DCT
2:25-cv-01058
Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. Starbucks Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Starbucks Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01058, E.D. Tex., 10/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for conducting in-store electronic transactions infringe a patent related to using a barcode for personal identification to complete a purchase.
- Technical Context: The patent addresses the field of mobile and digital payments, specifically methods for using personal electronic devices to pay for goods at a physical point of sale.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities for its patents, but asserts that none of these licenses involved an admission of infringement or covered the production of a patented article that would trigger marking duties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-21 | ’689 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-03-08 | ’689 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,280,689 - "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Offline Commerce Transactions"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the high transaction costs that make conventional credit cards impractical for "micro payment" purchases (e.g., items costing five or ten cents) (’689 Patent, col. 1:24-30). It also notes that emerging technologies like RFID and NFC, while functional, require specialized readers that were not widely available at vendor sites at the time, limiting their adoption (’689 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a barcode, termed a "User ID Barcode," as a personal identifier for transactions. This barcode is generated from a unique user number (such as a cell phone or credit card number) and is prefixed with a "special character" to distinguish it from standard product barcodes (’689 Patent, col. 2:39-43). A user can display this barcode on their cell phone or have it printed on a card, and a cashier can scan it using a conventional barcode scanner already common at cash registers worldwide (’689 Patent, col. 2:49-51). The transaction is processed by a central "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM) that manages the user's pre-paid or post-paid account (’689 Patent, col. 3:26-31). Figure 1(b) illustrates the data flow from the barcode scanner at the cash register to the UVM server for transaction approval (’689 Patent, Fig. 1(b)).
- Technical Importance: The described method sought to enable widespread adoption of digital and mobile payments by leveraging the existing, ubiquitous infrastructure of barcode scanners at retail points of sale, thereby avoiding the cost and logistical hurdles of deploying new hardware like NFC readers (’689 Patent, col. 2:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶9).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Providing a personal code to a person.
- Converting the personal code into a barcode format to form a "User ID Barcode," which includes at least one special character to distinguish it from a product barcode.
- Storing the personal code in a User Vendor Management Server.
- Establishing a User Account in the server corresponding to the personal code.
- Depositing funds in the User Account to establish a credit limit.
- Conducting purchases by scanning product barcodes and the User ID Barcode at a vendor cash register.
- The vendor server detecting the User ID Barcode and forwarding it with the purchase price to the User Vendor Management Server.
- The User Vendor Management Server comparing the purchase price with the funds in the User Account and sending an approval signal if funds are available.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses "systems, products, and services that conducting offline transactions that use a barcode as a method of personal identification" (Compl. ¶9). No specific product name, such as a mobile application, is identified in the complaint.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that allow for conducting transactions using a barcode for identification (Compl. ¶9). The functionality centers on using a barcode to identify a user or their account to complete a purchase at a physical retail location. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused systems.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in an attached "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶10). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the narrative allegations.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’689 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a personal code to a person for their use to purchase goods | Defendant's systems are alleged to provide users with an account identifier for making purchases. | ¶9 | col. 18:32-34 |
| converting said personal code into barcode format to form a User ID Barcode, said User ID Barcode...including at least one special character to distinguish the barcode as a User ID Barcode from a product barcode | Defendant’s systems are alleged to generate a barcode for payment that serves as a personal identifier. | ¶9 | col. 18:35-39 |
| establishing a User Account in a User Vendor Management Server corresponding to said personal code | Defendant is alleged to operate a back-end server system that creates and manages user accounts. | ¶9 | col. 18:13-15 |
| depositing funds in said User Account to establish a credit limit | Defendant's systems are alleged to involve users loading funds into an account for future purchases. | ¶9 | col. 18:16-17 |
| conducting purchases at vendors...wherein each purchase includes scanning product barcodes...and said User ID Barcode...at the vendor cash register | The complaint alleges Defendant's customers use a barcode for identification to make purchases in Defendant's stores. | ¶9 | col. 18:18-24 |
| detecting the User ID Barcode at the vendor server and forwarding the ID Barcode and purchase price to said User Vendor Management Server | The complaint alleges Defendant operates servers that receive and process transaction data from its point-of-sale systems. | ¶9 | col. 18:25-28 |
| comparing the purchase price with the funds in said User Vendor Management Server to determine if there are available funds within the credit limit | Defendant’s systems are alleged to check a user's account balance before approving a transaction. | ¶9 | col. 18:29-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the barcode generated by the accused system qualifies as a "User ID Barcode" as claimed. Specifically, does it contain a "special character to distinguish the barcode...from a product barcode," or is it distinguished by other means not covered by the claim?
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the type of barcode used by the accused system (e.g., 1D barcode vs. 2D QR code). Analysis will depend on whether the technical implementation of the accused system's barcode generation and server-side processing maps onto the specific steps recited in claim 1.
- Claim Construction Questions: The interpretation of "offline electronic commerce transactions" may be disputed. Does the term simply mean a transaction in a physical store, or does it imply a system that can operate without a persistent internet connection, which could raise questions about how it reads on modern, cloud-based mobile payment applications?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "User ID Barcode...including at least one special character to distinguish the barcode as a User ID Barcode from a product barcode"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted claim, defining the specific mechanism by which the user's identifier is differentiated from the items being purchased. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused system's barcode contains an element that can be construed as a "special character" serving this distinguishing function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a "special character" as "?" but does not limit it to that symbol, stating it can be "a prefix or suffix or both" (’689 Patent, col. 6:9-11). This may support an argument that any non-product data embedded in the barcode for routing or identification purposes meets the "special character" limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent description of the special character as a way for the "Vendor Server" to distinguish the user barcode from a "product data barcode" (’689 Patent, col. 3:19-22; col. 10:15-18) suggests the character must serve this specific filtering function at that specific point in the system architecture. An accused system that uses a different method for distinguishing user identifiers (e.g., barcode format, or direct communication from the POS terminal) may be argued to fall outside this scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement, stating Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers)" on how to use its products and services to perform the allegedly infringing methods (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of the ’689 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). The complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. VI.e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the barcode used in Defendant's payment system contain a data element that functions as a "special character" for the specific purpose of distinguishing it from product barcodes at the vendor server, as required by claim 1?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the term "offline electronic commerce transactions" be construed? The case may turn on whether this term is interpreted broadly to mean any in-person retail transaction using electronic means, or more narrowly to imply specific technical characteristics related to network connectivity.
- A third question will be evidentiary: Given the high-level allegations, discovery will be required to determine if Defendant's back-end server architecture and transaction processing workflow perform the specific sequence of detecting, forwarding, comparing, and approving steps recited in the asserted claims.