Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

CONSOLIDATED TRANSACTION 

PROCESSING LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-1076

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC (“CTP” or “Plaintiff”), for its 

Complaint against Defendant O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (“O’Reilly” or “Defendant”), alleges the 

following:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of 

Nevada with a place of business at 3107 Boardwalk, Atlantic City, NJ 08401.

3. Upon information and belief, O’Reilly is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Missouri with a place of business located at 233 South Patterson 

Avenue, Springfield, MO 65802. Defendant can be served with process through its registered 

agent, CT Corporation System, 120 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105. 

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
Page 2 of 9

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over O’Reilly at least because O’Reilly

regularly conducts and transacts business, including infringing acts described herein, in this 

District. 

5. Defendant conducts business in Texas, directly or through intermediaries and 

offers products or services, including those accused herein of infringement, to customers, and 

potential customers located in Texas, including in the Eastern District of Texas, and introduces 

infringing products and services into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be sold 

and/or used in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). O’Reilly

maintains an established place of business in the state of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas,

specifically including O’Reilly stores at 501 West Marshall, Longview, TX 75601 and 4330 East 

Lucas Street, Beaumont, TX 77708.

9. Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction 

pursuant to due process or the Texas Long Arm Statute, because Defendant conducts substantial 

business in this forum, including: (i) making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale 

one or more websites or web addresses including, but not limited to 

https://www.oreillyauto.com, stored and/or hosted on one or more servers owned or under the 

control of O’Reilly (the “Accused Instrumentalities”); or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting 

business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from 

goods and services provided to citizens and residents in Texas and in this District. 

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
Page 3 of 9

BACKGROUND

The Inventions

10. Robert S. Alvin is the inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,712,846 (“the ’846 patent”) 

and 8,396,743 (“the ’743 patent”), together the “patents in suit.”

11. A true and correct copy of the ’846 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.

12. A true and correct copy of the ’743 patent is attached as Exhibit 2.

13. The patents in suit resulted from the pioneering efforts of Mr. Alvin (hereinafter 

“the Inventor”) in the area of electronic transaction processing over a communications network. 

These efforts resulted in the development of methods and apparatuses for internet transactions 

based on user-specific information and sending targeted product offerings based on personal 

information in the late 1990s. At the time of these pioneering efforts, most commercially 

available electronic commerce (e-commerce) technology used the Internet and web pages as an 

advertising medium to replace catalog or infomercial type advertising. Moreover, such ecommerce businesses operated by maintaining their own inventory in warehouses, leading to 

higher costs. (See ’846 patent at 2:63-3:2; 3:8-14.)

14. For example, the Inventor developed methods and systems to offer targeted 

products over a communications network. This is achieved by receiving product data for a 

plurality of products from a plurality of distributors for the products, receiving customer data 

from a plurality of customers, comprising personal information about the customers, and using 

the data to generate at least one user-specific product offering from the plurality of products. 

The user-specific product offerings are then conveyed to customers using automated messages.

(See ’846 patent at 3:44-52.)

Advantage Over the Prior Art

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
Page 4 of 9

15. The patented inventions disclosed in the patents in suit provide many advantages 

over the prior art and improved the operations of business transactions conducted over the 

Internet. (See ’846 patent at 1:18-20.)

16. One advantage of the patented inventions is that they enable dynamically 

generating a catalog of products and building a product database comprising products from 

multiple distributors. The product information is transmitted automatically and continually 

updated throughout the day, or even in real time, as product information becomes available from 

the distributors. (See ’846 patent at 5:22-50.) 

17. Another advantage of the patented inventions is that the product information is 

used to generate multiple catalogs from a single system and dynamically display user-specific 

interfaces. For instance, a student may be shown a catalog of products appropriate for students 

with academic pricing, while a business person may be shown a catalog of products appropriate 

for business and with available corporate discounts. (See ’846 patent at 5:61-6:16.) Further, 

pricing for each product may be generated dynamically by an intelligent rule-based algorithm, 

(such as an artificial intelligence program), factoring in the distributor’s price, any specials, and 

cost or profit margins. (Id. at 6:17-29.)

18. A further advantage of the patented inventions is that they enable the use of stored 

customer information to be used for generating customized portfolios based on purchase patterns 

of individuals to provide targeted advertising, purchase incentives, specialized promotions, or

competitive pricing. (See ’846 patent at 5:7-20.) 

19. The use of a centralized database to store product data from the plurality of 

distributors—each of which offers similar products for sale—provides the ability to select from a 

distributor based on various criteria, such as availability, price, shipping speed, or profit margins. 

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
Page 5 of 9

(’846 patent at 9:23-58.) Prior systems using separate databases did not have the capability of 

selecting a distributor as each product was only available from one distributor. Further, 

centralization of the product database provides increased database security and consistency of 

data, as no individual distributor can modify the database contents (other than updating its own 

inventory and pricing). 

20. Even though prior systems accepted a shopper’s personal information and may 

have stored it in a database, they did not use any stored personal information to dynamically 

generate catalogs with user-specific product offerings of products from the plurality of 

distributors. Instead, prior systems offered static catalogs to each prospective shopper that 

simply listed the products available for sale from each individual distributor, without aggregating 

or processing the catalog information in any manner. The use of a single centralized database, as 

taught by the ’846 and ’743 patents, improved the computerized backbone to allow a merchant to 

use product data and customer information together to provide a shopper with a more 

personalized shopping experience. 

