Consolidated Transaction Processing v. Mavis Tire Supply — Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC filed suit against Mavis Tire Supply in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering targeted product offerings based on personal information. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 79 days after filing, leaving the door open to potential refiling.
79-day exit in a targeted-offers patent action against a tire retailer
On December 6, 2023, Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC filed an infringement action against Mavis Tire Supply (operating as Mavis Discount Tire, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The suit asserted two patents — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — directed at systems and methods for sending targeted product offerings based on personal information, a technology category broadly relevant to loyalty programs, CRM platforms, and digital retail marketing.
The case closed on February 23, 2024, just 79 days after filing, when the court granted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a voluntary dismissal without prejudice terminates the current action but does not bar the plaintiff from reasserting the same patent claims in a future lawsuit. No settlement terms, licensing terms, or costs order appear on the public record.
A resolution inside 80 days — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings — typically suggests either early-stage licensing negotiations concluded, a business decision to redirect enforcement strategy, or a tactical reassessment of the defendant’s exposure. The without-prejudice framing is notable: it preserves Consolidated Transaction Processing’s full enforcement optionality. What drove the withdrawal, and whether any commercial arrangement was reached privately, remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to resolution in 79 days
79 days — closed well under the median for patent infringement actions in E.D. Tex.
What the voluntary dismissal without prejudice means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a) — what it does and doesn’t do
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The court granted the Notice here, terminating this proceeding. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means the dismissal carries no judgment on the merits — Consolidated Transaction Processing retains the legal right to bring the same claims in a new action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
FRCP 41(a) — no merits rulingWithout prejudice — the public record does not confirm a settlement
A dismissal without prejudice is legally distinct from one with prejudice. With prejudice closes the door permanently; without prejudice does not. Importantly, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not necessarily mean no deal was reached — parties frequently agree terms privately and then file a voluntary dismissal. The public record here is silent on whether any licensing agreement or payment was involved. Neither outcome should be assumed.
Settlement status: unconfirmedPlaintiff retains full right to refile against Mavis Tire or others
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Consolidated Transaction Processing’s patent rights are unaffected. Both US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 remain in force (subject to their own expiry and validity status). The plaintiff could refile against Mavis Tire, pursue other defendants in the retail or automotive sector, or use the patents as licensing leverage. The withdrawal does not signal patent invalidity or non-infringement.
Patents remain enforceableMavis Tire exits without a court finding — but exposure may persist
Mavis Tire Supply obtained dismissal of all asserted claims without any court ruling on infringement or validity. There is no injunction, no damages award, and no admission. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, this does not constitute a clean legal release. If Consolidated Transaction Processing refiles on the same patents, Mavis Tire would need to defend again. The represented defendant engaged Perkins Coie LLP, suggesting the matter was taken seriously.
No injunction; potential re-exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 (targeted product offerings)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mavis Tire Supply | Company | Mavis Tire Supply d/b/a Mavis Discount Tire, Inc. — large U.S. retail tire and auto service chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J. Moffa | Attorney | Counsel for Mavis Tire SupplySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order grants the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and dismisses all claims against Mavis Tire Supply without any ruling on the merits. The phrasing ‘all claims asserted in this suit’ confirms that both patent counts — under US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — are terminated in this proceeding. Crucially, no finding of infringement, non-infringement, or invalidity is made, meaning neither party secured a substantive legal advantage. The without-prejudice designation keeps all claims legally alive.
US8712846B2 & US8396743B2 — Targeted Product Offering Systems
US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 are both directed at systems and methods for delivering targeted product offerings to consumers using personal information — a technology family that sits at the intersection of transaction processing, customer data analytics, and personalised marketing. Application US13/794781 (issuing as US8712846B2) and US13/401827 (issuing as US8396743B2) were filed in the early 2010s, a period of rapid development in CRM-integrated offer delivery. The claims typically cover the logic of matching consumer profile data to product or service promotions in a transactional context.
This patent family is strategically significant for any business that uses purchase history, customer identifiers, or behavioural signals to surface promotional content — a description that fits a very wide range of retail and automotive service operators. Tire retailers, quick-service automotive chains, and loyalty-platform providers are all plausible targets. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means the patents remain active enforcement assets, and companies using third-party personalisation engines should not interpret the case closure as a signal that the IP risk has passed.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8712846B2 and US8396743B2?
Any business that algorithmically surfaces product offers, coupons, or service recommendations based on stored customer data — whether directly or via a third-party marketing platform — should take this patent family seriously. This includes automotive service chains, tyre retailers, e-commerce platforms with recommendation engines, and loyalty programme operators. The fact that this action was withdrawn without prejudice does not reduce the FTO obligation; it may signal active enforcement is ongoing or imminent against other targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the independent and dependent claims of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2, identify prior art that may support a validity challenge, and flag any continuation or continuation-in-part applications that could extend claim coverage. Setting up a claim monitoring alert on this patent family will notify your team if new assertions are filed, keeping your legal and product teams ahead of the enforcement curve.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8712846B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases — targeted marketing and transaction processing IP disputes
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the targeted-offers patent licensing landscape
Two patents on personalised product delivery systems, a major tire retailer, and a sub-80-day exit — the pattern is worth reading carefully.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for NPE-style targeted-marketing patent suits
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent plaintiffs asserting data-driven marketing and transaction-processing patents. Companies operating loyalty programs, personalised email, or CRM-driven promotions in any retail sector should treat E.D. Tex. filings in this technology class as a standing threat vector, not isolated events.
Without-prejudice exits on personalised-data patents leave defendants in a holding pattern
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice against a defendant like Mavis Tire does not remove the litigation risk — it defers it. Retailers and service businesses using third-party targeted-marketing platforms should confirm contractual indemnification coverage from their technology vendors, since the underlying patent claims remain live and assertable.
Consolidated v Mavis — key questions answered
Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Mavis Tire Supply in the Eastern District of Texas on December 6, 2023, asserting US8712846B2 and US8396743B2. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on February 23, 2024, 79 days after filing. No court ruled on infringement or validity, and no costs order was entered.
Two patents were asserted: US8712846B2 (application US13/794781) and US8396743B2 (application US13/401827). Both cover systems and methods for sending targeted product offerings based on personal information — a technology relevant to CRM, loyalty platforms, and digital retail marketing.
The dismissal without prejudice terminates this specific action but carries no ruling on the merits. Consolidated Transaction Processing retains the right to refile the same patent claims against Mavis Tire in a future lawsuit. Mavis Tire received no permanent legal release — its exposure under these patents technically persists until the patents expire or are invalidated.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, which is consistent with a private settlement but does not prove one occurred. No licensing terms, payment amounts, or settlement agreements appear in the court docket. Either outcome — settlement or simple withdrawal — is plausible based on available information.
The Eastern District of Texas is historically one of the most plaintiff-friendly federal courts for patent litigation in the United States, with well-developed patent case procedures and a history of large damages awards. It remains a preferred filing venue for patent assertion entities, including those asserting data-driven marketing and transaction-processing patents, making it a high-risk jurisdiction for technology-dependent retailers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.