operate" (’830 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 7-15, and 18-20 (Compl. ¶76).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges S3G's theory is that "new My List items" received via a JSON or HTTP message constitute the claimed "second code" (Compl. ¶78).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Plaintiff RSSI's "Total Wine & More" mobile application, website, and associated backend "systems, methods, computing devices, including servers, software, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
The mobile application and website allow customers to interact with local "Total Wine & More" retail stores (Compl. ¶18). The specific functionality targeted by the infringement allegations involves the dynamic updating of content within the application. The complaint explains that Defendant S3G's infringement theory centers on the transmission of JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) or HTTP data to the mobile app, for purposes such as updating a user's "My Lists items," which S3G alleges constitutes the patented reception of a "dialogue module" or "code" that modifies or updates the application (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 66, 70, 74, 78).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'897 Patent 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... | The complaint states that Defendant S3G alleges that JSON data transmitted to the mobile application constitutes the claimed "terminal dialogue module" that performs the function of modifying the application's code to produce updated code. | ¶62 | col. 2:27-31 |
| wherein the first set of code is not able to execute directly on the terminal processor... | The complaint notes that the patent requires this "first set of code" to be distinct from computer-executable instructions. S3G's theory presumably maps this limitation to the application's interpreted code, which is allegedly modified by the incoming JSON data. | ¶61 | col. 6:4-11 |
| wherein the first set of updated code adapts the terminal application to use a modified dialogue sequence... | The complaint alleges that S3G contends the updated code (allegedly produced by the JSON data) adapts the application to use a "modified dialogue sequence (i.e., updated My Lists items)." | ¶62 | col. 2:34-37 |
'124 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, at the terminal application, a terminal dialogue module that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code... | The complaint states that Defendant S3G alleges that the mobile application's receipt of JSON data constitutes the reception of the claimed "terminal dialogue module" that performs the function of updating the application's code. | ¶66 | col. 2:27-31 |
| wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence with the service provider machine... | The complaint notes that S3G alleges the receipt of JSON data containing content (e.g., "My Lists items") adapts the application to use S3G's identified modified dialogue sequence. | ¶66 | col. 2:34-37 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The core dispute appears to hinge on whether the term "code"—defined in the patents as "information that must be translated before it can be executed" ('897 Patent, col. 6:4-11)—can be construed to read on JSON, which is a data-interchange format. The complaint argues that "JSON data is data and does not constitute 'code'" (Compl. ¶74). This raises the question of whether the patent's definition of "code" is limited to forms like Java Byte Code or is broad enough to cover structured data that is interpreted by an application.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused application's processing of incoming JSON data constitutes the claimed functions of "modifying," "updating," or "replacing" the application's own code. The complaint asserts that "JSON data does not modify code of a mobile application" (Compl. ¶62). The case may require evidence on how the accused application technically operates—whether it alters its own instruction set or script files upon receiving JSON, or whether it simply processes the JSON as input data using its existing, unmodified logic.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "terminal dialogue module" / "second code"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as Defendant S3G allegedly maps it directly to the JSON/HTTP data received by the accused application. The definition of "module" and whether it can encompass a data transmission will be a critical point of contention. Practitioners may focus on whether this term implies a self-contained set of executable or interpretable instructions, or if it can be read more broadly to include structured data that dictates application behavior.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents define the "code" within the module functionally as "information that must be translated before it can be executed on the machine processor" (’897 Patent, col. 6:4-6), a definition that does not explicitly exclude structured data formats that are interpreted by a virtual machine or script engine.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "Java Byte Code" as the primary and often sole example of the "intermediary code" that comprises the module (’897 Patent, col. 1:56-59). The abstract and claims distinguish this "code" from "computer-executable instructions," which could suggest the term is limited to compiled but not-yet-machine-native code, as opposed to a text-based data format like JSON.
The Term: "modifies" / "updates" / "replaces"
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation depends on whether the accused application's interaction with JSON data performs one of these claimed functions on the application's own "code." The outcome will likely depend on whether these terms require a direct alteration of the application's stored code files or can be construed to cover a change in application state or behavior resulting from processing new data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state that the result of the modification is to "adapt[] the terminal application to use a modified dialogue sequence" (’897 Patent, Claim 1). This focus on the functional outcome—adapting the application's behavior—may support an interpretation where any process that changes the user dialogue based on received information qualifies as a "modification."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims explicitly state that the dialogue module "does not modify the first set of computer-executable instructions" (’124 Patent, Claim 1). This distinction suggests that "modifies" refers to an action taken upon one type of file (the translatable "code") but not another (the "executable instructions"), implying a direct action on the code itself rather than just a change in the application's operational state.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on a fundamental dispute over the interpretation of patent claims in the context of modern web and mobile application architecture. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patents' term "code," which is rooted in the context of translatable "intermediary code" like Java Byte Code, be construed to encompass the JSON data format that the accused mobile application allegedly receives?
- A related and critical question will be one of technical operation: Does an application's routine processing of incoming data (like JSON) to render a new user interface state constitute "modifying" or "updating" the application's own "code" as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental distinction between an application processing data and an application altering itself?