Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC v. Sams West
Infringement action filed 9 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 19 Mar 2026, with US9280689B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9280689B2
- Application no.
- US13/816955
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-00024
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 9 Jan 2026 – 19 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 69 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions
Methods and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions that use a barcode as an alternative means for personal identification. The user represented in the bar code format, User ID Barcode, is generated from a number that uniquely identifies the user. Numbers such as a cell phone number or a credit card number may be used to generate the User ID Barcode. These numbers are prefixed with a special character before they are converted to the barcode format. Prefixing a special character is necessary so that the bar code generated can be distinguished from any bar code representing products being sold. If a credit card number is used, the User ID Barcode is printed on the back of the credit card which then becomes a 2 and 1 credit card.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Mar 2016
- Earliest priority
- 21 Sep 2010
- Est. expiry
- 25 Nov 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LING, MARVIN, T.
- Classification
- G06K5/00G06K19/14G06K19/06G06Q20/32G06K15/00
- Examiner
- VO, TUYEN K
Parties of record
Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC
- Core tech
- G06K5/00G06K19/14G06K19/06G06Q20/32
- Counsel
- William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Sams West
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Eric Hugh Findlay
- Firm
- Findlay Craft PC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| William P. Ramey III | Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Eric Hugh Findlay | Sams West | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 9). In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses “all of [its] claims” with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant Sam’s West, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case”
Case 2:26-cv-00024 · E.D. Tex. · closed 19 March 2026
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 2:26-cv-00024?
2:26-cv-00024 is a patent infringement action brought by Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC against Sams West, filed on 9 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 19 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-00024?
US9280689B2 (“Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions”), assigned to WOLVERINE BARCODE IP LLC, currently active. The record also lists Method and apparatus for conducting offline commerce transactions.
How was case 2:26-cv-00024 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Wolverine Barcode IP, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 9). In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses “all of [its] claims” with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant Sam’s West, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fe
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 2:26-cv-00024 take?
69 calendar days, from filing on 9 Jan 2026 to closure on 19 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00024?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wolverine Barcode IP. Eric Hugh Findlay appears for defendant Sams West.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00024 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.