DCT
2:25-cv-00065
QR Switch LLC v. QTR Corp
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-00065, E.D. Tex., 01/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants’ operation of numerous regular and established places of business (at least 43 gas stations) within the Eastern District of Texas where the accused systems are used.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pay-at-the-pump systems, which allow customers to initiate payment by scanning a QR code on the pump's screen with a smartphone, infringe patents related to interactive electronic displays.
- Technical Context: The technology involves systems where a user's mobile device interacts with a remote server after scanning a barcode on a dynamic screen, which in turn causes the content on that original screen to change.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution for both patents-in-suit, the patentee overcame rejections by arguing that the prior art did not teach key aspects of the claimed invention, such as a controller retrieving images from a website to update a barcode-displaying monitor based on user interaction. The complaint also alleges that third parties have paid for a covenant related to the patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-05-16 | Priority Date ('632 & '542 Patents) |
| 2013-09-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,532,632 Issued |
| 2016-03-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,294,542 Issued |
| 2025-01-22 | 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 September 10, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that prior art uses of 2D barcodes, such as QR codes, were typically on static media like a "poster or piece of paper," limiting their interactivity. (’632 Patent, col. 1:55-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an interactive system where a user scans a barcode on a dynamic electronic screen with a mobile device. The mobile device decodes a URL from the barcode, accesses a website, and sends user inputs. In response, a "controller" associated with the electronic screen receives instructions to "update" the images or barcodes displayed on that screen. (’632 Patent, col. 2:54-58; col. 8:46-49). This creates an interactive loop where a user's remote action causes a change on the public display.
- Technical Importance: This approach enables interactive public displays without requiring the display itself to have complex and costly two-way transceivers (like Bluetooth or NFC), instead leveraging the user's own internet-connected device. (’542 Patent, col. 4:8-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 14. (Compl. ¶35).
- Essential elements of claim 14 include:
- providing a monitor for displaying images from a website and barcodes received from a controller;
- providing an electronic computing device with Internet access;
- scanning the barcode on the monitor with the device;
- decoding the barcode to a URL;
- accessing a website using the URL;
- sending inputs from the user's device to the website; and
- updating, via the controller, the images and/or barcodes on the monitor according to the user's inputs.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 15-22 are also implicated. (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Patent No. 9,294,542 - "Systems and Methods for Changing an Electronic Display that Contains a Barcode," issued March 22, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the parent '632 Patent, the invention addresses the limitations of static, printed barcodes. (’542 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method and system where a controller retrieves images from a website for display on a monitor, including a barcode. A user's "distinct" electronic device scans the barcode, accesses the corresponding website, and provides input. The website then signals the controller to "update the images on the monitor" based on those inputs. (’542 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-44). The patent explains this creates a "unidirectional flow of information" from the screen to the cellphone, but the cellphone's interaction with the website completes an interactive loop that changes the screen. (’542 Patent, col. 3:37-53).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to increase user interaction with advertising or informational displays by allowing users to effect a change on the display, potentially increasing engagement. (’542 Patent, col. 5:6-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 13. (Compl. ¶38).
- Essential elements of claim 13 include:
- providing a controller adapted to retrieve images from a website;
- providing a monitor to display those images and one or more barcodes;
- wherein the barcode is configured to be scanned by an electronic computing device distinct from the controller;
- the website is configured to receive inputs from the device; and
- the controller is configured to update the images on the monitor corresponding to the inputs the website receives.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 14-19 are also implicated. (Compl. ¶40).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "pay-at-the-pump systems," which include the functionality of the "QT app" and its "QT Pay" feature used at QuikTrip gas stations. (Compl. ¶¶3, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
The system allows a customer to use their smartphone to scan a QR code displayed on a monitor integrated into a gasoline pump. (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges the QT app contains software to scan and decode the QR code, which contains a URL. (Compl. ¶44). After scanning, the app accesses the associated website and sends user data, such as payment information. (Compl. ¶45). Following this interaction, a controller allegedly updates the image on the pump's monitor to reflect the transaction's new status. (Compl. ¶46). The complaint includes a photograph of a QuikTrip pump monitor displaying a QR code for "QT Pay." (Compl. p. 19).
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 according to instructions received from a controller... | Defendants provide monitors at their gasoline pumps that display images and a QR code. (Compl. ¶43). A photograph in the complaint shows such a monitor. (Compl. p. 19). | ¶43 | col. 2:20-23 |
| providing an electronic computing device having an Internet access | This is the customer's smartphone running the QT app. (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 2:40-41 |
| scanning the barcode provided on the monitor with the electronic computing device | The user scans the QR code on the pump monitor using the QT app. (Compl. ¶44). A screenshot illustrates the app's scanning interface. (Compl. p. 20). | ¶44 | col. 2:40-41 |
| decoding the scanned barcode with a decoding software on the electronic computing device | The QT app allegedly includes software to decode the QR code. (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 2:41-43 |
| accessing a website according to the URL decoded from the barcode | The decoded URL directs the user's device to a website associated with the Defendants. (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 2:43-49 |
| sending inputs, by the user, from the electronic computing device to the website | The QT app is used to send payment information and other data to the website after scanning the code. (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 2:61-66 |
| updating, by the controller, the images and/or the one or more barcodes on the monitor according to inputs by the user | The pump's controller updates the monitor's display after receiving inputs from the user's device via the website. (Compl. ¶46). The complaint provides photographs showing the screen changing from displaying a QR code to a "Please Remove Nozzle" message. (Compl. p. 21). | ¶46 | col. 8:46-49 |
’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 provide a controller at the pump that has allegedly retrieved the images and barcode from a website. (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 2:7-10 |
| providing a monitor for displaying the images from the website and one or more barcodes... | Defendants provide monitors at their gasoline pumps that display images and a QR code. (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 2:5-7 |
| the one or more barcodes on the monitor are configured to be scanned and decoded by a decoding software... | The QR codes are configured to be scanned and decoded by the QT app on a smartphone. (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 1:29-32 |
| the electronic computing device is distinct from the controller | The customer's smartphone is a device distinct from the controller embedded in the gas pump. (Compl. ¶38). | ¶38 | col. 8:13-14 |
| the one or more barcodes correspond to a website to be accessed via the decoded URL | The QR code encodes a URL for a website used to process the transaction. (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 9:8-10 |
| the website is configured to receive inputs from the electronic computing device | The Defendants' website is configured to receive payment information and other data from the user's device via the QT app. (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 9:10-12 |
| the controller is configured to update the images on the monitor corresponding to inputs the website receives | The pump's controller updates the monitor's display after the website receives inputs from the user. (Compl. ¶46). The complaint's photographs show the screen changing state after the alleged user interaction. (Compl. p. 21). | ¶46 | col. 9:12-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patents describe updating display content in a context that includes advertising and entertainment (e.g., changing from "news" to "sports"). (Compl. ¶31, citing ’542 Patent at 5:19-34). A question may arise as to whether the claims, when read in light of the specification, cover a purely transactional state change (e.g., "Scan QR" to "Begin Fueling") as an "updat[e] to the images."
- Technical Questions: The claims require a specific information flow where a "controller" at the pump is configured to "retrieve images from a website" and "update" the monitor. A central question will be whether the accused pump controller actually retrieves new image data from the website upon user interaction, or if it merely switches between a set of locally stored images based on a simpler command signal from the central server. The complaint alleges the former, but the evidence for this specific backend mechanism is not detailed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "controller"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "controller" and its relationship to the "website" is fundamental. The claims require the controller to perform actions like retrieving and updating images based on signals originating from the website after a user's action. Whether the computer in the gas pump meets the claimed definition of a "controller" will be a central point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the controller "can be a computer, or can contain a computer, that sends various control commands to Screen 103" and may be "co-located with its Screen 103." (’542 Patent, col. 2:8-12; col. 2:66-col. 3:1). This could support a broad definition encompassing the pump's internal computer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also distinguishes the two, stating that the "Website 106... sends a signal to Controller 105," which then "makes a change in the image on Screen 103." (’542 Patent, col. 2:40-44). This suggests a more subordinate role for the controller, acting on commands from the distinct website, which may support a narrower construction.
The Term: "updating... the images... on the monitor" ('632 Claim 14) / "update the images on the monitor" ('542 Claim 13)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core interactive result of the claimed method. Its construction will determine whether a simple change in the transactional status of the screen qualifies as infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "update" could be argued to cover any change in the visual information presented on the screen. The complaint's visual evidence shows a distinct "before" and "after" state for the monitor. (Compl. p. 21).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary examples describe changing the substantive content being viewed, such as switching between categories like "news, sports, business, music" or playing different video clips. (’542 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:19-47). A party could argue that "updating the images" requires more than cycling through pre-defined transactional prompts and is limited to the richer, content-based changes described in the specification.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendants instruct their customers on how to perform the infringing method. (Compl. ¶53). It cites Defendants' website, which states, "Simply scan the QR Code shown on the pump screen using the QT Pay scanner in your QT mobile app... to activate the correct pump and authorize payment." (Compl. ¶53). The complaint includes a screenshot from the QT app with instructions to "Save 5c per gallon... by scanning the QR Code shown on the pump!" (Compl. p. 22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after having notice of the patents, with notice alleged to begin at least as of the service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶57, 69).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the term "updating the images," which is described in the patent specification primarily in the context of changing substantive advertising or entertainment content, be construed broadly enough to cover the purely transactional screen change from a "scan QR code" prompt to a "begin fueling" prompt in the accused system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused QuikTrip system function as claimed, specifically with the gas pump's local "controller" retrieving new image data from the "website" to update the screen, or does the system operate differently, for instance, by having the controller simply switch between pre-loaded images based on a state-change command from a central server? Proving this specific information flow will be critical for the plaintiff.