Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC v. Mavis Tire Supply

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: Mavis Tire Supply d/b/a Mavis Discount Tire, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-01075, E.D. Tex., 12/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas, specifically identifying store locations in Longview and Tyler, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes patents related to dynamically generating and sending user-specific product offerings based on customer data.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to e-commerce systems that aggregate product data from multiple suppliers and use customer information to create customized online shopping experiences.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit claim priority to an application filed in 1999. The complaint characterizes the underlying invention as a "pioneering effort" from the late 1990s, a period when most e-commerce was analogous to static advertising catalogs.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,712,846 - "Sending Targeted Product Offerings Based on Personal Information," Issued April 29, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art e-commerce systems as being inflexible, comparing them to static print catalogs. These systems often required merchants to maintain costly physical inventories and lacked the ability to provide personalized or dynamic product offerings and pricing ( Compl. ¶13; ’846 Patent, col. 2:63-3:14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized e-commerce system that aggregates product data, including availability and pricing, from a plurality of different distributors. It simultaneously receives customer data, such as personal and location information. The system then uses this combined data to dynamically generate and display user-specific catalogs and product offerings, which are conveyed to customers through automated messages (Compl. ¶14; ’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-52).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to solve the technical problem of creating a more efficient e-commerce model that avoids physical inventory risks and allows for dynamic, personalized marketing and pricing based on real-time data from multiple sources (Compl. ¶16, ¶19; ’846 Patent, col. 5:22-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶32).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A computer-implemented method for targeted product offering.
  • Receiving product data for multiple products from multiple distributors via a communications network.
  • Receiving customer data, which includes location information derived from an IP address associated with the customer.
  • Generating, based at least in part on the customer data, user-specific product offerings.
  • Sending, by a computer, automated messages containing the user-specific product offerings to the customers.

U.S. Patent No. 8,396,743 - "Sending Targeted Product Offerings Based on Personal Information," Issued March 12, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’743 patent shares a common specification with the ’846 patent and thus addresses the same problems of static, inventory-dependent e-commerce systems prevalent in the late 1990s (Compl. ¶13; ’743 Patent, col. 2:63-3:14).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as the ’846 Patent's: a system that integrates product data from multiple distributors with customer data to generate targeted offers. The system is described as a "distributed processing design" that can build dynamic electronic catalogs and adjust pricing based on various rules and data inputs (’743 Patent, col. 4:13-25, 5:58-6:16).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the functioning of the computer system itself by enabling a single platform to generate multiple, customized user interfaces and pricing models, distinguishing it from prior art static catalogs (Compl. ¶17; ’743 Patent, col. 6:1-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶37).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A computer-implemented method for targeted product offering.
  • Receiving product data for multiple products from multiple distributors via a communications network.
  • Receiving customer data, which includes location information derived from an IP address.
  • Generating, based at least in part on personal information concerning a customer location, a user-specific product offering.
  • Sending, by a computer, automated messages containing the user-specific product offering to one or more customers.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant’s website, https://www.mavis.com, and the servers and systems that host and operate it (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused website performs infringing acts by offering products and services to customers in Texas and throughout the U.S. (Compl. ¶5). The functionality is broadly described as an e-commerce platform that facilitates business transactions over the Internet (Compl. ¶15). The complaint asserts that user-specific customization is crucial for businesses like the Defendant's to distinguish themselves in a crowded online marketplace (Compl. ¶22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations. The following tables synthesize the infringement theory from the complaint's general descriptions of the patented technology, which it alleges the Accused Instrumentalities practice.

’846 Patent Infringement Allegations

’743 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual evidence to support its allegations. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the Mavis website actually performs the functions required by the claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the website generates offerings based on a customer's IP-address-derived location, as opposed to a user-inputted ZIP code?
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused website’s functionality, such as filtering products by vehicle type or showing nearby store locations, constitute the "generation" of a "user-specific product offering" as contemplated by the patents? The court may need to determine if there is a technical mismatch between a standard e-commerce filtering feature and the patented system, which describes dynamically building customized catalogs and pricing models.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "user-specific product offering"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central output of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement. The dispute may turn on whether a generic feature, like displaying products that fit a user-selected vehicle, qualifies as "user-specific," or if the term requires a higher degree of personalization based on a user's individual profile or behavior. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates whether the patent covers common e-commerce features or is limited to more advanced personalization.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires generating the offering "at least in part from the customer data," which could be read to encompass any output that uses any piece of customer data, such as location (’846 Patent, col. 12:45-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of "customized portfolios based on purchase patterns of individuals" and different catalogs for students versus business people, suggesting offerings tailored to a user's identity or history, not just their immediate search query (’846 Patent, col. 5:16-20, 6:6-16).

• The Term: "location information derived from an IP address"

• Context and Importance: Both asserted independent claims explicitly require that the customer's location information be "derived from an IP address." This limitation is highly specific. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system uses IP geolocation for targeting offers, as opposed to other methods like user-provided ZIP codes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of arguments for a broader interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is express and appears unambiguous (’846 Patent, col. 12:42-44; ’743 Patent, col. 12:14-16). The specification also discusses using the "customer's IP...address" as a form of unique identification, reinforcing its importance to the claimed method ( ’846 Patent, col. 11:13-15).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. It requests a declaration that the case is exceptional and an award of attorneys' fees, but does not plead the factual basis for such a finding (Compl. p. 9).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Technical Operation: The central issue will be whether Plaintiff can adduce evidence to survive summary judgment. Can it prove that the accused Mavis website performs the specific steps of the claims, particularly the requirement to generate offerings using "location information derived from an IP address", a specific technical limitation that may not be present in standard e-commerce platforms that rely on user-inputted location data?
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case will also turn on claim construction. Can the term "user-specific product offering" be interpreted broadly enough to read on common e-commerce functions like filtering products by vehicle, or does the patent specification limit the term to more sophisticated personalization based on a customer's long-term profile, purchase history, or demographic group?
3. A Question of Pleading Sufficiency: Given the lack of specific factual allegations mapping the accused website's features to the claim elements, an early focus of the litigation may be on the sufficiency of the complaint under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards.