Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00016, E.D. Tex., 01/08/2026
• 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, barcode-based customer transactions infringe a patent related to offline commerce transaction processing.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using barcode scanners, which are ubiquitous at retail points of sale, to identify customers and process payments via a centralized server, thereby enabling electronic payments for low-cost "micro-payment" items without requiring specialized hardware like NFC readers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also discloses that Plaintiff or its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses and argues that these do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because the licenses did not involve an admission of infringement or authorize the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-09-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,280,689 Priority Date
2016-03-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,280,689 Issues
2026-01-08	Complaint Filed

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 processing costs of conventional credit card transactions, which make them impractical for low-value "micro payment" purchases. It also notes that alternative electronic payment systems, such as those using RFID or NFC technology, require vendors to install specialized, non-ubiquitous reader hardware, limiting their adoption. (’689 Patent, col. 1:23-30, 2:3-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses a unique personal identifier (e.g., a cell phone number) converted into a “User ID Barcode.” This barcode is distinguished from product barcodes by a special prefix character. A customer can present this barcode (e.g., on their phone screen) to be scanned by a standard barcode reader at a vendor’s cash register. The transaction is then processed by a central “User Vendor Management Server” (UVM) that manages the user’s pre-funded or credit-based account. (’689 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-51).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to leverage the existing, near-universal infrastructure of barcode scanners at retail checkouts to facilitate electronic payments, thereby bypassing the cost and hardware barriers associated with both traditional credit card networks and emerging NFC-based systems. (’689 Patent, col. 2:47-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶8).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Providing a personal code to a user.
  • Converting the code into a “User ID Barcode” that includes a special character to distinguish it from product barcodes.
  • Storing the code in a “User Vendor Management Server” and establishing a corresponding user account.
  • Depositing funds into the user account to establish a credit limit.
  • At a vendor, scanning product barcodes and the User ID Barcode.
  • Transmitting the product and user barcode information to a vendor server.
  • At the vendor server, detecting the User ID Barcode and forwarding it with the purchase price to the User Vendor Management Server.
  • At the User Vendor Management Server, comparing the purchase price with the funds in the user account and, if sufficient, sending an approval signal back to the vendor server.
  • Forwarding the approval signal to the vendor cash register.
• The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶10, ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly accuses Defendant’s "systems, products, and services that conducting offline transactions that use a barcode as a method of personal identification" (Compl. ¶8). It does not name a specific application, loyalty program, or payment system.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities are systems "Defendant maintains, operates, and administers" for barcode-based transactions (Compl. ¶8). No specific technical details regarding the functionality or architecture of Chipotle's systems are provided. The complaint refers to a claim chart in "Exhibit B" for further support, but this exhibit was not included with the complaint document (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶9). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant’s systems for processing customer transactions via a scanned barcode perform all the steps of at least claim 1 of the ’689 Patent (Compl. ¶8). A detailed, element-by-element analysis is not possible without the referenced claim chart or more detailed allegations in the complaint body.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general nature of retail payment systems, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:
  • Scope Question (System Architecture): The claims recite a specific data flow from a cash register to a "vendor server" and then to a separate "User Vendor Management Server" (’689 Patent, cl. 1(g)-(h)). A central question may be whether Chipotle’s likely distributed, cloud-based payment and loyalty infrastructure can be mapped onto the patent’s more delineated server architecture.
  • Technical Question (Account Funding): Claim 1 requires "depositing funds in said User Account to establish a credit limit" (’689 Patent, cl. 1(e)). The complaint does not specify how Chipotle's system is alleged to meet this element. A likely point of dispute will be whether linking a customer's pre-existing credit or debit card for pass-through payments constitutes "depositing funds" into a distinct "User Account" as required by the claim, or if the claim requires a stored-value or pre-funded account model.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "User Vendor Management Server"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the central processing hub of the claimed invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's back-end infrastructure, which may consist of multiple distinct software platforms for payment processing, customer loyalty, and order management, constitutes a single, integrated "User Vendor Management Server."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the server’s function is for "the management of users and vendors" and to "process all purchasing transactions between the user and the vendor," which could suggest a functional definition rather than a strict structural one (ʼ689 Patent, col. 3:30-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4(b) and the accompanying text depict the "UVM server computer" as a specific entity comprising a processor, a "User Database," a "Product database," and "Vendor account record" software components, which could support a narrower construction requiring a more monolithic server architecture (ʼ689 Patent, Fig. 4(b); col. 12:31-44).

• The Term: "depositing funds in said User Account to establish a credit limit"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the financial model of the claimed system. Whether a standard "card-on-file" payment system infringes will likely hinge on the construction of this phrase.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that by linking a credit card, a user makes funds available for transactions within the system, functionally establishing a "credit limit" and thereby satisfying the spirit of the claim element.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this element in two specific modes: a "prepaid mode" where a user makes a deposit called a "Top Off amount," and a "post pay mode" where the server provides a credit limit called a "Negative Top Off amount." Both descriptions imply the creation of a balance or limit within an account managed by the UVM server itself, not merely passing charges through to an external payment card (ʼ689 Patent, col. 3:36-40, 3:51-55).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its services to perform the infringing method (Compl. ¶10). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant’s products and services" (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’689 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" as a basis for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 6, ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does Chipotle’s modern, likely cloud-based and service-oriented, payment infrastructure correspond to the distinct "vendor server" and "User Vendor Management Server" architecture recited in the patent’s claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch?
• A key question of claim scope will likely determine the outcome: Can the claim phrase "depositing funds in said User Account to establish a credit limit," which the patent specification links to pre-paid and server-managed credit models, be construed to cover a system that simply links a customer’s external credit card for pass-through payments?
• An initial evidentiary hurdle will be one of factual pleading: The complaint provides very little detail on the accused instrumentality, and its viability may depend on information contained in the un-provided "Exhibit B" claim chart or on facts developed during discovery.