Retail Services & Systems Inc v. S3G Technology LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Retail Services & Systems, Inc. (Maryland)
  • Defendant: S3G Technology LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker Botts LLP.
• Case Identification: Retail Services & Systems, Inc. v. S3G Technology LLC, 5:25-cv-07780, N.D. Cal., 12/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Retail Services & Systems, Inc. alleges that venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant S3G Technology LLC resides and maintains its principal place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its mobile application and associated systems do not infringe five of Defendant's patents, and that the patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and invalid under §§ 102, 103, and 112.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to systems for dynamically modifying software applications, such as mobile apps, by sending modular updates over a network, a foundational architecture in modern application development.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a prior lawsuit filed by S3G against RSSI in the Eastern District of Texas ("Texas Action"), in which S3G alleges infringement of the same five patents. S3G has served detailed infringement contentions in the Texas Action, which RSSI cites as establishing the justiciable controversy for this case.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 - "MODIFICATION OF TERMINAL AND SERVICE PROVIDER MACHINES USING AN UPDATE SERVER MACHINE"

• Issued: July 14, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency and difficulty of updating software applications that are distributed across a network, particularly on remote mobile devices with limited bandwidth, where deploying a full, recompiled application is impractical ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:41-2:11
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-node system (terminal, service provider, and update server) where the update server sends a "dialogue module" to the other machines ʼ897 Patent, abstract This module contains "code," such as "Java Byte Code," which is interpreted by the existing application to modify its behavior (e.g., the sequence of user prompts) without altering the application's underlying, pre-compiled "computer-executable instructions" ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:55-2:8 ʼ897 Patent, col. 3:9-25
• Technical Importance: This architecture allows for dynamic, lightweight updates to application logic and user interfaces, which is a critical capability for managing evolving mobile and web applications without requiring users to download and install entirely new versions of the software Compl. ¶¶7-8

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative for its analysis Compl. ¶31
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a system claim) include:
  • An "update server machine" operable for sending a "terminal dialogue module" and a "provider dialogue module."
  • A "terminal machine" running a terminal application comprising a "first set of computer-executable instructions" and a "first set of code."
  • A "service provider machine" running a provider application comprising a "second set of computer-executable instructions" and a "second set of code."
  • The "terminal dialogue module" modifies the "first set of code" to produce a "first set of updated code" without modifying the computer-executable instructions.
  • The "provider dialogue module" modifies the "second set of code" to produce a "second set of updated code" without modifying the computer-executable instructions.
  • The updated sets of code adapt their respective applications to use a "modified dialogue sequence."
• The complaint notes that S3G has asserted claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-18, and 20-25 Compl. ¶60

U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 - "MODIFICATION OF TERMINAL AND SERVICE PROVIDER MACHINES USING AN UPDATE SERVER MACHINE"

• Issued: April 10, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ʼ124 Patent shares a specification with the ʼ897 Patent and addresses the same problem of inefficiently updating distributed software applications ʼ124 Patent, col. 1:44-2:11
• The Patented Solution: The solution is architecturally identical to that of the '897 Patent, involving the transmission of a "dialogue module" with interpretable "code" to modify an application's behavior without altering its core executable instructions ʼ124 Patent, col. 3:12-32 The claims of the '124 Patent are directed to a method of performing this update, rather than the system itself.
• Technical Importance: As with the ʼ897 Patent, this method provides a mechanism for rapid and efficient updates to client-server applications, a key feature for modern software services Compl. ¶¶7-8

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative for its analysis Compl. ¶37
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim performed at a terminal machine) include:
  • Displaying a first prompt by running a terminal application comprising "first computer-executable instructions" and "first code."
  • Accepting a first data entry.
  • Communicating information from the data entry to a provider application.
  • Receiving a "terminal dialogue module" that "updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code."
  • The first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt.
• The complaint notes that S3G has asserted claims 1-14, 16-34, 36-58, 60-103, and 105-135 Compl. ¶64

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 - "MODIFICATION OF TERMINAL AND SERVICE PROVIDER MACHINES USING AN UPDATE SERVER MACHINE"

  • Issued: April 5, 2016
  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing a specification with the patents above, the '758 Patent describes a method for modifying a distributed application. Its claims focus on receiving a "terminal dialogue module" that "replaces at least a portion of the first code" to generate an updated version that displays a new prompt Compl. ¶69
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies claim 1 as representative and notes S3G's assertion of claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-21, and 23 Compl. ¶¶43, 68
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves the receipt of JSON data, which S3G allegedly characterizes as the "terminal dialogue module" that "replaces" a portion of the mobile application's code Compl. ¶70

• U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - "NETWORK EFFICIENT LOCATION-BASED DIALOGUE SEQUENCE USING VIRTUAL PROCESSOR"