21. The system described by the ’846 and ’743 patents thus enables a wider range of 

product offerings shown to a customer than a system offering products solely from a single 

merchant. For instance, the product offerings may take into account variations in price and 

availability, shipping speed, each distributor’s desired profit margin, or an existing relationship 

between the customer and the distributor. (’846 patent at 9:47-58.) By selecting from a plurality 

of distributors, the ’846 and ’743 patents provide increased access to the marketplace for a wider 

range of distributors who may otherwise be excluded in favor of more established entities.

22. Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of 

the patented invention, CTP believes that the patents in suit present significant commercial value 

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
Page 6 of 9

for companies like Defendant. Indeed, business transactions over the Internet are more 

commonplace than ever, and with the number of merchants selling products online, it is crucial 

that businesses distinguish themselves by the extent of automation and user-specific 

customization they provide during the online shopping experience. These advantages are taught 

by the inventions of the patents in suit.

Technological Innovation

23. The patented inventions disclosed in the patents in suit resolve technical problems 

related to Internet transactions based on user-specific information, particularly problems related 

to the utilization of product data from a plurality of distributors and personal information of 

customers in generating electronic catalogs of user-specific product offerings. As the patents in 

suit explain, one of the limitations of the prior art as regards electronic transaction processing 

technology was that most e-commerce retail businesses still operated by maintaining an 

inventory in warehouses, as they used the Internet mainly as an advertising medium and to 

replace catalog or infomercial type advertising. (See, e.g., ’846 patent at 2:63-3:14.)

24. The claims of the patents in suit do not merely recite the performance of some 

well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform 

it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the patents in suit recite inventive concepts that are 

deeply rooted in computerized transaction processing, advertising, and product offering 

technology, and overcome problems specifically arising out of how to create targeted advertising 

by dynamically generating electronic catalogs from a plurality of products based on a user’s 

personal information. 

25. In addition, the claims of the patents in suit recite inventive concepts that improve 

the functioning of electronic catalogs and payment authorization systems used for electronic 

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
Page 7 of 9

transaction processing, particularly as they recite the use of a user’s personal information to 

dynamically generate user-specific product offerings, authorize distributors to ship products 

directly to the user following successful payment processing, and send automated messages to 

customers containing order information.

26. Moreover, the claims of the patents in suit recite inventive concepts that are not 

merely routine or conventional use of advertising, product offering, and transaction processing. 

Instead, the patented inventions disclosed in the patents in suit provide a new and novel solution 

to specific problems related to automating the process of targeted advertising, targeted product 

offering, and retail sales transaction processing by dynamically utilizing customer data and 

product data. The claims of the patents in suit thus specify how customer data and product data 

are manipulated to yield a desired result.

27. And finally, the patented invention disclosed in the patents in suit does not 

preempt all the ways that user-specific information may be used to improve internet transactions, 

nor do the patents in suit preempt any other well-known or prior art technology.

28. Accordingly, the claims in the patents in suit recite a combination of elements 

sufficient to ensure that the claim in substance and in practice amounts to significantly more than 

a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,712,846

29. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 26 are 

incorporated into this First Claim for Relief.

30. On April 29, 2014, the ’846 patent, entitled “Sending Targeted Product Offerings 

Based on Personal Information” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office.

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
Page 8 of 9

31. CTP is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’846 

patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right to 

any remedies for infringement of them.

32. Upon information and belief, O’Reilly has directly infringed at least claims 1, 3, 

and 4 of the ’846 patent by making, using, providing, and/or causing to be used the Accused 

Instrumentalities, as set forth in detail in the attached preliminary and exemplary claim charts

provided in Exhibit 3.

33. CTP has been harmed by O’Reilly’s infringing activities.

COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,396,743

34. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 31 are 

incorporated into this Second Claim for Relief.

35. On March 12, 2013, the ’743 patent, entitled “Sending Targeted Product 

Offerings Based on Personal Information” was duly and legally issued by the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office.

36. CTP is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’743 

patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patents and the right to 

any remedies for infringement of them.

37. Upon information and belief, O’Reilly has directly infringed at least claims 1 and 

4 of the ’743 patent by making, using, providing, and/or causing to be used the Accused 

Instrumentalities, as set forth in detail in the attached preliminary and exemplary claim charts 

provided in Exhibit 4.

38. CTP has been harmed by O’Reilly’s infringing activities.

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
Page 9 of 9

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, CTP demands a trial by jury 

on all issues triable as such.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, CTP demands judgment for itself and against O’Reilly as follows:

A. An adjudication that O’Reilly has infringed the ’846 and ’743 patents;

B. An award of damages to be paid by O’Reilly adequate to compensate CTP for 

O’Reilly’s past infringement of the patents in suit, including interest, costs, expenses and an 

accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial;

C. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of 

CTP’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

D. An award to CTP of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems just 

and proper.

Dated: December 6, 2023 BEATY LEGAL PLLC

/s/ Trevor Beaty

Trevor Beaty

trevor@beatylegal.com

514 North Elm Street

Sherman, TX 75090

Tel: (903) 287-5121

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC

Case 4:23-cv-01076-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9