DCT
6:19-cv-00470
eCeipt LLC v. Jos A Bank Clothiers
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: eCeipt LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00470, W.D. Tex., 08/14/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s point-of-sale systems, which offer customers the option of a printed or an emailed receipt, infringe a patent related to digital receipt handling and processing.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of digital receipt delivery into physical retail point-of-sale environments, a practice aimed at reducing paper waste and enabling customer data collection for marketing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events relevant to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-01-09 | '875 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-02-04 | '875 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-08-07 | Date of transaction used as evidence of infringement |
| 2019-08-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,875 - "Receipt Handling Systems, Print Drivers and Methods Thereof"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the shortcomings of conventional retail transactions where paper receipts are created, which are often wasteful and easily misplaced by customers. The patent identifies a need for an improved system that can be implemented on existing Point-of-Sale (POS) infrastructure to offer customers a choice between printed and electronic receipts, thereby reducing waste and enabling marketing analytics (Compl. ¶10; ’875 Patent, col. 1:15-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for a POS system that, upon a transaction, captures both transaction data and "image data" for a receipt. It provides the customer an option to print or email the receipt. If email is chosen, the system obtains the customer's email address from a database, confirms its accuracy, and transmits the data to a server. The server then uses an email template to send the electronic receipt to the customer ('875 Patent, Abstract; ’875 Patent, col. 4:19-22).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for bridging the physical retail checkout process with digital communication, allowing retailers to offer a paperless option and leverage transaction data for marketing purposes ('875 Patent, col. 1:46-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('875 Patent, Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A method of processing receipts comprising:
- [a] obtaining transaction data from a POS computer system;
- [b] obtaining image data from the POS system representing a receipt;
- [c] obtaining an e-mail address from a customer information database persistently associated with the POS system;
- [d] providing options on a display to print or e-mail the receipt;
- [e] obtaining a selection of one of the options;
- [f] if print is selected, initiating printing of the image data; and
- [g] if e-mail is selected, performing a multi-step e-mailing process, including confirming the email address, transmitting data to a server, generating a data file, assigning an email template, and sending the email.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but requests damages for infringement of the "'875 patent" generally (Compl. p. 22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "computer implemented methods for processing receipts" used in Defendant's retail stores, specifically involving its Point-of-Sale (POS) systems (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused system, at the point of customer checkout, presents a user with options on a display screen to receive a "Print," "Email," or "None" receipt (Compl. ¶25). The complaint includes a screenshot of this interface on an Ingenico-branded terminal, which asks the user "What kind of receipt would you like?" above the three options (Compl. p. 7). If email is selected, the system allegedly retrieves a stored email address, provides an interface to confirm or modify it, and transmits the receipt information for electronic delivery (Compl. ¶¶29-31). The complaint alleges this functionality is part of the standard checkout process in Defendant's stores.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'875 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] obtaining transaction data from a point-of-sale (POS) computer system at a store location, the transaction data including a plurality of categories of information... | Defendant's POS system obtains transaction data including item description, price, and store location, as evidenced by a sample receipt. A screenshot of a receipt shows multiple data categories (Compl. p. 9). | ¶22 | col. 2:1-5 |
| [b] obtaining image data from the POS system at a store location, the image data representing a receipt... | Defendant obtains "information used to create a receipt, such as a barcode" from the POS system, which the complaint defines as image data. The provided receipt includes a barcode (Compl. p. 11). | ¶23 | col. 2:5-9 |
| [c] obtaining an e-mail address of the customer from a customer information database persistently associated with the POS system; | Defendant's POS system retrieves a customer's email address from a database, as evidenced by a screenshot showing a masked email address presented for confirmation (Compl. p. 15). | ¶24 | col. 2:9-12 |
| [d] providing, to a display device at the store location, an option to print the receipt...and an option to e-mail the receipt... | Defendant's POS terminal displays buttons for "Print" and "Email," providing the claimed options. | ¶25 | col. 2:12-15 |
| [g4] transmitting the image data and the transaction data to a server...including generating a data file...the correct e-mail address...and a file name corresponding to the image data; | Defendant allegedly transmits transaction data and "data used to create a receipt image" to a server, and generates a data file with the customer's email and a file name (e.g., "the barcode's file name"). | ¶¶32-33 | col. 2:20-24 |
| [g5] assigning an e-mail template based on the data file transmitted to the server; | Defendant's system allegedly assigns an email template, as evidenced by a screenshot of HTML code allegedly used for the email (Compl. p. 21). | ¶34 | col. 2:24-26 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "image data" (limitation 1[b]) requires a pixel-based image file (e.g., JPEG, PNG) or if it can be read to cover structured data (e.g., XML, barcode data) from which a server later generates an image. The complaint's allegations appear to rely on the broader interpretation, stating the image data is "information used to create a receipt, such as a barcode" (Compl. ¶23).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the transmission of "image data" to a server (limitation 1[g4]). The court may need to determine what is technically transmitted from the POS terminal. If only transaction data is sent and the image is rendered entirely on the remote server, it raises the question of whether the POS system itself performs the claimed steps of "obtaining image data" and "transmitting the image data."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"image data representing a receipt"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because it dictates what must be created at the POS terminal versus on a remote server. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's handling of barcode and transaction data qualifies as "obtaining image data" at the POS location.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses generating an "XML file" in conjunction with the receipt image, and this data file contains transaction details that describe the receipt ('875 Patent, col. 5:15-18). This may support an argument that "image data" includes the underlying descriptive data, not just a final rendered image.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also repeatedly refers to capturing an "image of a receipt" and distinguishes between the "image file" and the "data file" ('875 Patent, col. 4:31-32, col. 6:25-27). This suggests "image data" is a distinct, picture-like representation (e.g., a JPEG), not the raw transaction data itself. A screenshot in the complaint shows an "
" HTML tag with a source URL pointing to a barcode generator, which may be argued to be part of an email template and not the originally transmitted data (Compl. p. 12).
"database persistently associated with the POS system"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between the POS terminal and the customer data source. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether accessing a remote, centralized corporate database over the internet meets the "persistently associated" requirement, or if a more tightly integrated or local database is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses embodiments with an "offsite server" that connects to the POS system via the internet ('875 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 6:10-14). This supports a construction that does not require the database to be physically co-located with the POS system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "persistently associated" could be argued to imply a continuous, stable connection beyond a mere transactional query to a remote server. The use of an "onsite server" in an alternative embodiment could be used to argue that "persistently" implies a local or LAN-based connection ('875 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations are framed as direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or seek enhanced damages. It does request that the case be found "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "image data representing a receipt", as used in the patent, be construed broadly to cover the transmission of structured transaction data from which an image is later generated by a remote server, or does it narrowly require a pixel-based image file to be created at and sent from the POS terminal itself?
- A second key question will be one of architectural compliance: does the accused system's reliance on what appears to be a remote, network-accessible customer database satisfy the claim requirement for a database "persistently associated with the POS system", or does that term require a higher degree of integration?
- A significant, unstated issue for the litigation is that the provided patent file includes a Reexamination Certificate (US 8,643,875 C1) issued after the complaint was filed. This certificate amends asserted Claim 1 to add the limitation: "wherein obtaining the selection of at least one of the provided options includes obtaining a selection to print and email." This amendment raises a substantial question as to whether the infringement theory in the complaint, based on separate "Print" and "Email" options, can survive against the narrowed claim.