Payvox LLC v. Cardfree Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Payvox LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: CardFree Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00038, D. Del., 01/14/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to initiating commercial transactions by wirelessly reading information from mass media advertisements.
• Technical Context: The technology enables consumers to use a mobile device to interact with a physical or broadcast advertisement (e.g., via RFID) to automatically request information or purchase a product over a network, streamlining the process from ad perception to transaction.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a long chain of applications, with the complaint noting an ultimate claim to a provisional application filed in 2004. This early priority date may be significant for assessing prior art.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-03-12	U.S. Patent No. 10,762,555 Priority Date
2017-10-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,762,555 Application Filing Date
2020-09-01	U.S. Patent No. 10,762,555 Issue Date
2026-01-14	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,762,555 - *Systems and methods for automated mass media commerce*

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,762,555, issued September 1, 2020 (’555 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that traditional advertisements in mass media (magazines, billboards, etc.) require significant consumer effort to act upon, such as manually dialing a phone number or typing a URL, which often leads to consumers losing interest and abandoning the potential purchase (ʼ555 Patent, col. 1:39-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a wireless transmitter, such as a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, is embedded within a mass media publication and associated with an advertisement (ʼ555 Patent, col. 3:52-4:11). A consumer can use a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone) equipped with a reader to scan the tag, which automatically captures information identifying the vendor or product and initiates a request over a network to a vendor's system to obtain more information or complete a purchase (ʼ555 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between physical advertising and e-commerce by creating a nearly instantaneous, low-friction path from consumer interest to commercial transaction (ʼ555 Patent, col. 1:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶11, p. 3). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Transmitting a wireless identification signal from a transmitter associated with a human-perceptible advertisement for a service.
  • The signal is transmitted to a mobile ordering device to initiate an electronic transaction request.
  • Receiving the electronic transaction request at a commerce data system (including a server) via a wireless network.
  • Generating a response at the commerce data system.
  • Sending the response back to the mobile ordering device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '555 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶13-14). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint’s infringement theory is conclusory, stating that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by practicing the technology of the ’555 Patent and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '555 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges infringement through Defendant's acts of "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products, as well as through internal testing by its employees (Compl. ¶11-12). No specific facts are alleged to connect the functionality of any CardFree Inc. product to the specific limitations of any asserted claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual: what is the specific architecture and functionality of the accused "Exemplary Defendant Products"? Without this information, which the complaint omits, no meaningful infringement analysis is possible.
• Scope Questions: Assuming the accused products are identified, a key dispute may concern the scope of "transmitter for identification by radio frequency" (ʼ555 Patent, cl. 1). The patent specification heavily emphasizes RFID technology (ʼ555 Patent, col. 4:1-17). The case may turn on whether this term can be construed to cover other wireless technologies, such as NFC, QR codes (if linked to a radio transmission), or Bluetooth, that may be used in modern mobile commerce systems.
• Technical Questions: A potential technical question is whether the accused system includes a "commerce data system including a server" that performs the claimed functions of receiving a request, generating a response, and sending it back to the mobile device in the manner required by the claims (ʼ555 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"human-perceptible advertisement"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the claimed method. Its construction is critical to determining what types of media fall within the patent's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification provides examples like magazines, billboards, and mailers, which are primarily physical media (ʼ555 Patent, col. 4:26-34). The dispute will likely center on whether the term can also read on digital or on-screen advertisements.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly limited to physical media. The use of "broadcast message such as a radio or television communication" as an example could support an interpretation that includes non-physical media (ʼ555 Patent, col. 4:29-30).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s consistent focus on embedding physical "tags" into "printed publication[s]" like magazines could support a narrower construction limited to tangible media (ʼ555 Patent, col. 3:1-10, Fig. 1).

"transmitter for identification by radio frequency"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core technology used to link the advertisement to the mobile device. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the technology used by the accused products falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "radio frequency," which is not limited to a single protocol. An argument could be made that this encompasses any technology using radio waves for identification, including NFC or Bluetooth.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently identifies "radio frequency identification technology (RFID)" as the preferred embodiment (ʼ555 Patent, col. 4:1-17). An opponent could argue that the claims, when read in light of the specification, should be limited to RFID or technologies with very similar characteristics, potentially excluding other protocols.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint contains no allegations of indirect infringement (induced or contributory). Count 1 is explicitly for "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege willful infringement or provide any facts related to Defendant's knowledge of the ’555 Patent prior to the lawsuit. However, the prayer for relief asks that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a remedy often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. p. 4, E.i).

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint's allegations, which rely entirely on an unfiled exhibit to identify the accused products and map them to the patent claims, satisfy the plausibility pleading standards. The case will depend on the disclosure of basic facts regarding the accused products' functionality.
• Claim Construction and Technological Scope: The central substantive question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transmitter for identification by radio frequency," which is described in the patent's 2004-era context with a heavy focus on RFID tags in print media, be construed to cover the modern mobile commerce technologies potentially used by CardFree Inc.?
• Economic Substance: Assuming infringement can be plausibly alleged, a key question will be one of causation and damages: what is the value, if any, contributed by the specific patented method of initiating a transaction (via a radio frequency signal from an ad) relative to the overall value of the accused mobile ordering and payment platform?