S3G Technology LLC v. Avis Budget Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: S3G Technology LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Avis Budget Group, Inc. (Delaware); Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00450, E.D. Tex., 06/08/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' mobile applications and associated backend systems for car rentals infringe four patents related to methods for efficiently modifying and updating software applications on remote devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of updating client-server applications over networks by sending small, interpretable code modules to modify application behavior, rather than transmitting entire new software packages.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint heavily relies on prior litigation involving the patent family, specifically S3G Tech. LLC v. Unikey Techs., Inc., citing claim construction rulings from that case to support its interpretation of key terms. It also notes that during patent prosecution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office distinguished the inventions from prior art, including over subject matter eligibility contentions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-07-23	Earliest Priority Date for '124, '140, '758, and '995 Patents
2013-07-11	Examiner's allowance for related U.S. Patent No. 8,572,571 mentioned in complaint
2016-04-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 Issued
2017-07-07	Report and Recommendation issued in S3G v. Unikey Techs. litigation
2017-11-01	Report and Recommendation adopted in S3G v. Unikey Techs. litigation
2018-04-10	U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Issued
2019-08-20	U.S. Patent No. 10,387,140 Issued
2023-05-30	U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 Issued
2025-09-23	Accused Android App last updated
2025-09-25	Accused iOS App last updated
2026-06-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124, "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine", issued April 10, 2018 Compl. ¶14
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patents address the difficulty of distributing large, recompiled software updates to numerous remote devices, particularly over wireless networks with limited bandwidth or where physical access to devices is impractical Compl. ¶¶15-16
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where applications are not entirely replaced. Instead, a third entity, an "update server machine," sends small "dialogue modules" to a "terminal machine" (e.g., a mobile device) and a "service provider machine" (e.g., a server) Compl. ¶17 These modules contain "code"-information that must be translated by the existing application-to modify the application's behavior and dialogue sequences, rather than replacing the underlying, directly "computer-executable instructions" (Compl. ¶18; Compl. ¶19, Compl. ¶¶col. 4:30-40). This architecture, depicted in the patent's Figure 1, is central to the asserted claims Compl. ¶17
  • Technical Importance: This method claims to reduce network bandwidth consumption and improve the efficiency of modifying applications distributed across a network of remote devices Compl. ¶26
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶33
  • The essential elements of method claim 1 include:
    • displaying a first prompt on a terminal machine via a terminal application, which comprises "first computer-executable instructions" and "first code";
    • accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine;
    • communicating information associated with the data entry to a service provider machine running a provider application, which comprises "second computer-executable instructions" and "second code";
    • receiving, at the terminal machine, a "terminal dialogue module" that updates at least a portion of the "first code" to produce "first updated code";
    • wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt for a modified dialogue sequence; and
    • wherein at least one of the first code, second code, and first updated code comprise "intermediate code."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" Compl. ¶33, which may include dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,387,140

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,387,140, "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine", issued August 20, 2019 Compl. p. 5, ¶11
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of distributing newly compiled software versions to all devices in a system, especially when systems are geographically distributed or rely on wireless networks with limited bandwidth '140 Patent, col. 2:35-61
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for modifying a dialogue sequence between a terminal machine and a service provider machine. A key aspect is receiving "third code" at the terminal machine that modifies the existing "first code" to produce "first updated code," which adapts the application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence '140 Patent, abstract Critically, this update is initiated in response to the terminal machine satisfying a "trigger condition" '140 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: By using trigger-based, partial updates via small code modules, the invention aims to provide a more efficient, context-aware method for customizing remote software without large data transfers.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Second Claim for Relief, ¶4
  • The essential elements of method claim 1 include:
    • providing a first prompt via a terminal application comprising "first computer-executable instructions" and "first code";
    • receiving entry of first data;
    • communicating information to a provider application comprising "second computer-executable instructions" and "second code";
    • receiving, at the terminal machine, "third code" that modifies the first code to produce "first updated code";
    • wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence; and
    • wherein receiving the third code is performed in response to the terminal machine satisfying a "trigger condition."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting dependent claims may also be asserted Second Claim for Relief, ¶2

