Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. 7 Eleven Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wolverine Barcode IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00207, W.D. Tex., 05/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for conducting offline commercial transactions using a barcode for personal identification infringe a patent related to managing such transactions.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for enabling low-cost electronic payments, particularly for "micro-payment" transactions, by using universally available barcode scanners at the point of sale rather than specialized hardware.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses that did not grant rights to produce a patented article, which Plaintiff argues obviates any patent marking requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-09-21	’689 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-08	’689 Patent Issue Date
2025-05-01	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," issued March 8, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the high cost of conventional credit card processing as a barrier to their use for "micro payment" transactions. It also notes that alternative technologies like NFC or RFID require specialized readers that are not widely deployed at vendor locations, unlike standard barcode scanners. (’689 Patent, col. 1:21-30, col. 2:47-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user is identified by a "User ID Barcode," which is generated from a unique personal identifier like a cell phone or credit card number. This barcode is distinguished from product barcodes by a "special character" prefix. A cashier can scan this User ID Barcode using a standard, existing barcode scanner to link the purchase to the user's account on a central "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM), which manages the transaction. (’689 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-44).
• Technical Importance: The described method sought to leverage the ubiquitous existing infrastructure of point-of-sale barcode scanners to create a low-cost system for electronic payments, avoiding the need for merchants to invest in new hardware. (’689 Patent, col. 2:47-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • Providing a personal code to a user.
  • Converting the personal code into a "User ID Barcode" that includes a "special character" to distinguish it from a product barcode.
  • Storing the personal code in the User ID Barcode format for the user and on a "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM).
  • Establishing a "User Account" on the UVM.
  • "Depositing funds" in the User Account to "establish a credit limit."
  • At a vendor, scanning both product barcodes and the User ID Barcode, and transmitting them to a "vendor server."
  • The vendor server detects the User ID Barcode and forwards it with the purchase price to the UVM.
  • The UVM compares the price with available funds and sends an approval signal back to the vendor server.
  • The vendor server forwards the approval signal to the vendor cash register.
  • Repeating the purchase steps for subsequent transactions.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its infringement allegations are stated to be "preliminary" (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service (e.g., the "7-Eleven app" or "7Rewards"). It broadly accuses "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 alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that infringe the ’689 Patent (Compl. ¶8). It asserts these systems involve conducting offline transactions where a barcode is used for personal identification, but provides no specific details on the technical operation or architecture of the accused systems (Compl. ¶7). The complaint references an "Exhibit B" claim chart for further support, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶9). No allegations regarding the accused systems' market position are included.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’689 patent but does not provide a claim chart exhibit or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to the accused instrumentality's features (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory, based on the complaint's narrative, is that 7-Eleven's systems for barcode-based identification and payment directly infringe the steps of Claim 1. This includes allegations that 7-Eleven's systems create user accounts, generate or use a barcode for identification, and process transactions by scanning that barcode at a point of sale, which communicates with a backend server to approve the purchase (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the barcode used in Defendant’s system constitutes a "User ID Barcode" as claimed. Specifically, the analysis will focus on whether it is "convert[ed]" from a "personal code" and includes a "special character to distinguish the barcode...from a product barcode," as required by Claim 1.
  • Technical Questions: The patent claims a specific server architecture involving a "vendor server" that detects the User ID Barcode and forwards it to a separate "User Vendor Management Server." A key factual question will be whether Defendant's system architecture mirrors this claimed two-server interaction or operates as a single, monolithic system that may not meet this limitation. The complaint provides no evidence on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This phrase in Claim 1(e) appears to conflate concepts from pre-paid systems (depositing funds) and post-paid/credit systems (establishing a credit limit). Its construction is critical because it could render the claim applicable to only a narrow set of hybrid systems, or potentially be found indefinite. Practitioners may focus on this term as a potential point of non-infringement or invalidity.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses both a "prepaid mode" where a user "deposits a certain amount of funds" and a "post pay mode" where the UVM provides the user a "certain available credit limit." (’689 Patent, col. 3:34-40, 4:50-54). A party may argue the claim term was intended to encompass the financial backing of the account, whether by pre-payment or credit.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently uses "fund" in the context of pre-paid accounts and "credit limit" for post-paid accounts, treating them as distinct concepts. (’689 Patent, Fig. 6(a) vs. Fig. 6(b)). An argument could be made that the plain language of the claim requires both actions—a deposit of funds and the establishment of a credit limit—which may not describe the accused system.

• The Term: "User ID Barcode"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis, as it must read on the technology used by the Defendant (likely a QR code in a mobile application).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a barcode broadly as a "typical optical machine-readable representation of data," which could be argued to include 2D formats like QR codes. (’689 Patent, col. 5:36-38).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes that the User ID Barcode is distinguished from product barcodes via a "special character" (’689 Patent, col. 2:40-44). A defendant may argue that this limitation was necessary to differentiate it on systems designed for 1D linear barcodes and is not met by modern QR codes, which are structurally distinct and do not require such a character for differentiation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’689 patent as of the filing date of the lawsuit, establishing a basis for potential post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶10). It reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10, n.1).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and ambiguity: can the claim limitation "depositing funds...to establish a credit limit" be construed to read on a standard pre-paid or post-paid retail account system, or is the language fatally indefinite or limited to a specific hybrid system that the accused product does not embody?
• A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "User ID Barcode," described in the patent as requiring a "special character" for differentiation, be interpreted to cover the modern QR codes likely used in Defendant's system, which may not require or use such a character?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: can Plaintiff produce evidence showing that Defendant's backend system utilizes distinct "vendor server" and "User Vendor Management Server" components that perform the specific, sequential functions required by Claim 1, or will discovery reveal a monolithic architecture that fails to meet this claim limitation?