Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
Infringement action filed 30 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 7 Sep 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case terminated.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8712846B2US8396743B2
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-04237
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ill.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Illinois
- Chief judge
- John F. Kness
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 30 Jun 2023 – 7 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 69 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Terminated
- Products & marks
- Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information
Targeted products are offered over a communications network. Product data for a plurality of products from a plurality of distributors for the products is received. Customer data from a plurality of customers comprising personal information about customers is received. Using the data, at least one user-specific product offering from the plurality of products is generated. Automated messages comprising the at least one user-specific product offering to the one or more customers are then sent.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 29 Apr 2014
- Est. expiry
- 30 Jun 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ALVIN, ROBERT, S.
- Classification
- G06Q40/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Law Office of Dorian Cartwright
- Examiner
- HOLLY, JOHN H
Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information
Targeted products are offered over a communications network. Product data for a plurality of products from a plurality of distributors for the products is received. Customer data from a plurality of customers comprising personal information about customers is received. Using the data, at least one user-specific product offering from the plurality of products is generated. Automated messages comprising the at least one user-specific product offering to the one or more customers are then sent.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 Mar 2013
- Est. expiry
- 30 Jun 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ALVIN, ROBERT S.
- Classification
- G06Q40/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Law Office of Dorian Cartwright
- Examiner
- HOLLY, JOHN H
Parties of record
Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC
- Core tech
- G06Q40/00
- Counsel
- Neil A. Benchell
- Firm
- Devlin Law Firm LLC
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Neil A. Benchell | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Honorable John F. Kness: Telephonic status hearing held on 9/7/2023. As discussed on the record, Plaintiff’s unopposed oral motion to dismiss under FRCP 41(a)(2) is granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate on or before 11/6/2023. In the event a motion to reinstate is not filed on or before that date, or no party has moved to extend the 11/6/2023 deadline, the case shall be deemed, without further order of the Court, to be dismissed with prejudice. Each party to bear its own fees and costs. Civil case terminated”
Case 1:23-cv-04237 · N.D. Ill. · closed 7 September 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-04237?
1:23-cv-04237 is a patent infringement action brought by Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC against Williams-Sonoma, Inc., filed on 30 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 7 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-04237?
US8712846B2 (“Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information”), assigned to CONSOLIDATED TRANSACTION PROCESSING, LLC, currently inactive; US8396743B2 (“Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information”), assigned to CONSOLIDATED TRANSACTION PROCESSING, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Sending targeted product offerings based on personal information.
How was case 1:23-cv-04237 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: “The Honorable John F. Kness: Telephonic status hearing held on 9/7/2023. As discussed on the record, Plaintiff’s unopposed oral motion to dismiss under FRCP 41(a)(2) is granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate on or before 11/6/2023. In the event a motion to reinstate is not filed on or before that date, or no party has moved to extend the 11/6/2023 deadline, the case shall be deemed, without further order of the Court, to be dismissed with prejudice. Each party to bear its own fees and costs. Civil case terminated”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:23-cv-04237 take?
69 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jun 2023 to closure on 7 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-04237?
Chief Judge John F. Kness presided. Neil A. Benchell is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Consolidated Transaction Processing.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-04237 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.