DCT
4:25-cv-00348
Ethor IP Corp v. GoTo Concept LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ethor IP Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Goto Concept, LLC (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tucker Ellis LLP; Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00348, E.D. Mo., 03/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant conducts business, has committed acts of infringement, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online liquor ordering platform infringes a patent related to the integration of diverse, non-compatible point-of-sale systems into a unified e-commerce architecture.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of creating a single online storefront that can aggregate and manage inventory and orders from multiple retailers who use different, otherwise incompatible, point-of-sale (POS) software.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in June 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in reviewing the application that issued as the patent-in-suit, found that the invention "reflect[s] a technology improvement of integrating diverse systems." The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent in June 2024, approximately nine months before filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-08-27 | '363 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-06-XX | PTAB decision on application for '363 Patent |
| 2019-10-29 | '363 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-06-19 | Alleged pre-suit notice to Defendant |
| 2025-03-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,460,363 - System, Method and Computer Program for Integrating Diverse Point of Sale Systems
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty faced by retailers, such as franchises, that use multiple different POS systems across their locations. This technological fragmentation prevents them from creating a unified online ordering system, as the various systems cannot "talk" to each other to share data like inventory and pricing, leading to inefficient, disorganized data management ('363 Patent, col. 1:12-28; Compl. ¶¶13-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized architecture to solve this problem. The system uses software components called "point of sale agents" that are linked to each of the diverse POS systems. These agents communicate with a central "order manager" and are responsible for "mapping" the incompatible data from each POS system to a "common data model." This standardized model allows the central system to manage orders, promotions, and data from all connected retailers in an integrated fashion ('363 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-44). The overall architecture is depicted in Figure 1 of the patent ('363 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provides a way to aggregate data from disparate retail systems for centralized online access and e-commerce without requiring the development of numerous, one-off custom integrations (Compl. ¶¶14, 25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 9 (a method) (Compl. ¶¶27, 56).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A first computer processor configured to communicate with a plurality of diverse POS systems using a "point of sale agent."
- A second computer processor, linked to the first, configured to operate an "order manager."
- A memory storage unit with a POS database that provides a "common data model" (including fields for a POS system identifier, pricing, and promotions) recognizable by the order manager.
- The point of sale agent receives non-compatible data from the diverse POS systems and is configured to map that data to the common data model.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 10, and 11, and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶56).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Goto Concept Accused Products" include the GotoLiquorStore website and its mobile applications, as well as a specialized "Store App" for retailers (Compl. ¶¶41, 48).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentality is an online platform that allows consumers to order alcoholic beverages from numerous local retailers, who may use different POS systems (Compl. ¶¶43, 57). The platform integrates with various third-party POS systems (e.g., Clover, LiquorPOS) to "pull inventory" and aggregate product offerings from otherwise separate stores into a unified online marketplace (Compl. ¶¶45, 57). A screenshot from the platform's website displays logos of numerous integrated POS systems. (Compl. p. 14). The platform provides a retailer-facing "Store App" that allows store owners to manage orders and products originating from the GotoLiquorStore marketplace (Compl. ¶48).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 1 of the ’363 Patent as follows:
10,460,363 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first computer processor in communication with the plurality of diverse point of sale (POS) systems... the first computer processor configured to communicate with each of the plurality of diverse point of sale systems using a point of sale agent; | The GotoLiquorStore platform includes a first computer processor that communicates with diverse POS systems (such as Clover-branded and LiquorPOS-branded systems) via an "agent" that facilitates the communication. | ¶¶57-58 | col. 4:26-30 |
| a second computer processor linked to the first computer processor, the second computer processor configured to operate an order manager; | The platform includes a second computer processor, linked to the first, that is configured to execute instructions comprising a "manager that facilitates the processor taking orders." | ¶¶59-60 | col. 4:26-30 |
