DCT

7:25-cv-00316

Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. McDonald's Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00316, W.D. Tex., 10/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts substantial business there, and has committed acts of infringement in the forum.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for processing transactions using a barcode for personal identification infringe a patent related to methods for conducting offline commerce.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to using barcodes, such as those displayed on a mobile phone, as a user identifier to facilitate point-of-sale transactions, particularly for low-value "micro-payments."
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this First Amended Complaint was filed within 21 days of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a non-practicing entity, also discloses having entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that these licenses did not require marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because the settling parties did not admit infringement or agree to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-21 ’689 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-08 ’689 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-29 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Filed (mentioned in complaint)
2025-10-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,280,689 - Method and Apparatus for Doing Offline Commerce Transactions

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional credit card transactions as being too costly for "micro payment" level purchases (e.g., five or ten cents), making them impractical for vendors and credit card companies ('689 Patent, col. 1:23-30). It also notes that alternative technologies like RFID or NFC require special readers that are not as ubiquitous as the barcode scanners already present at nearly all vendor cash registers ('689 Patent, col. 2:46-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user is identified by a "User ID Barcode" generated from a unique number like a cell phone number or credit card number ('689 Patent, Abstract). This number is prefixed with a "special character" to distinguish the User ID Barcode from a standard product barcode ('689 Patent, col. 3:15-21). This barcode, displayed on a user's phone or printed on a card, can be scanned by a standard vendor barcode scanner to initiate a transaction processed through a central "User Vendor Management Server (UVM)" ('689 Patent, Fig. 1(b); col. 3:27-30). This architecture is designed to enable fast, low-cost transactions for both micro and non-micro payment levels.
  • Technical Importance: The described solution aims to leverage the universally available infrastructure of barcode scanners to create a new payment ecosystem for low-value goods, a market segment not efficiently served by traditional credit card networks at the time.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, and 3 ('689 Patent, col. 17:30-18:41; Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for conducting offline electronic commerce transactions.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Providing a personal code to a person for purchasing goods.
    • Converting the personal code into a "User ID Barcode" format that includes at least one "special character" to distinguish it from a product barcode.
    • Storing the personal code in a User Vendor Management Server and establishing a corresponding User Account with a credit limit.
    • Conducting a purchase by scanning product barcodes and the User ID Barcode with a scanner at a vendor's cash register.
    • Transmitting the product barcodes and User ID Barcode to a vendor server.
    • Detecting the User ID Barcode at the vendor server and forwarding it with the purchase price to the User Vendor Management Server.
    • Comparing the purchase price with the funds in the User Account and, if funds are available, sending an approval signal to the vendor server and cash register.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional dependent claims, but alleges infringement of claims 1-3.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly 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). No specific product name, such as the McDonald's mobile app, is mentioned.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant operates systems that perform methods for conducting "offline transactions that use a barcode as a method of personal identification" (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused systems. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶9). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant operates systems that use a barcode for personal identification in offline transactions, thereby practicing the patented method (Compl. ¶7, ¶8). This suggests the core of the allegation is that when a McDonald's customer uses a barcode (e.g., a QR code from a mobile app) at a point of sale to identify an order or account, this action initiates a process that infringes the elements of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions:
      • Does the accused functionality constitute an "offline electronic commerce transaction" as that phrase is used in the patent, especially in the context of modern, internet-connected mobile applications and point-of-sale systems?
      • Does the data structure of the barcode used by Defendant's system contain a "special character" whose function is to distinguish the barcode as a user identifier from a product barcode, as required by the claim?
    • Technical Questions:
      • What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's system architecture includes distinct "vendor server" and "User Vendor Management Server" components that perform the specific detection, forwarding, and comparison steps recited in Claim 1? The complaint's allegations are high-level and do not detail the specific data flows or server interactions within the accused system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "personal code"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, as it is the source identifier that is converted into the User ID Barcode. Its construction will determine what types of user identifiers fall within the claim's scope. The dispute may center on whether the term is limited to the patent's examples (cell phone number, credit card number) or can encompass any unique identifier generated by a system, such as a temporary alphanumeric code or a customer account number.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "Other identifiers such as the driving license number or the social security number etc. may also be used," suggesting the term is not limited to the primary examples of cell phone or credit card numbers (’689 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly uses "the user's cell phone number or credit card number" as the basis for the User ID Barcode, which a defendant may argue contextually limits the scope of "personal code" to these specific types of pre-existing, user-centric identifiers (’689 Patent, col. 6:31-33).

  • The Term: "special character"

  • Context and Importance: This element appears to be a key point of novelty, serving to differentiate the user's barcode from a product barcode. Infringement will depend on whether the accused barcode contains a feature that meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate whether a specific data field, prefix, or formatting element within a modern barcode (like a QR code) can satisfy the claim.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose of the character functionally: "so that the system can distinguish the User ID Barcode from the product data barcode" (’689 Patent, col. 3:18-21). This could support an argument that any data flag, header, or format identifier that serves this distinguishing function meets the limitation, regardless of its specific form.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example: "prefixed with a special character such as '?'" (’689 Patent, col. 3:15-16). A defendant may argue that this example limits the term to a discrete, symbolic prefix rather than a more abstract data field or formatting rule inherent in a barcode's data structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant's products and services have "no substantial noninfringing uses" (Compl. ¶11).
  • 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 complaint explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶10, n.1).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to several key questions that bridge the patent's disclosure and the functionality of the accused modern retail systems.

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can claim terms rooted in the context of linear barcodes and 2010-era technology, such as "personal code" and a distinguishing "special character," be construed to read on the complex data structures and identifiers used in modern QR code-based mobile payment and ordering systems?
  • A second key question will be one of technical mapping: Do the high-level, generalized allegations in the complaint correspond to the actual architecture of Defendant’s systems? Specifically, does the accused system perform the distinct server-level detection, comparison, and approval steps recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the patented method and the accused process?