DCT
1:25-cv-00859
Market America Inc v. Mercato Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Market America, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mercato, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.; Vedder Price P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00859, D. Del., 07/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant Mercato, Inc. being a Delaware corporation and thus residing in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multi-vendor online grocery marketplace infringes a patent related to a centralized e-commerce system that provides a universal shopping cart and unified checkout process for multiple vendors.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture of e-commerce platforms, specifically systems that aggregate products from multiple independent sellers into a single, seamless shopping experience for the consumer.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent expired on December 6, 2020. Plaintiff seeks damages for infringement that occurred during the enforceable term of the patent, up to six years prior to the filing of the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-06-30 | '475 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/141,898) |
| 2007-03-27 | '475 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-01-01 | Alleged launch of Accused Platform (approximate) |
| 2020-12-06 | '475 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2025-07-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,197,475 - "Multi-vendor internet commerce system for e-commerce applications and methods therefor," issued March 27, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of early e-commerce where consumers shopping from multiple online vendors had to manage separate accounts, passwords, and shopping carts for each vendor website. This created inconvenience for consumers and a significant infrastructure investment barrier for vendors wanting to sell online. (’475 Patent, col. 2:5-18, 2:32-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized multi-vendor e-commerce system (MV-ICS) that provides shared resources to multiple, independent vendors. A central processing unit (MV-CPU) and shared datastore (MV-SD) manage a "universal, cross-vendor shopping cart," allowing a consumer to add items from different vendor websites into a single cart and complete a single checkout transaction without being redirected between sites. (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:38-57; Fig. 2). This architecture aims to relieve individual vendors from implementing their own cart and checkout facilities and to simplify the consumer experience. (’475 Patent, col. 3:51-57).
- Technical Importance: This centralized approach sought to lower the barrier to entry for e-commerce and create a more unified, "mall-like" online shopping experience, addressing the fragmentation common in the prior art. (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶21, ¶29).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1 (Method):
- Providing a centrally implemented multi-vendor central processing unit (MV-CPU) and shared datastore (MV-SD).
- Providing one website hosted on at least one server that sells products from a plurality of vendors, where the MV-SD includes a database with detailed product descriptions.
- Providing a universal shopping cart for a consumer to add items from different vendors.
- Consumers access the "one website" to buy products from multiple vendors without leaving it to view product information or to add items to the universal cart.
- The website has a checkout process where the consumer submits one order for products from multiple vendors.
- The MV-ICS has logic to take the one order and communicate purchase and shipping information to the respective vendors.
- The consumer submits a single combined order form with separate, distinct invoices showing the name and subtotals for each of the multiple vendors, who are separate distinct merchants.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, though none are specified.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Platform" is Defendant Mercato's online grocery marketplace, accessible at "https://www.mercato.com/". (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Platform is a multi-vendor e-commerce platform that connects consumers with independent grocery and specialty food vendors. (Compl. ¶15). Its allegedly infringing functionality includes enabling consumers to browse and purchase products from multiple vendors through a single centralized website, add items from different vendors into a "single universal shopping cart," and complete a "unified checkout process without being redirected to the websites of individuals vendors." (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint references printouts from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine as evidence of the platform's historic functionality during the life of the '475 Patent. (Compl. ¶13, Exhibit B). The complaint describes this evidence as showing the platform's functionality. (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include its referenced claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
'475 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of implementing a multi-vendor internet commerce system (MV-ICS) ... comprising: providing a centrally implemented multi-vendor central processing unit (MV-CPU) ... [and] a centrally implemented multi-vendor shared datastore (MV-SD) | The Accused Platform is alleged to be a "centrally implemented multi-vendor internet commerce system" operated via a single website and associated servers. (Compl. ¶30). | ¶30 | col. 21:15-25 |
| providing a universal shopping cart for a consumer to add items to purchase from different vendors | The Accused Platform allegedly "provides a universal shopping cart for consumers to add products from different vendors into one cart without leaving the Mercato website." (Compl. ¶30). | ¶17, ¶30 | col. 21:29-32 |
