Consolidated Transaction Processing v. L.L. Bean — Voluntarily Dismissed
Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC sued L.L. Bean, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of two patents covering targeted product offerings based on personal information. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice just 106 days after filing, before L.L. Bean had answered the complaint.
A targeted-marketing patent suit that ended before it began
On June 28, 2023, Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC filed an infringement action against L.L. Bean, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The complaint asserted two patents — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — relating to sending targeted product offerings based on personal information. Plaintiff was represented by Neil A. Benchell of Devlin Law Firm LLC.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), citing that L.L. Bean had not yet served an answer to the complaint, which permitted unilateral dismissal without a court order. The notice specified that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms, if any, underlying this decision are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on October 12, 2023, just 106 days after filing and before any substantive litigation activity appeared on the public docket. The pre-answer timing meant no claim construction, no invalidity contentions, and no merits ruling. What drove the plaintiff's decision to dismiss with prejudice at this early stage is not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 106 days
106 days — case closed before defendant filed any answer
US8712846B2 & US8396743B2 — Targeted product offerings via personal information
Any company deploying personalisation engines, targeted product recommendation systems, or data-driven marketing workflows that use personal information to customise product offerings should treat these two patents as relevant to FTO analysis. The dismissal with prejudice binds only L.L. Bean — every other retailer, e-commerce operator, or marketing technology provider remains a potential target. No court has ruled on the validity or claim scope of either patent.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states it is with prejudice, which — while procedurally a plaintiff-initiated filing requiring no court order at this stage — carries the substantive effect of a final judgment on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. Neither party obtained a ruling on infringement or validity; the merits of the asserted patents remain entirely unresolved by this proceeding.
Voluntary dismissal: what the early 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 before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because L.L. Bean had not yet answered, Consolidated Transaction Processing exercised this right unilaterally. The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning the same claims cannot be re-filed against L.L. Bean.
With prejudice — claims extinguishedPlaintiff forfeits the right to re-assert these patents against L.L. Bean
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, barring Consolidated Transaction Processing from re-filing the same infringement claims based on US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 against L.L. Bean in the future. The plaintiff retains the patents and may still assert them against other defendants. The specific reasons for accepting this outcome are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent survives — L.L. Bean shieldedL.L. Bean exits without filing a single paper
L.L. Bean achieved a final resolution of this action without having to answer the complaint, brief any motions, or incur substantial litigation costs. The with-prejudice dismissal provides L.L. Bean with a permanent bar against these specific patent claims being re-asserted by this plaintiff. Each party bears its own costs, so L.L. Bean recovers no fees from the plaintiff.
Full dismissal — no cost recoveryEarly exit signals strategic reassessment of the assertion campaign
A with-prejudice voluntary dismissal this early in litigation — before any answer was filed — suggests a significant shift in the plaintiff's enforcement strategy, though the specific reasons are not disclosed in the available record. For retailers and e-commerce operators using personalisation and targeted-marketing technology, the asserted patents (US8712846B2 and US8396743B2) remain live and could be asserted against other parties. FTO analysis against this portfolio remains relevant for companies in the targeted-marketing space.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | L.L. Bean, Inc. | 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 Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the personalisation and targeted-marketing patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Consolidated Transaction Processing v. L.L. Bean action and the asserted personalisation technology portfolio.
Consolidated Transaction Processing's patent assertion portfolio
US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 appear to be part of a focused assertion portfolio targeting personalised e-commerce systems. Understanding the full family of patents held by Consolidated Transaction Processing — including continuation applications and related filings — can reveal the breadth of claim coverage and whether additional assertions against retail technology operators are likely.
NPE portfolio mappingFiling trends in personalised product recommendation IP
The targeted product offering space — covering systems that match personal information to product recommendations — has seen sustained filing activity as machine learning and behavioural data analytics have matured. Tracking filing trends in this domain helps retailers and ad-tech companies anticipate where the next wave of NPE assertions is likely to emerge and identify potential white-space for defensive filings.
Personalisation patent trendsL.L. Bean's patent position in direct-to-consumer retail technology
L.L. Bean operates a significant direct-to-consumer retail platform. Understanding its own patent filings and defensive IP posture in the personalisation and e-commerce technology space provides insight into how it manages NPE exposure and whether it holds relevant prior art or cross-licensing leverage in this domain.
L.L. Bean IP postureAdjacent claim space: consent-based and privacy-compliant targeting systems
As data privacy regulations reshape how personal information may be used for marketing, patent white space is opening in privacy-compliant personalisation architectures — including consent management layers, anonymised recommendation systems, and federated learning approaches. Companies investing R&D in these areas may find defensible claim space adjacent to — and partially around — patents like US8712846B2 and US8396743B2.
Privacy-compliant targeting IPSimilar targeted-marketing patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Browse comparable NPE infringement actions asserting personalisation and targeted-marketing patents in the Northern District of Illinois and related venues.
What this case signals for the targeted-marketing IP landscape
Two personalisation patents asserted and withdrawn in 106 days — here is what patent professionals in the e-commerce and retail sector should take away.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice warrant close monitoring of plaintiff portfolios
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant answers, the underlying patents survive and remain assertable against other targets. Companies operating personalisation and targeted-marketing systems should track US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 for future assertion activity against industry peers.
Devlin Law Firm LLC is an active NPE litigation vehicle — monitor its docket
Consolidated Transaction Processing was represented by Devlin Law Firm LLC, a firm associated with non-practising entity litigation. Retailers and e-commerce platforms deploying targeted product recommendation systems should maintain awareness of this plaintiff's broader assertion activity across other jurisdictions.
Consolidated v L.L. — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff, Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC, on October 12, 2023 — 106 days after filing. The dismissal was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before L.L. Bean had served an answer. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific reasons for the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
The plaintiff asserted two patents: US8712846B2 (application US13/794781) and US8396743B2 (application US13/401827), both relating to sending targeted product offerings based on personal information. No claim construction or invalidity ruling was issued; both patents remain in force and can be asserted against parties other than L.L. Bean.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Consolidated Transaction Processing from re-asserting the same patent claims against L.L. Bean in any future action. L.L. Bean is fully shielded from this plaintiff on these patents. The dismissal was filed before L.L. Bean answered, so it required no court order and L.L. Bean incurred no cost award.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between these two parties. No court ruled on the validity, claim scope, or enforceability of either patent. Both US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 remain valid, in force, and potentially assertable against other companies operating targeted product recommendation or personalisation systems.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The record does not disclose the plaintiff's specific rationale for venue selection. The Northern District of Illinois is a commonly used venue for patent infringement actions, including those filed by non-practising entities.
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.