DCT
2:25-cv-00064
QR Switch LLC v. Walmart Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: QR Switch, LLC (California)
- Defendant: QTR Corporation and QuikTrip Corporation (Oklahoma)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00064, E.D. Tex., 04/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants conduct business operations, have regular and established places of business, and commit acts of infringement at numerous gas station locations within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “QT Pay” mobile application and pay-at-the-pump systems infringe patents related to using a cellphone to scan a barcode on an electronic display, which then triggers an update to that same display.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns interactive systems where a user’s mobile device interacts with a public-facing electronic screen via a barcode, enabling a feedback loop that alters the screen’s content.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the patents-in-suit overcame rejections based on prior art, with the patentee distinguishing the inventions by arguing the prior art did not teach updating a barcode-displaying screen based on user inputs received via a website. The complaint also alleges that third parties have paid for a covenant related to the patents and that companies including Google, Meta, and IBM have cited the patents-in-suit as relevant prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-05-16 | Priority Date for ’632 and ’542 Patents |
| 2012-04-30 | Application filed for ’542 Patent |
| 2013-09-10 | ’632 Patent Issued |
| 2016-03-22 | ’542 Patent Issued |
| 2024-10-04 | News article published describing the accused QT Pay app |
| 2025-04-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,532,632 - "Cellphone Changing an Electronic Display that Contains a Barcode" (Issued Sep. 10, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a state of the art where 2D barcodes (like QR codes) were typically static, such as being printed on a poster. A user could scan the code with a cellphone to visit a URL, but the interaction was one-way—from the static display to the user's device. This limited the interactivity of the display itself ('542 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a closed-loop, interactive system. A user scans a barcode on an electronic screen with a cellphone, which directs the phone to a website. The user interacts with the website, and this interaction then causes a controller to update the image on the original electronic screen ('632 Patent, Abstract; '542 Patent, Fig. 1). This creates a dynamic feedback loop where the user's actions can change the public display.
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for interactive experiences with public displays using the standard hardware of a camera-equipped smartphone, without requiring specialized transceivers (like Bluetooth or NFC) at the display, thereby reducing hardware and maintenance costs ('542 Patent, col. 4:8-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 (Compl. ¶42).
- Key elements of Claim 14 include:
- providing a monitor for displaying images from a website and one or more barcodes from a controller.
- providing an electronic computing device with Internet access.
- scanning the barcode on the monitor with the computing device.
- decoding the barcode to a URL.
- accessing a website via the URL.
- sending inputs from the computing device to the website.
- updating, by the controller, the images and/or barcodes on the monitor according to the user's inputs.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 15-22 (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Patent No. 9,294,542 - "Systems and Methods for Changing an Electronic Display that Contains a Barcode" (Issued Mar. 22, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’542 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’632 Patent: the limitations of static barcodes and the high cost and complexity of enabling bidirectional communication (e.g., via Bluetooth) between a mobile device and a public electronic display ('542 Patent, col. 3:45-54).
- The Patented Solution: The ’542 Patent claims a similar interactive method, focusing on the system's architecture. The solution involves a user device that is "distinct from the controller" of the display. The user device scans a barcode, connects to a website, and sends inputs. The website then communicates with the controller, which in turn updates the display "corresponding to inputs the website receives." ('542 Patent, col. 8:59-9:13). This architecture emphasizes the "unidirectional" nature of the interaction between the cellphone and the screen itself, where all return communication is routed through the website and controller ('542 Patent, col. 3:55-64).
- Technical Importance: By creating a system where the display screen does not need a receiver to communicate directly with the cellphone, the invention aims to reduce the screen's cost, complexity, and vulnerability to damage, making it suitable for outdoor or public deployment ('542 Patent, col. 4:8-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶42).
- Key elements of Claim 13 include:
- providing a controller adapted to retrieve images from a website.
- providing a monitor for displaying images and barcodes from the controller.
- wherein the barcode is configured to be scanned and decoded by a device "distinct from the controller."
- wherein the barcode corresponds to a website to be accessed.
- wherein the website is configured to receive inputs from the device.
- wherein the controller is configured to update the images on the monitor "corresponding to inputs the website receives from the electronic computing device."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 14-19 (Compl. ¶40).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' pay-at-the-pump systems that utilize the "QT Pay" feature within the QuikTrip mobile application ("QT app") (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The system allows customers to pay for fuel using their smartphones. A customer uses the QT app to scan a QR code displayed on the gas pump's electronic monitor (Compl. ¶3, ¶44). The app processes the scan, accesses a website, and sends payment information (Compl. ¶45). After the transaction is authorized via the website, the gas pump's monitor updates its display to instruct the user to begin fueling (Compl. ¶46). The complaint includes a photograph of the QuikTrip pump screen displaying a QR code with the instruction "Scan for QT Pay" (Compl. p. 19). The system is marketed as providing convenience and fuel discounts to customers (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’632 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a monitor for displaying images from a website and one or more barcodes... | Defendants provide monitors on their gasoline pumps that display images and a QR code for payment. | ¶53 | col. 7:46-52 |
| providing an electronic computing device having an Internet access; | Defendants design, develop, and distribute the QT app for customers' smartphones, which are electronic computing devices with internet access. | ¶54 | col. 7:53-54 |
| scanning the barcode provided on the monitor with the electronic computing device; | The QT app is used to scan the QR code displayed on the pump's monitor using the smartphone's camera. A screenshot from the QT app shows the scanning interface in action (Compl. p. 20). | ¶44, ¶52 | col. 7:55-56 |
| decoding the scanned barcode with a decoding software on the electronic computing device; | The QT app includes software that decodes the QR code into a URL. | ¶44, ¶52 | col. 7:57-58 |
| accessing a website according to the URL decoded from the barcode; | After decoding, the QT app accesses a website associated with the URL to process the payment. | ¶45, ¶52 | col. 7:59-60 |
| sending inputs, by the user, from the electronic computing device to the website; and | The QT app sends payment information and other data as inputs to the website to authorize the transaction. | ¶45, ¶52 | col. 8:32-35 |
| updating, by the controller, the images and/or the one or more barcodes on the monitor according to inputs by the user. | After the website receives the inputs and authorizes payment, a controller at the pump updates the monitor's screen from "Scan for QT Pay" to "Please Remove Nozzle." Photographs in the complaint illustrate this change in the display (Compl. p. 21). | ¶46, ¶57 | col. 8:36-39 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Question: A potential question is whether Defendants "provide" the electronic computing device (the customer's smartphone) as required by the claim, or merely provide software for it. The complaint alleges Defendants provide the device by designing the app for specific hardware, distributing it on app stores, and controlling its use through terms of service (Compl. ¶54-¶56).