| wherein consumers access said one website to buy products from multiple vendors without leaving the one website ... and without entering another vendor website to add products from different vendors into the universal shopping cart | The Accused Platform allegedly "enables consumers to browse and purchase products from multiple independent vendors through a single centralized website" and "complete a unified checkout process without being redirected to the websites of individuals vendors." (Compl. ¶16-17). | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 21:32-38 |
| wherein said one website has a checkout process where the consumer submits one order containing products from multiple vendors added to said universal shopping cart | The Accused Platform allegedly "enables a unified checkout process where consumers submit a single order covering products from multiple independent vendors." (Compl. ¶30). The platform is alleged to facilitate transactions "by processing a single order that includes products from multiple distinct vendors." (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18, ¶30 | col. 21:39-43 |
| wherein the MV-ICS has logic that takes said one order and communicates information to the vendors about any items in the one order purchased from that vendor ... and any shipping information | Upon information and belief, Mercato is alleged to transmit "order details including delivery information, amounts, and products to the independent vendors." (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19, ¶30 | col. 21:43-49 |
| displaying to the consumer and submitting by the consumer a single combined order form with separate, distinct invoices showing the name of and subtotals for each of the multiple vendors | Mercato allegedly "provides an order confirmation page to consumers at checkout that itemizes the products and subtotals for each vendor included in an order." (Compl. ¶20). | ¶20, ¶30 | col. 21:57-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the term "one website." The infringement theory depends on construing Mercato's marketplace, which aggregates multiple third-party sellers, as the single "one website" contemplated by the claim. The defense may question whether a platform that presents distinct vendor storefronts, even if centrally hosted, meets the "one website" limitation as described in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on the specific implementation of the checkout and order confirmation process. A question for the court will be whether the Accused Platform's order confirmation page functions as the claimed "single combined order form with separate, distinct invoices" submitted by the consumer. Evidence will be needed to show how the order form is presented, what it contains, and how it is submitted by the user to complete the transaction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "universal shopping cart"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its definition determines whether the accused "single universal shopping cart" (Compl. ¶17) performs the same function in the same way as what is claimed. Practitioners may focus on whether the term implies a specific technical architecture (e.g., a persistent, centralized data structure) that must be present in the accused system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it functionally as a "cross-vendor shopping cart" capable of holding items selected by a consumer "from a plurality of vendor websites until those items are checked out." (’475 Patent, col. 5:57-62). This functional language may support a broader construction covering any single-cart-for-multiple-vendors implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly ties the universal cart to the centralized MV-SD, describing it as a "persistent storage structure" that is part of the "Multi-Vendor Shared Datastores (MV-SD) 212." (’475 Patent, col. 5:59-62). An argument could be made that the term requires this specific centralized datastore architecture, not merely a functionally equivalent front-end experience.
- The Term: "one website"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires that consumers access "one website" to perform all shopping activities without leaving it. The viability of the infringement claim rests on Mercato's platform being classified as this "one website."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself states the "one website sells products to the consumers from the plurality of vendors," which suggests a marketplace-style platform is contemplated. (’475 Patent, col. 21:25-27). The patent's goal of creating a seamless experience for the consumer across multiple vendors could support interpreting "one website" as any platform that provides a single, unified user interface and domain for the entire shopping journey.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts its invention with the prior art where a consumer interacts with multiple distinct "vendor website[s]." (’475 Patent, col. 1:28-31). A defendant may argue that if the accused platform presents what are functionally distinct vendor storefronts, it does not constitute the singular "one website" required by the claim, even if they share a common checkout process.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations to support indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct. However, the prayer for relief includes a request for treble damages and attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, which may suggest an intent to develop such claims during discovery. (Compl. p. 6(d)-(e)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "one website," as used in Claim 1, be construed to cover a modern online marketplace that aggregates and presents products from numerous distinct third-party merchants, or does the patent’s language require a more monolithic, centrally-branded portal?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What is the precise architecture and data flow of the Accused Platform's shopping cart and checkout process? The case will likely require a detailed comparison between the platform's back-end systems and the "centrally implemented" MV-CPU and MV-SD architecture described and claimed in the '475 Patent.
- A third question concerns damages for an expired patent: Given that the '475 patent has expired, the dispute is purely monetary. The analysis will focus on establishing the dates of any alleged infringement and calculating a reasonable royalty for the use of the technology during the patent's enforceable term.