| a memory storage unit for storing a point-of-sale database, wherein the point of sale database provides a common data model configured to be recognized by the order manager... | The platform includes a memory storage unit storing a POS database. This database provides a common data model that standardizes product data (e.g., category, description, price) to be recognized by the order manager. A screenshot shows product details for Jack Daniel's whiskey standardized across multiple different retailers. | ¶¶61-62, p. 16 | col. 6:3-9 |
| the common data model including fields corresponding to at least one of a point of sale system identifier, pricing, and promotions, | The common data model allegedly includes fields for pricing and promotions. A screenshot shows a shopping cart aggregating items with different prices from different stores, identified as "Quick Treat Liquor," "Craft Brews," and "Allen Liquor 4 U." | ¶65, p. 17 | col. 11:1-4 |
| wherein the point of sale agent receives the non-compatible point of sale data from each of the plurality of diverse point of sale systems and the order manager, the point of sale agent further configured to map the point of sale data to the common data model. | The platform's point-of-sale agent allegedly receives non-compatible data from the diverse POS systems and is configured to map that data to the common data model. | ¶66 | col. 2:41-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "first computer processor" and a "second computer processor." A question for the court may be whether the accused cloud-based architecture, which may use distributed computing resources, contains two distinct, "linked" processors as recited, or if this claim language fails to read on a more integrated software environment. The complaint's assertion that the processors are linked "at least because the absence of such linking would preclude... functionality" may be scrutinized (Compl. ¶59).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on the accused platform's integration software qualifying as a "point of sale agent" that "maps" data. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused software performs the specific mapping function described in the patent, as opposed to acting as a more conventional API that simply transmits data without transforming it into a "common data model."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "point of sale agent"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological lynchpin of the asserted claims. Its construction will be critical, as the dispute may center on whether Defendant's integration software (e.g., API connectors) meets the definition of an "agent" that actively "maps" data as the patent describes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the agents "may be provided by one or more centrally located or distributed computers," suggesting they can be purely software components within a cloud environment and not necessarily distinct local installations ('363 Patent, col. 6:28-32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also notes that, "Optionally, one or more of the point of sale agents (1) may be provided on site at the business location," and Figure 1 depicts the agents as separate from the central system and co-located with the POS systems. This could support a narrower construction requiring a more architecturally distinct component ('363 Patent, col. 6:33-36).
The Term: "common data model"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine the required level of data structure and standardization. The case may turn on whether simply normalizing disparate data for presentation in a unified user interface is sufficient to constitute a "common data model."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the model's function as enabling data from diverse systems to "conform to a single common data encapsulation that can be recognized by the order manager," which could be interpreted broadly to cover any format that the central system can parse ('363 Patent, col. 6:5-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself requires the model to include "fields corresponding to at least one of a point of sale system identifier, pricing, and promotions" ('363 Patent, col. 11:1-4). This language could support a narrower definition requiring a specific, structured schema rather than just a common display format.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Goto Concept encourages its retail customers to infringe by providing "instructions and customer support" and "how-to guides" that direct the use of the accused platform in a manner that allegedly practices the patented methods (Compl. ¶68). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused products are "specially made and adapted" to infringe and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶70-72).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness allegations are based on alleged knowledge of the ’363 Patent as of "at least as early as June 19, 2024," the date Plaintiff allegedly provided notice to Defendant. The claim for willfulness appears to be based on Defendant's continued alleged infringement after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶¶68-69).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused platform's distributed, cloud-based software architecture map onto the patent's claim structure of a "first computer processor" linked to a "second computer processor," or is there a fundamental disconnect between the claim's language and the accused system's design?
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "point of sale agent," as described in the patent, be construed to cover the API-based integration methods used by the accused platform, and does the platform's aggregation of product data for display in a unified cart constitute the "common data model" required by the claims?
- A key legal dynamic will be the impact of the prosecution history: the parties will likely dispute the significance of the PTAB's pre-issuance finding that the invention represented a "technological improvement." Plaintiff may leverage this to argue non-obviousness, while Defendant will likely seek to distinguish the art considered by the PTAB or challenge the applicability of its findings to the infringement analysis.