  • Issued: May 30, 2023
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for facilitating a dialogue between multiple user devices. The method involves sending "authorizations," receiving a "second code" from a first device that "supplements first code" on a provider application, and then sending a "third code" to a second device to continue the dialogue '995 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies claim 1 as representative and notes S3G's assertion of claims 1, 2, and 4-20 Compl. ¶¶49, 72
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves the receipt of JSON or HTTP messages, which S3G allegedly characterizes as the "second code" that "supplements" the application's code to produce an update Compl. ¶¶73-74

• U.S. Patent No. 12,099,830 - "NETWORK EFFICIENT AND USER EXPERIENCE OPTIMIZED DIALOGUE SEQUENCE BETWEEN USER DEVICES"

  • Issued: September 24, 2024
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed on a user device. The device receives an "authorization signal," determines if criteria are satisfied, and receives a "second code" that allows the application to conduct an updated portion of a dialogue sequence while the application "continues to operate" '830 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies claim 1 as representative and notes S3G's assertion of claims 1, 2, 7-15, and 18-20 Compl. ¶¶55, 76
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves the receipt of JSON or HTTP messages containing list items, which S3G allegedly characterizes as the "second code" that enables an updated dialogue sequence Compl. ¶78

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the mobile application and website for the "Total Wine & More" brand, along with associated systems, servers, and software that support their functionality Compl. ¶¶6, 18, 28

Functionality and Market Context

The mobile application allows customers to interact with local retail stores operating under the "Total Wine & More" brand Compl. ¶¶6-7 The functionality targeted by S3G's infringement allegations, as described in the complaint, involves the application receiving data from RSSI's servers to update user-facing content, such as "My Lists" items Compl. ¶62, ¶66 The complaint frames this as a standard client-server data exchange common to modern mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶62, 78). RSSI provides support services to these retailers, including the development and maintenance of the accused application (Compl. ¶6).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 - Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 - Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be definitional. A key question for the court will be whether the term "code" (and related terms like "dialogue module"), as defined and used within the patents, can be construed to encompass structured data formats like JSON. RSSI's position is that JSON is data, not code, and therefore cannot be the claimed "dialogue module" or "second code" Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶74
• Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be one of technical function. Does the accused application's receipt of JSON data perform the claimed actions of "modifying," "updating," or "replacing" the application's pre-existing code? The complaint suggests that the accused system's code remains static and merely processes the incoming JSON as new data, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed technical mechanism and the actual operation of the accused product Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶70

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "code" (including "first set of code" and "second code")

  • Context and Importance: The construction of "code" appears central to the dispute. S3G's infringement theory, as presented by RSSI, may depend on a broad definition that includes data structures like JSON. Conversely, RSSI's non-infringement position hinges on a narrower definition that distinguishes executable or interpretable instructions from passive data (Compl. ¶¶62, 74, 78).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "dialogue module" as including "portions of code and/or instructions" '897 Patent, col. 7:30-32, which could be argued to encompass any information, including data, that directs the application's behavior.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contextualizes "code" as "intermediary code, such as Java Byte Code," which is distinct from natively "computer-executable instructions" and must be translated or interpreted by a virtual machine '897 Patent, col. 1:55-60 This may support an argument that "code" must be instructional in nature, not merely informational data to be processed by existing instructions.

• The Term: "modifies" / "updates" / "replaces"

  • Context and Importance: These terms define the action performed by the received "dialogue module" or "code." The dispute may turn on whether providing new data for an application to process constitutes "modifying" or "updating" the application's code itself, or if it requires a change to the application's underlying logic or structure. RSSI alleges that its JSON data does not perform these claimed functions Compl. ¶¶62, 66, 70
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue that any change to the application's state or output resulting from new information constitutes an "update" in a general sense.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's stated goal is to avoid recompiling and redeploying entire software applications ('897 Patent, col. 1:41-2:11). This context may support a narrower construction where "modifies" or "updates" implies an alteration of the application's operational logic or control flow, rather than simply processing new input data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that RSSI has not infringed "directly or indirectly" Compl. ¶60 However, it does not provide specific facts alleged by S3G to support theories of induced or contributory infringement. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these allegations.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not mention any allegations of willful infringement made by S3G in the Texas Action.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "code," which the patent specification repeatedly links to interpretable "intermediary code" like Java Byte Code, be construed broadly enough to cover the structured data payloads (JSON) that the accused application allegedly receives from its servers?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused application's processing of incoming JSON data perform the specific functions of "modifying," "updating," or "replacing" its own code, as required by the claims, or does the application's code remain unchanged while simply rendering the new data, suggesting a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• A threshold legal question, raised throughout the complaint, will be one of patent eligibility: are the claims directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of remotely updating information on a computer, and if so, do they contain a sufficient "inventive concept" to be patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101?