DCT

1:21-cv-01147

Consumeron LLC v. Maplebear Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:21-cv-01147, D. Del., 12/03/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the District of Delaware based on Instacart’s incorporation in Delaware and its continuous business activities within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s on-demand grocery and retail delivery platform infringes four patents related to systems and methods for the remote acquisition and delivery of goods by mobile agents.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses logistical challenges in on-demand commerce by using remote servers, GPS tracking, and real-time mobile communications to coordinate a network of agents fulfilling customer orders.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,202,191, 10,115,067, and 10,628,835 were amended during prosecution to overcome patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 following the Supreme Court's Alice decision. The complaint also alleges that Defendant was notified of potential infringement of at least two of the asserted patents in March 2018, over three years before the suit was filed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-08-26 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2012-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,244,594 Issues
2015-12-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191 Issues
2018-03-21 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of ’594 and ’191 Patents
2018-10-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067 Issues
2020-04-21 U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835 Issues
2021-12-03 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,244,594, Method for Remote Acquisition and Delivery of Goods, Issued August 14, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in 2009-era internet shopping, including the inability for customers to inspect goods before purchase, the lack of immediate delivery options, and the large carbon footprint of conventional third-party delivery services (’594 Patent, col. 1:22-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a remote server coordinates a network of mobile delivery agents to fulfill customer requests. A key aspect is the server’s role in performing a calculation to determine which agent can "most efficiently carry out" a request based on the location of the goods, the agent's current GPS location, and the customer's delivery site (’594 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:2-14). This system enables real-time interaction, including transferring images of goods from the agent to the customer for approval (’594 Patent, col. 5:48-55).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a technological framework for on-demand local commerce, moving beyond the traditional model of centralized warehouses and scheduled deliveries to a decentralized, real-time fulfillment model (Compl. ¶¶49, 51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶85). Independent Claim 13 includes the following essential elements:
    • Deploying a plurality of delivery agents, each having a mobile system with a real-time video device, communication device, and global positioning device.
    • Receiving a first acquisition request from a customer.
    • After receiving the request, a remote server calculating which agent could most efficiently carry out the request.
    • The calculation is based on the location of the goods, the agent's current GPS-determined location, and the delivery site.
    • Deploying an agent based on the calculation.
    • Electronically transferring an image of the goods to the customer using the video device.
    • Acquiring and delivering the goods.

U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191, System and Method for Remote Acquisition and Delivery of Goods, Issued December 1, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that traditional internet shopping lacked the ability for customers to confirm in real-time the exact product being purchased or to track the agent’s progress visually (Compl. ¶28).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’191 Patent claims a system featuring a "selectable widget for a third party vendor website" that retrieves data from mobile agents and a central server to generate a view of a pick-up site, including the current locations of the agents (’191 Patent, col. 10:4-15). The system also includes a "real-time video means" for sending images to the customer and transmitting real-time data for viewing the agent's progress (’191 Patent, col. 10:28-35).
  • Technical Importance: This technology focuses on improving the customer-facing interface of on-demand services by integrating real-time location tracking and visual confirmation into the shopping experience (Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 14 (Compl. ¶114). Independent Claim 11 includes the following essential elements:
    • A plurality of mobile delivery agent systems configured with GPS providing location information to a server.
    • A "selectable widget for a third party vendor website" configured to retrieve agent data from the server and generate a view of a pick-up site, including agent locations.
    • A display for the customer to see the generated view.
    • An input for the customer to make an acquisition request and select a delivery agent.
    • "Communication means" for processing the request and establishing direct communication.
    • A "real-time video means" for sending images to the customer and transmitting real-time data for viewing the goods and the agent's progress.

U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067, System and Method for Remote Acquisition and Delivery of Goods, Issued October 30, 2018

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067, System and Method for Remote Acquisition and Delivery of Goods, Issued October 30, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method where a remote server receives a customer request, sends instructions to a mobile agent's communication device, and deploys the agent to a shopping location. A key feature is the agent obtaining an image of the goods, transmitting it to the customer, and then receiving "further instructions from the first customer... based on the transmitted image" before acquiring the product (Compl. ¶¶16-18).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 27, and 28 (Compl. ¶140).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Instacart's system where its servers deploy shoppers who then use their smartphones to send images of products or potential substitutes to customers and await approval or further instructions via chat before purchasing (Compl. ¶¶147-149).

