Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC v. West Marine Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: West Marine, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-06818, N.D. Ill., 12/05/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant West Marine maintaining an established place of business in the district, specifically a retail store in Chicago, Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform infringes two patents related to systems and methods for aggregating product and customer data to provide targeted online product offerings.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns early e-commerce systems that moved beyond static online catalogs by dynamically generating customized product offerings based on data from multiple suppliers and individual user information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. Both asserted patents claim priority from the same application filed in 1999.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-06-30	Earliest Priority Date for ’846 and ’743 Patents
2013-03-12	U.S. Patent No. 8,396,743 Issues
2014-04-29	U.S. Patent No. 8,712,846 Issues
2022-12-05	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,712,846, "Sending Targeted Product Offerings Based on Personal Information," Issued April 29, 2014

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art e-commerce systems of the late 1990s as being mere electronic replacements for paper catalogs, burdened by the high costs and inflexibility of maintaining physical inventory. These systems lacked personalization and the ability to aggregate offerings from multiple sources dynamically (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18; ’846 Patent, col. 2:63-3:14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a centralized e-commerce system that receives and stores product data from a plurality of distributors and personal data from customers. This aggregated data is then used by a transaction processor to dynamically generate and send user-specific product offerings, creating customized electronic catalogs without requiring the merchant to hold inventory (’846 Patent, Abstract; ’846 Patent, col. 3:44-52). The system architecture, depicted in Figure 1, includes distinct modules for online shopping, order processing, and a catalog builder that draws from customer and product databases (’846 Patent, col. 3:55-4:10).
  • Technical Importance: The invention purports to improve e-commerce by enabling a single system to generate multiple, dynamic, user-specific catalogs, allowing for more competitive pricing and a wider selection of products than systems tied to a single-source inventory (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15; ’846 Patent, col. 5:61-6:16).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • receiving product data for a plurality of products from a plurality of distributors via a communications network;
    • receiving customer data from a plurality of customers, where the data includes location information derived from a customer's IP address;
    • generating, based at least in part on the customer data, user-specific product offerings from the plurality of products; and
    • sending, by a computer, automated messages containing the user-specific product offering to customers.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,396,743, "Sending Targeted Product Offerings Based on Personal Information," Issued March 12, 2013

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The ’743 Patent shares a specification with the ’846 Patent and addresses the same technical problems: the limitations of inventory-based e-commerce and the lack of personalized, multi-source product offerings in prior art systems (Compl. ¶11; ’743 Patent, col. 2:63-3:14).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that described in the ’846 Patent. It proposes a computerized system that integrates product data from multiple distributors and personal customer data to generate targeted offers (’743 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to select a distributor for an order based on criteria like price, availability, and shipping speed, thereby creating a more efficient and competitive marketplace (Compl. ¶17; ’743 Patent, col. 9:23-43).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more personalized online shopping experience by moving away from static, one-size-fits-all catalogs and toward dynamically generated, user-specific interfaces and pricing (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 are substantively identical to claim 1 of the ’846 Patent, including:
    • receiving product data from a plurality of distributors;
    • receiving customer data, including location information derived from a customer's IP address;
    • generating a user-specific product offering based on the customer location information; and
    • sending automated messages with the offering.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" but does not name a specific product, system, or service (Compl. ¶30). Based on the context of the allegations, the accused instrumentality is presumably Defendant West Marine's e-commerce website and underlying transaction processing systems.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused West Marine systems. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the Defendant's systems perform the functions recited in the patent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 35). The complaint asserts that such e-commerce systems provide significant commercial value by enhancing automation and user-specific customization (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4 but does not attach them (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 35). The complaint itself contains no specific mapping of accused product features to claim elements. It alleges that West Marine infringes by "making, using, providing, and/or causing to be used the Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 35). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how any specific feature of the West Marine e-commerce platform allegedly meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "user-specific product offering" (asserted in claim 1 of both patents)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central output of the claimed method. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system generates offerings that are sufficiently "user-specific" to meet the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claims explicitly tie the "user-specific" nature of the offering to "location information derived from an IP address" (’846 Patent, col. 12:40-44).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is open-ended, suggesting that any offering generated "at least in part from the personal information concerning a customer location" could qualify, potentially including geographically targeted advertisements or pricing (’743 Patent, col. 12:43-48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more detailed examples, describing the generation of entirely different "catalogs with different visual presentations" and pricing structures for different user types, such as a student versus a business person (’846 Patent, col. 5:61-6:16). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more substantial level of customization than simple geographic targeting.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. However, the prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief, C).

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "user-specific product offering," as used in the patents, be met by standard e-commerce functionalities like geo-targeted pricing or advertising, or does the patent’s specification require a more comprehensive, catalog-level customization for different user profiles?

2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key question for the litigation will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused West Marine e-commerce platform actually performs the claimed steps. This includes showing that it receives product data from a "plurality of distributors" (as that term is construed) and uses customer "location information derived from an IP address" to "generate" a specific offering, as opposed to merely displaying pre-configured information.

3. Patent Eligibility: Given the subject matter relates to processing business transactions over the internet, a central question may be whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The dispute would focus on whether the claims recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or merely automate a fundamental economic practice using generic computer components, an issue the complaint attempts to preemptively address (Compl. ¶¶ 22-26).