Payvox LLC v. Abacus Business Computer LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Payvox LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Abacus Business Computer LLC (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06205, E.D.N.Y., 11/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to systems for initiating commercial transactions by using a mobile device to interact with wireless signals embedded in mass media advertisements.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses bridging the gap between physical advertising (e.g., magazines, billboards) and e-commerce by enabling consumers to act on an advertisement immediately using a portable wireless device.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2004, indicating a long development and prosecution history for the underlying technology. The complaint itself does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-03-12	’555 Patent Priority Date
2017-10-05	’555 Patent Application Date
2020-09-01	’555 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-06	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, “Systems and methods for automated mass media commerce,” issued September 1, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty and effort required for a consumer to act on a traditional advertisement in mass media, such as remembering a phone number or URL, which can lead to lost interest and potential sales for the vendor (’555 Patent, col. 1:31-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes embedding a wireless transmitter, such as a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, into a physical advertisement like a magazine or billboard. A consumer can use a portable device (e.g., a smart phone) to read a signal from the transmitter, which contains information about the advertised product or vendor. The device can then use this information to automatically generate and send a request over a network to a vendor’s system to purchase the product or receive more information, thereby streamlining the process from ad perception to commercial action (’555 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-67). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates this core concept, showing a consumer using a wireless phone to interact with a signal from a billboard advertisement.
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to create a "point of advertising wireless commerce system" that enables immediate, low-friction transactions at the moment a consumer is engaged by an advertisement (’555 Patent, col. 1:23-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead referencing "Exemplary '555 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for taking a wireless request based on a human-perceptible advertisement for a service offered by a vendor.
  • The advertisement is associated with a transmitter (for identification by radio frequency) configured to transmit a wireless identification signal.
  • Transmitting the signal from the transmitter to a "mobile ordering device."
  • The mobile ordering device initiating an electronic transaction request and sending it over a wireless network.
  • A "commerce data system" with a server receiving the request from the mobile device.
  • The commerce data system generating a response containing information related to the service.
  • Sending the response back to the mobile ordering device via the wireless network.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2" which is incorporated by reference but was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '555 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing, instead alleging summarily that the charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶13-14). Without the charts or a description of the accused products, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claim language, several points of contention may arise once an accused product is identified.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claim term "transmitter for identification by radio frequency," which the specification primarily describes as RFID technology, can be construed to read on other modern wireless communication methods such as NFC, Bluetooth beacons, or even camera-based systems for reading QR codes (’555 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a specific sequence where a "mobile ordering device" initiates and transmits a request to a "commerce data system" (’555 Patent, col. 7:30-44). A key technical question will be whether the architecture of an accused system matches this claimed client-server interaction, or if it operates in a fundamentally different manner (e.g., through a web browser redirect that does not involve the mobile device itself generating the claimed "electronic transaction request").

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mobile ordering device"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine the universe of accused consumer electronics. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to devices with specialized hardware or covers any modern smart device.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a list of examples including a "laptop, hand held or palm computer, a personal data assistant (PDA) or other programmable input/output processing device such as a smart mobile phone, wireless phone or cellular telephone" (’555 Patent, col. 3:37-40). This language may support a broad construction covering a wide range of portable computing devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the device to a "reader mechanism" for determining information from the advertisement, with a focus on RFID readers (’555 Patent, col. 3:61-64; col. 6:1-10). A defendant may argue this implies a requirement for specialized hardware beyond a standard camera or general-purpose radio.

• The Term: "commerce data system"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required back-end infrastructure. The construction will determine whether a simple web server is sufficient for infringement or if a more complex, specialized system is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the system as potentially being a "vendor system" or a separate "commerce data organization system," suggesting architectural flexibility (’555 Patent, col. 4:45-51).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details functions of this system, including preserving and organizing transaction details, tracking buying habits, maintaining account information, and managing shipping addresses (’555 Patent, col. 5:16-30). This may support an argument that the term requires a system capable of performing these specific commerce-management functions, rather than merely responding to a data request.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege any facts regarding Defendant's knowledge of the ’555 Patent prior to or after the suit was filed. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" but provides no factual basis to support such a finding (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary issue at this stage is the complaint's lack of factual detail. A threshold question for the case is whether the Plaintiff can substantiate its conclusory infringement allegations by identifying specific accused products and providing evidence of how their technical operation maps to the limitations of the patent's claims.
• Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be one of technological scope: can the term "transmitter for identification by radio frequency," which is rooted in the patent’s 2004 priority date and described using RFID examples, be construed to cover the modern wireless communication protocols (e.g., NFC, Bluetooth, QR codes) likely used in contemporary products?
• Architectural Congruence: A key technical question will be one of system architecture: assuming an accused product is identified, does its end-to-end system operate according to the specific client-server model recited in the claims—where the "mobile ordering device" initiates a request to a "commerce data system"—or does it function via a different technical pathway that may fall outside the claim scope?