U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835, System and Method for Remote Acquisition and Deliver of Goods, Issued April 21, 2020

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835, System and Method for Remote Acquisition and Deliver of Goods, Issued April 21, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a method where an agent transmits an image of a "particular product" in real-time for the customer "to inspect and approve the purchase of the particular product exactly shown in the image." This emphasizes customer approval of the specific physical item being purchased (Compl. ¶¶36-37).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 24, and 26 (Compl. ¶166).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets Instacart's functionality that allows shoppers to send images of items (especially for substitutions or quality checks) to customers, who then provide explicit approval to purchase that specific item shown in the image (Compl. ¶172).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is "Instacart's Systems and Services," which includes the Instacart consumer-facing application and website, the shopper application, and the supporting back-end servers and software (Compl. ¶64).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Instacart platform facilitates on-demand retail and grocery delivery. Customers use an application or website to select items from various local retailers (Compl. ¶66). Instacart's servers operate a "fulfillment engine" that assigns customer orders to a network of shoppers, who are independent contractors or employees (Compl. ¶69, 70).
  • Shoppers receive orders on their smartphones, which are equipped with GPS, cameras, and communication capabilities (Compl. ¶90). The system alleges to use shopper GPS data, updated approximately every 10 seconds, to route shoppers to stores and delivery locations (Compl. ¶¶68, 93). A key feature is the ability for shoppers to communicate with customers in real-time, including sending images of products to confirm items or propose substitutions, and receiving customer approval via chat before purchase (Compl. ¶73). The complaint alleges Instacart operates in over 5,500 cities and partners with over 350 retailers (Compl. ¶64). The complaint includes a diagram from an Instacart technical blog describing its logistics as a "traveling salesman problem" where a shopper goes to a store first and then delivers to multiple customers (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’594 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
after receiving the first acquisition request, calculating which of the plurality of delivery agents could most efficiently carry out the first acquisition request using the at least one remote server... Instacart’s servers employ a "fulfillment engine" to decide what orders each shopper should fulfill and to assign and route shoppers. ¶69, 98 col. 4:50-60
with the calculation being based, at least in part, on a location having the first set one or more goods, a current location of the delivery agent as determined utilizing the global positioning device, and the delivery site The fulfillment engine allegedly uses shopper GPS location data (updated every 10 seconds), the store location, and the customer’s delivery address to assign and route shoppers. ¶92, 93, 98 col. 5:2-10
deploying one of the plurality of delivery agents to the location having the first set of one or more goods based, at least in part, on the calculation Instacart deploys a shopper to a specific store location to fulfill a customer order based on the assignment from its fulfillment engine. ¶70, 94, 98 col. 5:11-14
electronically transferring an image of the first set of one or more goods to the first customer using the real-time video device Instacart shoppers use their smartphone cameras to send images of products to customers, for example, to confirm an item or propose a substitution. A screenshot in the complaint shows a shopper sending a photo of potential replacement kale products to a customer via chat (Compl. p. 45). ¶73, 95 col. 5:48-55
acquiring the first set of one or more goods via the delivery agent; and delivering the first set of one or more goods to a delivery site selected by the first customer Instacart shoppers purchase the approved items at the store and deliver them to the customer's designated location. ¶96, 97 col. 5:56-59

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges Instacart's "fulfillment engine" performs the claimed "calculating." A potential issue is whether this engine's algorithm, which may balance numerous factors like shopper ratings, availability, and multi-order batching, performs the specific "efficiency" calculation based on the three inputs recited in the claim (goods location, agent location, delivery site).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the "calculation" is the primary basis for "deploying" a specific agent, as required by the claim's structure?

’191 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of mobile delivery agent systems configured with at least a global positioning system providing location information to at least one server Instacart’s network of shoppers uses GPS-enabled smartphones that provide location data to Instacart's servers. ¶65, 68, 122 col. 10:1-3
a selectable widget for a third party vendor website configured to retrieve data... to generate a view of a pick-up site... including current locations of the mobile delivery agent systems The complaint alleges this is met by Instacart's website/application, which retrieves shopper location data from its servers and generates a status view for the customer, including a map showing the shopper’s location. The complaint provides a screenshot of the Instacart app showing an order status map with the shopper's real-time location (Compl. Ex. 11, p. 69). ¶74, 123 col. 10:4-15
a real-time video means for sending at least one image to the customer... and transmitting real-time data to the display for the customer to view the... agent's progress during performance of the acquisition request The system allows shoppers to send images of items via their smartphone cameras, and the application displays real-time data including the shopper's location on a map. ¶121, 123 col. 10:28-35
communication means for... establishing direct communication between the customer and the selected delivery agent Instacart’s application provides a chat function for direct, real-time communication between the customer and the assigned shopper during the shopping process. ¶121 col. 10:21-27

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Instacart application/website can be construed as a "selectable widget for a third party vendor website." Defendant may argue the claims require a software widget embedded on an actual retailer's website (e.g., Kroger.com), not a standalone platform that aggregates retailers.
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused system generate a "view of a pick-up site" as claimed, or does it primarily show the agent's location relative to the store and delivery address? The distinction may be legally significant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

From the ’594 Patent

  • The Term: "calculating which of the plurality of delivery agents could most efficiently carry out the first acquisition request" (Claim 13)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the ’594 Patent. The dispute may focus on whether Instacart's "fulfillment engine," which likely uses a complex, multi-factor algorithm, performs the specific "efficiency calculation" recited. Practitioners may focus on this term because Instacart could argue its system optimizes for factors other than, or in addition to, the claimed definition of "efficiency."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing efficiencies more generally, stating the system "preferably includes one or more processors for optimizing efficiencies of the system and calculating the most efficient use of delivery agents" (’594 Patent, col. 2:29-33). This may support a broader reading beyond just the three inputs listed in the claim.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself explicitly defines the basis for the calculation: "with the calculation being based, at least in part, on a location having the first set one or more goods, a current location of the delivery agent..., and the delivery site." Defendant may argue this constrains the meaning of "efficiently" to a logistical calculation based only on these spatial inputs.

From the ’191 Patent

  • The Term: "a selectable widget for a third party vendor website" (Claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be a primary point of contention for infringement of the ’191 Patent. The accused Instacart system is primarily a proprietary application and website, not a widget embedded on retailers' websites. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether "widget" can be construed broadly enough to read on the Instacart app itself.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer specific intrinsic evidence for a broader view. A plaintiff might argue that in the context of the patent, the Instacart app functions like a widget by creating a portal to multiple "third party vendors" (the retailers).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context that may support a narrower view, stating that "widgets are provided for other websites, such as classified ads or internet retailers, for ease in data transmission" (’191 Patent, col. 6:60-64). This language suggests the inventors contemplated a component placed on an external, third-party site, which aligns with the common technical meaning of a widget.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. The inducement theory is based on allegations that Instacart instructs and encourages its customers and shoppers to use the platform in an infringing manner through its user interface, help sections, and training materials (Compl. ¶¶105-106, 131-132, 157-158, 180-181).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that Plaintiff contacted Instacart on or about March 21, 2018, regarding "likely infringement" of the ’594 and ’191 Patents. Knowledge of the ’067 and ’835 Patents is alleged from at least the filing of the original complaint in August 2021 (Compl. ¶¶63, 81).

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

  • A core issue will be one of patent eligibility: Given that the complaint dedicates significant attention to the prosecution history and amendments made to overcome § 101 rejections, a central question will be whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under the Alice framework or are merely abstract ideas of coordinating a delivery service implemented with generic computer components.
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "selectable widget for a third party vendor website" from the ’191 Patent be construed to read on Instacart's standalone application, which aggregates retailers, or is it limited to a software component embedded on a retailer's own website? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for that patent.
  • A final evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does Instacart's proprietary "fulfillment engine," which manages a complex logistics network involving multi-order batching, perform the specific "efficiency calculation" based on the three inputs required by Claim 13 of the ’594 Patent, or does its operational reality present a fundamental mismatch with the claimed method?