DCT

2:26-cv-00023

Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC (Texas)
    • Defendant: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (Minnesota)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00023, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for conducting offline commercial transactions infringe a patent related to using a unique user-identification barcode for payment processing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for using customer-specific barcodes, scanned by standard point-of-sale equipment, to facilitate payments through a dedicated back-end server, presented as an alternative to traditional credit card networks, particularly for low-value transactions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff asserts these prior licenses do not trigger patent marking requirements because they did not grant rights to produce a patented article and contained no admission of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-21 ’689 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-08 ’689 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-09 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"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,280,689, "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Offline Commerce Transactions," issued March 8, 2016 (the “’689 Patent”).

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 "micro payment" purchases (e.g., five or ten cents) (’689 Patent, col. 1:24-30). It also notes that alternative technologies like RFID or NFC require specialized readers that are not widely available, whereas barcode scanners are ubiquitous at vendor sites (’689 Patent, col. 1:36-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered on a "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM) that manages user accounts funded via pre-paid deposits or a credit limit (’689 Patent, col. 3:29-45). To make a purchase, a user presents a unique "User ID Barcode," which is generated from a personal identifier like a cell phone number and contains a "special character" (e.g., "?") to distinguish it from standard product barcodes (’689 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-22). A vendor's existing barcode scanner captures this User ID Barcode, and the UVM processes the transaction against the user's account, bypassing traditional credit card payment rails for authorization (’689 Patent, Fig. 1(b)).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to leverage the existing, widespread infrastructure of point-of-sale barcode scanners to enable a new form of digital payment without requiring vendors to invest in new hardware (’689 Patent, col. 2:47-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (’689 Patent, col. 17:31-18:38; Compl. ¶8).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method claim, include:
    • Providing a personal code to a user.
    • Converting the personal code into a "User ID Barcode" that includes at least one "special character" to distinguish it from a product barcode.
    • Storing the personal code in a "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM Server) and establishing a corresponding user account with a credit limit.
    • At a vendor, using a product barcode scanner to scan both product barcodes and the User ID Barcode.
    • Transmitting the barcodes from the vendor's cash register to a vendor server.
    • Detecting the User ID Barcode at the vendor server and forwarding it with the purchase price to the UVM Server.
    • At the UVM Server, comparing the purchase price with the funds in the user's account.
    • If sufficient funds exist, sending an approval signal back to the vendor server, which is then forwarded to the vendor cash register.
  • The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions as discovery proceeds (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "systems, products, and services that conducting offline transactions that use a barcode as a method of personal identification" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the operation or architecture of the accused Popeyes systems. It makes a general allegation that these systems are used to conduct offline transactions and use a barcode for personal identification, thereby allegedly infringing the ’689 Patent (Compl. ¶¶7-8). The complaint does not describe the specific function of any barcode used by Defendant (e.g., for payment, loyalty point redemption, or coupon application) or the back-end systems that process it.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶9). The complaint’s narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s systems for conducting offline transactions using a barcode for personal identification practice one or more of claims 1-3 of the ’689 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Without the claim chart or more detailed allegations in the complaint body, a direct element-by-element comparison is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • The high-level nature of the allegations suggests several potential areas of dispute.
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether any system operated by Defendant falls within the scope of the claims. For example, does any barcode used in Defendant's systems function as a "User ID Barcode" containing a "special character" for the purpose of distinguishing it from a product barcode, as required by claim 1?
    • Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the underlying architecture of Defendant's systems. A key factual question is whether Defendant operates a centralized "User Vendor Management Server" that manages user accounts with credit limits and processes transactions as claimed, or if its systems leverage conventional credit card processors, gift card networks, or third-party loyalty program platforms that operate in a fundamentally different manner. Another question is what function the alleged barcode performs—is it used to initiate a payment transaction from a stored value account, or does it merely identify a customer for loyalty purposes or apply a discount?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM 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 can be characterized as a "UVM Server." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a specific type of closed-loop payment system distinct from traditional open-loop credit card networks.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the server is for "the management of users and vendors" and that it "processes all purchasing transactions between the user and the vendor" (’689 Patent, col. 3:29-33). This language could be argued to encompass a range of server systems that manage customer accounts and transactions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the UVM Server as an entity that directly establishes and holds a user's "fund or available credit limit" and processes transactions against that balance, seemingly independent of third-party payment processors (’689 Patent, col. 11:15-20; Fig. 2(b)). This suggests a more limited scope tied to a self-contained payment ecosystem.

  • The Term: "special character"

  • Context and Importance: This feature is the claimed mechanism for distinguishing a user identification barcode from a product barcode using a standard scanner. Infringement of claim 1 requires the presence of this element.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides "?" as an example and states the character can be a "prefix or suffix or both" (’689 Patent, col. 3:15-19). This could support a reading that covers any non-standard data or flag within a barcode string that serves a routing or identification function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly states the purpose is "so that the system can distinguish the User ID Barcode from the product data barcode" (’689 Patent, col. 3:19-22). This could support a narrower construction requiring a character whose sole or primary purpose is to act as a specific identifier for the system to differentiate user barcodes from product barcodes at the point of data capture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "actively encourag[ing] or instruct[ing] others (e.g., its customers...)" to use the accused services (Compl. ¶10). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific facts supporting these allegations, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’689 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of willfulness should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

The dispute as framed in the complaint appears to center on the following core questions:

  • A central evidentiary and factual question will be one of technical operation: Do Defendant's point-of-sale systems actually employ the specific architecture recited in claim 1? Specifically, is there evidence of a barcode containing a "special character" used for payment identification, which is processed by a back-end system that functions as the claimed "User Vendor Management Server," or do the accused systems rely on conventional payment, gift card, or loyalty program technology?

  • A key claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "User Vendor Management Server," which the patent depicts as a self-contained system for managing user funds, be construed broadly enough to read on components of a modern, distributed retail transaction or customer loyalty platform that may interact with third-party payment processors?