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758, "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine", issued April 5, 2016 Compl. p. 5, ¶12
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of updating remote software applications by disclosing a method where a "terminal dialogue module" containing "Java Byte code" is used to modify the application's behavior. This avoids replacing the entire application and its underlying computer-executable instructions, thereby solving the problem of transmitting large update files over a network (Compl. ¶14; Compl. ¶15; Compl. ¶16; Compl. ¶17, Compl. ¶abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Third Claim for Relief, ¶27
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Defendants' system, which facilitates a dialogue between the Avis mobile app and a backend server, infringes by sending data representing a "Rental Preference" to the mobile app. This data is alleged to be a "terminal dialogue module" that modifies the app's bytecode to display new prompts or options Third Claim for Relief, ¶¶28-32

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995, "Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor", issued May 30, 2023 Compl. p. 6, ¶13
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses efficient software modification in a system with at least two user devices and a provider application. It describes a method where the provider application receives "code" from a first user device, adapts itself, and then sends "third code" to a second user device to facilitate its part of the dialogue. This process allows for continuous, efficient adaptation of the dialogue sequence across multiple devices without full application replacement '995 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶¶55-62
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Fourth Claim for Relief, ¶54
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by pointing to a user interacting with the Avis system across two devices (e.g., a website and a mobile app). It alleges the server application receives "code" (e.g., a new rental preference) from the first device, updates itself, and then sends "third code" to the second device to continue the dialogue sequence Fourth Claim for Relief, ¶¶55-62

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the Avis and Budget mobile applications ("Defendant app") for Android and iOS, along with the supporting backend systems, servers, software, and methods that facilitate their use Compl. ¶9, footnotes 1-3
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused system enables customers to manage car rentals. This functionality involves a client-server "dialogue" where the user's mobile device (the "terminal machine") communicates with Defendants' servers (the "service provider machine") Compl. ¶34 A core feature is the ability for a user to manage "Rental Preferences," which include details on vehicles, locations, and add-ons Compl. ¶35 The complaint alleges these preferences are stored on the server and communicated to the app, functioning as the claimed "dialogue modules" that update the application's behavior without requiring a full reinstall Compl. ¶39 The complaint asserts the system comprises both "computer executable instructions" (e.g., the Android Runtime or .NET Common Language Runtime) and "code" (e.g., the app's bytecode or a .NET program) that must be translated Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶37 The complaint's Figure 1, taken from the asserted patents, is used to illustrate the alleged three-entity architecture of the accused system Compl. ¶17

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'124 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
displaying a first prompt on a terminal display of a terminal machine by running a terminal application...the terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code that conduct the terminal machine's portion of the dialogue...	The Defendant app (a terminal application on an Android smart phone) displays a prompt for a user to review or save a "Rental Preference." The app is alleged to comprise executable instructions (Android Runtime) and first code (app's bytecode).	¶35	col. 7:56-61
accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine...	The system accepts a user's data entry, such as saving a new Rental Preference.	¶36	col. 12:10-15
communicating information from the terminal machine to a provider application at the service provider machine...the provider application comprising second computer-executable instructions and second code...	The app communicates the user's preference data to the Defendants' server. The server runs a .NET provider application, which is alleged to comprise executable instructions (CLR) and second code (.NET program code).	¶37	col. 8:1-14
receiving, at the terminal machine, a terminal dialogue module that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code...	The Defendant app receives information for a "Rental Preference" from the server, formatted as JSON. This is alleged to be a "terminal dialogue module" that updates the app's bytecode (first code) to produce updated code.	¶39	col. 8:63-9:3
wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt for the terminal machine's portion of a modified dialogue sequence...	The updated app is adapted to display a new prompt, such as the ability to access a new Rental Preference.	¶39	col. 9:4-9
wherein at least one of the first code, the second code, and the first updated code comprise intermediate code.	The app's bytecode is alleged to be a form of intermediate code.	¶39	col. 4:30-34

'140 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
providing a first prompt by running a terminal application...the terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code...	The Defendant app (terminal application) displays a prompt for a "Rental Preference." The app is alleged to comprise executable instructions (Android Runtime) and first code (app's bytecode).	¶6	col. 7:56-61
receiving entry of first data at the first prompt;	The system receives the user's entry of first data, such as saving a new Rental Preference.	¶7	col. 2:4-5
communicating information associated with the first data from the terminal machine to a provider application...	The app communicates the preference data to the Defendants' server, which runs a provider application alleged to comprise second computer-executable instructions (CLR engine) and second code (.NET program).	¶8	col. 2:6-12
receiving, at the terminal machine, third code that modifies at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code...	The app receives information (e.g., in JSON format) from the server. This is alleged to be the "third code" that modifies the app's bytecode (first code) to produce updated code.	¶10	col. 2:13-17
wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence with the service provider machine;	The updated code allows the app to conduct a modified dialogue, evidenced by the ability to access a new Rental Preference.	¶10	col. 2:15-17
wherein receiving the third code is performed in response to the terminal machine satisfying a trigger condition.	The complaint alleges the third code is received in response to a trigger condition, such as user action (e.g., connecting to the network or accessing the app).	¶11	col. 2:20-22

