DCT

7:25-cv-00401

Wolverine Barcode IP LLC v. Kroger Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00401, W.D. Tex., 09/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for conducting offline commercial transactions infringe a patent related to using a unique, user-specific barcode for personal identification and payment.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns point-of-sale systems that use barcode scanners, a ubiquitous feature in retail environments, to identify customers and process payments from a dedicated account, bypassing traditional credit card processing for certain transactions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts that none of these licenses were for producing a patented article and that the licensees did not admit infringement. This suggests a history of asserting this patent family and may be raised in future disputes over damages or patent value.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-21 ’689 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-03-08 ’689 Patent - Issue Date
2025-09-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • 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 addresses the high transaction costs associated with using credit cards for "micro payment" purchases (e.g., items costing a few cents or dollars), which makes such transactions impractical for vendors (’689 Patent, col. 1:23-31). It also notes the inconvenience of alternative systems like RFID or NFC, which require specialized, non-ubiquitous hardware at the point of sale (’689 Patent, col. 1:47-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user is identified by a unique "User ID Barcode" generated from a personal identifier like a cell phone number or credit card number (’689 Patent, Abstract). This barcode is distinguished from standard product barcodes by prefixing the identifier with a "special character" before conversion into barcode format (’689 Patent, col. 2:38-42). This allows a standard barcode scanner at a cash register to capture both product information and the user's identity, routing the transaction to a central "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM) that manages the user's pre-paid or credit-based account (’689 Patent, col. 3:26-34; Fig. 1(b)).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to enable fast, low-cost electronic payments for small-value goods by leveraging the existing, widespread infrastructure of barcode scanners in retail environments, avoiding the need for new hardware (’689 Patent, col. 7:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶8).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • Providing a personal code to a person.
    • 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" (UVM Server).
    • Establishing a User Account in the UVM Server with a credit limit.
    • At a vendor, scanning product barcodes and the User ID Barcode with a product barcode scanner.
    • 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 UVM Server.
    • At the UVM Server, comparing the purchase price with the funds/credit limit in the User Account.
    • If funds are available, sending an approval signal back to the vendor server and then to the cash register.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but infringement allegations are noted as "preliminary and are therefore subject to change" (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint broadly identifies "systems, products, and services that conducting offline transactions that use a barcode as a method of personal identification" operated by Defendant The Kroger Co. (Compl. ¶8). No specific product name, application, or loyalty program is identified.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that use a barcode for personal identification to conduct offline transactions (Compl. ¶8).
  • The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused systems operate. It states generally that these systems infringe the ’689 Patent, but does not describe the accused architecture, data flow, or user interface (Compl. ¶¶7-8).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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 public complaint (Compl. ¶9). In lieu of a claim chart summary, the narrative infringement theory is 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). The complaint does not provide a limitation-by-limitation mapping of the accused systems to the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general nature of retail payment systems, several technical and legal questions may become central to the dispute.
    • Scope Questions:
      • Does a customer loyalty barcode, if used by the accused system, constitute the claimed "User ID Barcode" generated from a "personal code"?
      • Does the barcode format used by Defendant's system include a "special character" whose function is to distinguish the user barcode from a product barcode, as required by the claim?
      • Does Defendant's backend transaction processing and account management infrastructure constitute the claimed "User Vendor Management Server," or does it operate in a fundamentally different architectural manner?
    • Technical Questions:
      • What evidence demonstrates that Defendant's system "detect[s]" the user barcode at a "vendor server" and then forwards it to a separate server for account verification, as distinct from processing all information on a single integrated system?
      • How does the accused system manage customer funds or credit? Does it "establish a credit limit" in a manner analogous to that described in the patent, which details pre-paid and post-paid modes of operation (’689 Patent, col. 4:32-56)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "special character"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent emphasizes its role in allowing a standard scanner to distinguish a user ID barcode from a product barcode (’689 Patent, col. 6:1-5). The presence, form, and function of such a character in the accused system's barcodes will likely be a primary point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "at least one special character," which suggests flexibility in its form. The specification mentions it can be a "prefix or suffix or both" (’689 Patent, col. 3:17-19), potentially covering various non-alphanumeric symbols or formatting codes used in barcode standards.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the purpose of the character as enabling the system to "distinguish the User ID Barcode from the product data barcode" (’689 Patent, col. 3:19-22). A defendant may argue this term requires a character whose sole or primary purpose is this specific differentiation, rather than a character that is part of a standard data format for other reasons. The specification provides a specific example: "?" (’689 Patent, col. 6:10-11).

  • The Term: "User Vendor Management Server" (UVM Server)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites a series of steps performed by this server, including establishing accounts, managing a "credit limit," and processing transaction approvals. Whether Defendant's backend systems can be characterized as a single, integrated "UVM Server" or a distributed system with different functions will be central to the infringement analysis.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the UVM as a server "for the management of users and vendors" that "processes all purchasing transactions between the user and the vendor" (’689 Patent, col. 3:26-29). This functional language could be argued to cover any server architecture that achieves these management and processing results.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4(b) and the accompanying text depict a specific server architecture with distinct databases for users (485), products (495), and vendor accounts (496) (’689 Patent, col. 12:31-37). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to a server having this or a closely related structure, as opposed to a more generalized payment processing system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶10-11). For inducement, it asserts Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products and services to cause infringement (Compl. ¶10). For contributory infringement, it alleges there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads willfulness based on knowledge of the ’689 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10 & fn. 1; Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two fundamental questions for the court:

  1. A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Can a standard retail loyalty or payment barcode be construed as the claimed "User ID Barcode," which requires the presence and specific function of a "special character" used to distinguish it from product barcodes?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural congruence: Does the architecture of Defendant’s backend payment and account systems map onto the specific functions and structure of the "User Vendor Management Server" as claimed, particularly with respect to establishing and comparing purchases against a "credit limit"?