Consolidated Transaction Processing v. Target: Voluntary Dismissal After 49 Days
Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Target Corporation in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting two patents covering targeted product offerings based on personal information. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice just 49 days after filing, before Target had filed an answer.
A 49-day infringement action against Target, resolved before first answer
On 5 December 2022, Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Target Corporation in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22-cv-06814), presided over by Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The plaintiff asserted two patents — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — directed to technology for sending targeted product offerings based on personal information.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order, styled as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), states that the plaintiff dismissed the action against Target Corporation with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The notice expressly notes that Target had not yet served an answer at the time of dismissal, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal.
The resolution at 49 days — before Target even responded — is notably swift and suggests the plaintiff chose to exit before any substantive litigation costs were incurred by the defendant. What prompted the early exit is not disclosed in the available public record, and the specific terms, if any, beyond the cost-bearing provision are not disclosed.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 49 days
49 days — resolved before defendant answered the complaint
US8712846B2 & US8396743B2 — Targeted product offerings via personal data
Any retailer, e-commerce platform, or marketing technology vendor deploying systems that use personal information to generate targeted product offers should treat these two patents as active freedom-to-operate risks. The patents have no invalidating judicial history, and the plaintiff has demonstrated willingness to assert them in federal court against a major national retailer. R&D and product teams building personalisation engines, recommendation APIs, or loyalty data pipelines should prioritise claim mapping.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1), which permits unilateral plaintiff dismissal before the defendant serves an answer — a procedural mechanism that requires no judicial approval. The notice explicitly records the dismissal as with prejudice and states each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling, claim construction, or validity determination was entered, meaning the asserted patents' strength is unaffected by this proceeding.
Voluntary dismissal: what the early exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): unilateral dismissal before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to 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 Target had not yet answered, Consolidated Transaction Processing could file this notice unilaterally. The Basis of Termination is recorded as 'Voluntary dismissal'; the dismissal notice itself states the dismissal is with prejudice.
Pre-answer dismissalThe distinction matters — and the public record is instructive
A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. A dismissal without prejudice preserves that option. The Basis of Termination field records 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying either. The docket order text, however, states explicitly that the dismissal is with prejudice. Readers should note that these two data points characterise the outcome differently; the specific legal effect on the plaintiff's ability to refile is best confirmed against the original docket.
Prejudice distinctionTarget exits without filing a single responsive pleading
Target Corporation was dismissed from the suit without having served an answer, incurring no adjudicated liability. The cost-bearing provision in the dismissal notice provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, meaning Target receives no fee award. No finding of non-infringement or invalidity was entered, leaving the asserted patents' enforceability against others intact.
No liability foundPatents remain live enforcement tools against the wider retail sector
The voluntary dismissal creates no judicial record on infringement, validity, or claim scope for US8712846B2 or US8396743B2. Retailers and e-commerce platforms deploying targeted product offering systems based on personal data should note that no adverse ruling weakens these patents. Companies in this technology segment should assess their exposure independently, as the patents remain available for future assertion.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Target Corporation | Company | Target Corporation — US multinational retail corporationSearch 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 targeted product offering & personalised commerce IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Consolidated Transaction Processing v. Target litigation and the asserted personalisation technology patents.
Consolidated Transaction Processing's assertion portfolio in personalised commerce
Consolidated Transaction Processing holds at least two granted US patents in the targeted product offering space. Understanding the full scope of their portfolio — including any continuation applications, related family members, or co-pending applications — is critical for retail and e-commerce companies assessing future assertion risk. Portfolio depth signals whether this is a single-patent play or a broader enforcement programme.
Portfolio depth signalFiling trends in personalised product recommendations and targeted retail offers
The technology domain covering personalised product offerings based on personal data is a dense and active filing space, spanning recommendation engines, loyalty systems, and real-time offer delivery platforms. Tracking recent filing trends — particularly by retail technology companies and platform vendors — reveals which players are building defensive portfolios and where white space may exist for design-around strategies.
Active filing spaceTarget Corporation's own IP position in personalisation and retail tech
Target Corporation is an active filer in retail technology, including data-driven customer experience and supply chain systems. Assessing their own patent portfolio in the personalised marketing and transaction processing space reveals whether they hold defensive assets that could have been leveraged in cross-licensing discussions — and whether they are building future-facing IP in adjacent recommendation or loyalty data domains.
Defensive portfolio checkAdjacent R&D opportunities near the asserted personalisation patents
The asserted patents' focus on personal-information-driven product targeting leaves adjacent innovation areas — such as privacy-preserving personalisation, federated data models, and consent-based offer delivery — potentially less densely filed. Companies seeking to build proprietary positions in next-generation targeted commerce infrastructure may find patentable white space by designing around the asserted claims while advancing privacy-compliant architectures.
White space opportunitySimilar patent infringement cases in targeted marketing & transaction processing
Explore related infringement actions asserting targeted product offering and transaction processing patents in US district courts, particularly the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the targeted marketing IP landscape
A sub-50-day lifecycle against a major retailer raises clear questions about assertion strategy and portfolio positioning in personalised commerce technology.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal rapid commercial recalibration
When a plaintiff dismisses before the defendant answers, it typically signals a strategic pivot — licensing negotiation, portfolio reassessment, or resource constraints. No terms beyond the cost provision are disclosed. Companies monitoring assertion activity around targeted product offering patents should treat this case as an open data point, not a closed chapter.
No invalidity record strengthens the patents for future assertion
Because the case ended without any court ruling on claim construction, validity, or infringement, US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 carry no adverse judicial history. For any company operating in the personalised retail or targeted promotions space, this makes these patents higher-risk assets than a litigated-to-judgment case with invalidity findings would suggest.
Consolidated v Target — 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 5 December 2022.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order — a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) — states that the plaintiff dismissed the action against Target with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No merits ruling was entered.
The case was closed just 49 days after filing, before Target served an answer. The public record does not disclose the reason for the early dismissal. The specific terms, if any, beyond the cost-bearing provision stated in the dismissal notice are not available in the public record.
No adverse judicial ruling on validity, infringement, or claim scope was entered. The voluntary dismissal creates no legal precedent weakening either patent. Both patents remain available for future enforcement proceedings. Companies in the targeted product offering and personalised commerce technology space should treat these patents as carrying their full pre-litigation enforceability.
A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal allows a plaintiff to exit a case unilaterally before the defendant answers, requiring no court order. When filed with prejudice, it generally bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. The Basis of Termination records 'Voluntary dismissal'; the order text states 'with prejudice.' Each party bears its own costs under the terms of the dismissal notice.
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.