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's theory appears to equate a user's "Rental Preference" data, formatted in JSON, with the patents' claimed "dialogue module" Compl. ¶39 A central dispute may be whether this data object meets the structural requirements of a "dialogue module," which a prior court order cited in the complaint described as "a particular type of structure rather than to any structure for performing a function" Compl. ¶22 The court will have to determine if receiving and parsing JSON data is equivalent to receiving a structural module that "adapts the terminal application."

• Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the distinction between directly "computer-executable instructions" and "code" that must be translated Compl. ¶18 This is illustrated in the complaint's Figure 2, taken from the patent, which shows these as distinct components of an application Compl. p. 8 A key technical question will be whether the accused app's bytecode and the server's .NET program function as the claimed "code," and whether receiving JSON data actually "updates" this code in the manner claimed, or if it is merely data processed by unchanged, pre-existing application logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"code"

• Context and Importance: The patents' core concept is the distinction between "computer-executable instructions" and "code." The complaint relies on a prior construction of "code" as "information that must be translated before it can be executed on a processor" (Compl. ¶18, footnote 6). Whether the accused app's bytecode and the JSON data representing "Rental Preferences" fall within this definition will be critical to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "[t]he code represents at least some information that must be translated by the software application before it can be implemented on the machine processor" '140 Patent, col. 4:30-34 This suggests "code" is defined by its need for translation, not by a specific format, potentially supporting its application to data like JSON.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Specific embodiments in the patent family often refer to "Java Byte code" as an example of intermediate code '758 Patent, col. 8:64-67 A defendant may argue that "code" should be limited to compiled intermediate code formats and not encompass lightweight data-interchange formats like JSON, which are typically parsed rather than "translated" in the same sense as bytecode.

"dialogue module"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that a "Rental Preference" is a "dialogue module" Compl. ¶39 S3G heavily relies on a prior judicial finding that this term refers to "a particular type of structure rather than to any structure for performing a function" Compl. ¶22 Practitioners may focus on this term because the case may turn on whether a JSON object containing user preferences constitutes this specific "structure."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification, as interpreted by the court in the Unikey case, notes that a "dialogue module can contain code or other data and can be communicated" Compl. ¶22 This language suggests flexibility in the module's content, which could support the argument that a JSON object containing data fits the definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the dialogue module to "update" the code to "adapt" the application to conduct a "modified dialogue sequence" '124 Patent, cl. 1 A defendant may argue that the "dialogue module" is a structural component that modifies application logic, and that simply receiving and displaying preference data from a JSON object does not represent the structural adaptation claimed in the patent, but rather is just the normal operation of the existing application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendants market and promote the accused apps with the intent that customers will use them in an infringing manner Compl. ¶45 Second Claim for Relief, ¶21 It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused systems are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted to infringe the patents (Compl. ¶46; Second Claim for Relief, Compl. ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents, with knowledge asserted to exist at least since the filing of the complaint Compl. ¶32 Second Claim for Relief, ¶3

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and claim construction: Can the term "dialogue module", defined in prior litigation as a "particular type of structure," be construed to read on the JSON data representing a "Rental Preference" in the accused system? Similarly, does the accused system's distinction between its runtime environment and its application logic/data map onto the patents' foundational distinction between "computer-executable instructions" and "code"?

• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the accused mobile app's process of receiving and parsing JSON data to display user preferences perform the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the patented method of using a structural "dialogue module" to "update" an application's translatable "code" and thereby "adapt" the application to conduct a "modified dialogue sequence"?

• A central legal question will be the applicability of prior judicial rulings: The plaintiff heavily fronts its case with favorable claim construction and validity findings from prior litigation. A key question will be the extent to which the court in this case finds the technology in the Unikey case to be analogous to the accused Avis system, and therefore how persuasive or binding those prior judicial interpretations will be in this dispute.