- Technical Question: What evidence will show that the screen update occurs "according to inputs by the user"? The dispute may focus on the required nexus between the user's specific input (e.g., payment data) and the resulting screen change (e.g., "Please Remove Nozzle").
’542 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a controller adapted to retrieve images from a website; | Defendants' system includes a controller at the gas pump that retrieves images to be displayed on the monitor. | ¶43 | col. 8:59-9:1 |
| providing a monitor for displaying the images from the website and one or more barcodes... | Defendants' gas pumps include a monitor that displays images and a QR code received from the controller. | ¶43 | col. 9:2-5 |
| wherein the... barcodes... are configured to be scanned and decoded by a decoding software associated with an electronic computing device... distinct from the controller, | The QR code on the pump monitor is scanned by the customer's smartphone running the QT app, which is a device distinct from the pump's controller. | ¶44 | col. 9:6-9 |
| the... barcodes correspond to a website to be accessed via the decoded URL, | The decoded QR code contains a URL that directs the QT app to a specific website for transaction processing. | ¶45 | col. 9:10-11 |
| the website is configured to receive inputs from the electronic computing device, and | The website is configured to receive payment authorization inputs from the user's smartphone via the QT app. | ¶45 | col. 9:12-13 |
| the controller is configured to update the images on the monitor corresponding to inputs the website receives... | The pump's controller updates the monitor display (e.g., to "Please Remove Nozzle") after the website receives and processes the payment inputs from the user's device. | ¶46 | col. 9:14-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Question: How will the term "corresponding to" be interpreted? The court will need to determine if the change in the pump's display (an instruction to fuel) sufficiently "corresponds to" the inputs received by the website (payment information) to meet this limitation.
- Technical Question: What discovery will be needed to establish the specific architecture of Defendants' system, particularly the communication flow from the website to the pump's controller, to prove the controller updates the monitor "corresponding to inputs the website receives"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "updating... according to inputs by the user" ('632 Patent, Claim 14) and "update the images on the monitor corresponding to inputs the website receives" ('542 Patent, Claim 13).
- Context and Importance: The causal link between the user's action on their phone and the change on the pump's screen is the core of the invention. The definition of "according to" and "corresponding to" will be critical. A narrow definition might require the new image to reflect the substance of the user's input, while a broader definition might only require the update to be triggered by the receipt of an input. Practitioners may focus on these terms because they define the required level of interactivity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a simple embodiment where the screen just increments a visitor counter, suggesting any change triggered by a user's website visit could suffice ('632 Patent, col. 3:17-24). This may support a broader reading where the update is simply caused by the input.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more detailed embodiment where a user selects a content category (e.g., "business") by scanning a specific barcode, and the main image changes to reflect that choice, with the "business" label becoming bold ('542 Patent, col. 5:35-46). This may support a narrower reading where the update must logically relate to the specific content of the user's input.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by asserting that Defendants instruct customers on how to use the infringing system. It cites Defendants' website, which provides a "How to Join" guide and FAQ explaining how to "scan the QR Code shown on the pump screen using the QT Pay scanner in your QT mobile app" (Compl. ¶23, ¶60, ¶72). The complaint also alleges Defendants provide a component (the QT app) especially made for use in the infringing method, which constitutes a material part of the invention and is not a staple article of commerce, supporting a claim for contributory infringement (Compl. ¶61, ¶73).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after having notice of the patents, at least as of the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶64, ¶76).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute centers on whether a modern QR-code-based payment system falls within the scope of patents describing a novel method for interactive displays from the early 2010s. The outcome may depend on the answers to several key questions:
- A central issue will be one of causation and scope: Can the phrases "according to" and "corresponding to" be interpreted broadly enough to cover a system where a payment input on a phone triggers a pre-programmed "authorization successful" message on a pump screen, or does the claim require a more direct and substantive link between the input and the updated image?
- A key question of divided infringement: For these method claims, does Plaintiff have sufficient facts to prove that Defendant "provides" the user's smartphone or otherwise directs or controls the customer's actions (scanning, decoding, sending inputs) to such an extent that all steps of the claimed method can be attributed to a single actor, Defendant?
- An underlying evidentiary question will be what the technical evidence reveals about the accused system's architecture. Specifically, does the communication flow from the user's phone to QuikTrip's website, and then separately to the pump's controller to trigger the screen update, align with the specific system configuration claimed in the patents?