Consolidated Transaction Processing v. BPS Direct: Dismissed Without Prejudice in 110 Days
Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC brought a patent infringement claim against BPS Direct, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting two patents covering targeted product offerings based on personal information. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice after just 110 days — before the defendant had filed any answer.
Early voluntary exit: CTP drops infringement claims before BPS Direct answers
On June 28, 2023, Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC (CTP) filed a patent infringement action against BPS Direct, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, before Judge Thomas M. Durkin. CTP asserted two patents — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — covering technology related to sending targeted product offerings based on personal information. BPS Direct is the defendant; no other parties are named in the record.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a notice filed by plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), stating that the defendant had not yet served an answer, and that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. The order further states that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed on October 16, 2023 — just 110 days after filing and before the defendant filed any responsive pleading. A dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open for the plaintiff to refile claims. The specific circumstances driving the early dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 110 days
110 days from filing to dismissal — resolved before defendant answered
US8712846B2 & US8396743B2 — Targeted product offerings based on personal information
Any company building or operating systems that generate, personalise, or deliver product offers based on consumer or transactional data should treat these patents as priority FTO targets. The case against BPS Direct demonstrates that CTP is willing to enforce these patents in federal court. Given the without-prejudice dismissal, the risk of reassertion against the same or similar defendants has not been eliminated.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket reflects a plaintiff-initiated notice of voluntary dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which operates automatically upon filing when the defendant has not yet served an answer. No court order was required. The dismissal is expressly without prejudice, meaning no merits determination was made, and each party bears its own costs. The scope of the verdict leaves both patents fully intact as enforcement instruments.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's unilateral right to dismiss
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because BPS Direct had not yet answered, CTP exercised this right unilaterally. The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning it does not adjudicate the merits of the infringement claims.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: claims survive for potential refiling
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from reasserting the same claims in a future action, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. The patents-in-suit — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — remain in force and could be asserted again against BPS Direct or other parties. No finding of infringement, validity, or enforceability was made in this proceeding.
Claims may be refiledBPS Direct exits without a merits ruling — but risk is not eliminated
BPS Direct avoided a merits adjudication entirely, having never filed an answer. However, a dismissal without prejudice does not provide BPS Direct with a judgment it could use as a preclusive defense in future proceedings. The asserted patents remain active, and the public record does not disclose any agreement between the parties. BPS Direct retains ongoing exposure if CTP chooses to refile.
No preclusive defense obtainedTargeted-offering patent risk persists in the personalization sector
The dismissal without prejudice leaves US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 fully operative enforcement tools. Companies operating in the targeted product offering and personalized marketing space — particularly those processing personal information to drive commerce — should treat the continued availability of these patents as an active risk signal. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Active patent risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BPS Direct, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neil A. Benchell | Attorney | Counsel for Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the personalized targeting and transaction processing space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from CTP's asserted portfolio and the broader personalized product offering technology landscape.
CTP's assertion portfolio in personalized transaction technology
Consolidated Transaction Processing holds at least two granted patents — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — in the targeted product offering space. Understanding the full scope of CTP's portfolio, including continuation applications and related family members, is essential for companies operating in personalised commerce and transaction routing to assess ongoing assertion risk.
Portfolio mapping priorityFiling trends in personalised product recommendation and targeting systems
Patent filings around personalised product targeting based on consumer data have accelerated alongside the growth of e-commerce and data-driven marketing. Tracking filing trends in this domain — including claims covering real-time personalisation, behavioural data processing, and recommendation engines — helps R&D teams anticipate where the patent thicket is densest and where design-around space may exist.
Filing trend intelligenceBPS Direct's patent position in the direct commerce sector
BPS Direct LLC operates in the direct-to-consumer commerce space. Assessing BPS Direct's own patent portfolio and any cross-licensing history helps contextualise its defensive IP posture in disputes over personalised product offering technology and informs competitive intelligence for others in the sector.
Competitive IP intelligenceAdjacent innovation space: privacy-preserving personalisation methods
As regulatory pressure on personal data use grows, innovation in privacy-preserving personalisation — including federated learning, on-device targeting, and anonymised transaction profiling — represents adjacent white space relative to the asserted patents. R&D teams may find fewer blocking patents and stronger freedom-to-operate in these approaches compared to traditional personal information-based targeting architectures.
White-space innovationSimilar patent infringement cases: targeted product offerings and personalization tech
Explore related patent infringement actions in the targeted product offerings and personalized transaction processing space, filed in Illinois and other federal districts.
What this case signals for the targeted-offering and personalization IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal without prejudice in a personalization patent case leaves enforcement options open and sector risk unresolved.
Pre-answer dismissals signal ongoing negotiation or tactical repositioning
When a plaintiff dismisses under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant answers, it typically signals either an ongoing dialogue between the parties or a decision to refile in a more favorable venue or posture. The public record discloses no settlement terms or licensing agreement in this case.
US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 remain live enforcement assets
Neither patent was challenged, invalidated, or licensed on the public record. Companies developing or deploying systems that send targeted product offerings based on personal information should assess their exposure to these patents, particularly given the plaintiff's demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court.
Consolidated v BPS — key questions answered
Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC asserted two patents: US8712846B2 (application no. US13/794781) and US8396743B2 (application no. US13/401827). Both patents relate to sending targeted product offerings based on personal information. The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on June 28, 2023.
The case was dismissed without prejudice. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a plaintiff notice filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), stating that BPS Direct had not yet served an answer and that CTP voluntarily dismissed the action. Each party bears its own costs. No merits determination was made.
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The patents-in-suit — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — remain in force. No preclusive judgment was entered in favour of BPS Direct. The specific reasons for the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
The docket order expressly states that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No cost award was made in favour of either party.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In patent cases, this mechanism is often used early in litigation. Because no court order is required, the dismissal is effective upon filing. A dismissal under this rule is without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.