Consolidated Transaction Processing v. Batteries Plus LLC — Dismissed With Prejudice
Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC asserted two e-commerce transaction-processing patents against the BatteriesPlus.com website in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after just 103 days — before the defendant had filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
Early voluntary exit: plaintiff drops both patent claims with prejudice
On February 16, 2024, Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC filed suit against Batteries Plus LLC in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The complaint alleged infringement of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — both directed at online transaction processing — specifically targeting the BatteriesPlus.com e-commerce platform. The plaintiff was represented by Trevor James Beaty of Shea Beaty.
On May 29, 2024, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant has served an answer or summary judgment motion. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the claims permanently — Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC cannot reassert these two patents against Batteries Plus LLC on the same claims. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and fees.
The 103-day timeline and pre-answer dismissal suggest the case resolved before meaningful litigation activity commenced on the defendant’s side. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached; the ‘with prejudice’ designation alongside each party bearing its own costs is consistent with a negotiated resolution, but that remains unconfirmed. No defendant law firm or agents appear on the public docket, which may indicate early resolution before formal defence engagement.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 103 days
103 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. Here, no answer appears on the docket, placing this dismissal squarely within that window. The ‘with prejudice’ designation was the plaintiff’s own choice — the rule does not require it — and makes the dismissal a final adjudication on the merits against Batteries Plus LLC.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith-prejudice bar: plaintiff permanently forfeits these claims
By filing with prejudice, Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC has permanently relinquished its right to sue Batteries Plus LLC under US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 on the same claims. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would have preserved the option to refile. The with-prejudice designation may reflect a negotiated term — for example, a covenant not to sue — but that is not confirmed by the public record.
Claims permanently extinguishedBatteries Plus gains permanent immunity from these specific claims
Batteries Plus LLC achieved dismissal with prejudice without filing an answer, incurring no fee award, and — based on the public record — without retaining defence counsel on the docket. The with-prejudice bar means Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC cannot revive these patent claims against Batteries Plus in any future action. The cost-sharing arrangement avoided any exceptional-case fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No liability, no fee exposureE-commerce patent risk: what this pattern signals for retail platforms
Transaction-processing patent assertions against retail websites are a recurring enforcement pattern in the Eastern District of Texas. A swift pre-answer dismissal with prejudice — with no costs shifting — is consistent with either an early licensing resolution or a decision by the asserting entity that the case lacked sufficient strength to proceed. Retailers operating e-commerce platforms should monitor both patents, as they may be enforced against other defendants.
Monitor for continued enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 (online transaction processing)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Batteries Plus LLC | Company | Batteries Plus LLC — national battery and device repair retailer operating BatteriesPlus.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shea Beaty | Law Firm | Representing Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming no answer or summary judgment motion had been served — giving the plaintiff unilateral authority to exit without court approval. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ election is the critical term: it converts the procedural withdrawal into a final merits bar, permanently precluding re-assertion of these claims against Batteries Plus LLC. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though no settlement terms are disclosed in the public record.
US8712846B2 & US8396743B2 — online transaction processing systems
US8712846B2 (application 13/794781) and US8396743B2 (application 13/401827) are both directed at online transaction processing technology. These patents cover systems and methods associated with processing commercial transactions via web-based platforms — the type of functionality core to any retail e-commerce checkout flow. The patents were asserted specifically against the BatteriesPlus.com website, suggesting claim scope directed at front-end or back-end transaction workflows.
Transaction-processing patents of this vintage are frequently asserted against a broad range of e-commerce operators, as the claimed methods can potentially read on standard checkout and payment-processing implementations. Both patents remain in force and have not been invalidated in this proceeding. For retailers, SaaS payment providers, and platform operators, these patents represent a continuing enforcement risk — particularly given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas.
Should your e-commerce platform run an FTO against US8712846B2?
Any organisation operating an e-commerce website with online transaction or payment-processing functionality should assess exposure to US8712846B2 and US8396743B2. The claims appear broad enough to potentially cover standard checkout workflows. The Batteries Plus dismissal with prejudice resolves risk only for that specific defendant — every other online retailer, marketplace operator, and payment platform remains a potential target for assertion by the same entity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map claim language from US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 against your specific transaction-processing implementation. Eureka can identify relevant prior art, flag prosecution history estoppel, and surface comparable licences or post-grant proceedings that may affect the patents’ enforceability — giving your team a rapid, evidence-based risk assessment before any demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8712846B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar e-commerce transaction patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving online transaction-processing patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas follow a recognisable enforcement pattern — explore comparable assertions and outcomes below.
What this case signals for the e-commerce transaction patent IP landscape
A 103-day life cycle and pre-answer dismissal with prejudice is a pattern worth mapping for any retailer operating an e-commerce platform.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often signal a licensing resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, it frequently reflects a confidential licensing agreement or covenant not to sue. The cost-sharing clause reinforces this reading. Retailers facing similar assertions should assess early settlement economics against the cost of full defence.
Both asserted patents remain live enforcement tools against other defendants
The dismissal only bars claims against Batteries Plus LLC. US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 remain valid and enforceable against the broader market. Any e-commerce operator processing online transactions should conduct FTO analysis against both patents — particularly those using similar checkout or payment-processing workflows.
Consolidated v Batteries — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC from reasserting US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 against Batteries Plus LLC on the same claims. It was filed before Batteries Plus served an answer, giving the plaintiff unilateral authority to dismiss. No court order was required.
Yes. The dismissal only resolves claims against Batteries Plus LLC. Both patents remain in force and were not invalidated or found unenforceable in this proceeding. Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC retains the right to assert them against other defendants in future actions.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically popular venue for patent assertion entities due to its procedural rules, experienced patent judges, and plaintiff-favourable docket management. Judge Amos L. Mazzant presides here and has significant patent litigation experience, making the forum attractive for plaintiffs asserting broad transaction-processing patents.
The cost-sharing provision means neither party sought or obtained fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Batteries Plus LLC did not recover attorney fees despite the plaintiff’s dismissal. This is a common term in negotiated resolutions and is consistent with — though not proof of — a confidential settlement or licensing agreement.
The public record does not disclose a settlement. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing provision are consistent with a negotiated resolution, but no settlement terms have been filed or confirmed. The case closed 103 days after filing, before any defendant counsel appeared on the docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.