Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Consumeron, LLC v. MapleBear Inc., case number 1:21-cv-01147, is active in the Delaware District Court. The plaintiff, CONSUMERON LLC, has sued defendant MapleBear Inc., which operates as the well-known grocery delivery service Instacart. CONSUMERON LLC describes itself as a company operating a grocery delivery and pick-up service in parts of Los Angeles, utilizing mobile technology with features like real-time imaging and augmented reality for shoppers. However, in the context of this litigation, the pattern of asserting patents against a major operating company like Instacart often raises questions about whether CONSUMERON LLC primarily operates as a practicing entity or a patent assertion entity (PAE), also colloquially known as a "patent troll." Instacart, the defendant, is a leading technology company providing grocery delivery and pick-up services through its mobile platform.

The core of the dispute involves U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835, which is among several patents initially asserted by Consumeron LLC and generally directed to mobile delivery agent systems incorporating real-time imaging and rapid delivery capabilities. Instacart's mobile delivery services, which facilitate grocery shopping and delivery, are the accused infringing technology. The case is presided over by Judge Gregory B. Williams in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Delaware is a highly favored venue for patent litigation due to a significant number of major U.S. technology and pharmaceutical companies being incorporated there, a factor reinforced by the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision which tightened patent venue requirements. The court is known for its experienced patent bench and efficient case management.

The case is notable for its procedural posture, as the litigation was stayed in May 2023 pending the outcome of multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Instacart against all asserted patents, including 10,628,835. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted IPRs on all asserted claims in March 2023, leading the district court to grant a stay, acknowledging that the IPRs were likely to simplify issues or eliminate claims, despite the case being relatively far along with discovery complete and claim construction decided. This IPR linkage is a significant development, as the outcome of these administrative reviews could profoundly impact the scope and viability of the asserted patent claims, potentially streamlining or concluding the district court litigation.

The patent infringement litigation, CONSUMERON, LLC v. MapleBear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01147, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835, among others.

Here are the key legal developments and the current posture of the case:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2021-08-06: CONSUMERON LLC filed the complaint against MapleBear Inc., doing business as Instacart, asserting infringement of four patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,628,835, 10,594,191, 10,290,067, and 10,387,594.
• Instacart subsequently filed its answer to the complaint.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Instacart initially filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, which was denied because the IPRs had not yet been instituted.
• 2023-03-23: After institution of IPRs, Instacart filed a second motion to stay the district court litigation.
• 2023-05-12: The District Court granted Instacart's motion to stay the proceedings, noting that IPRs had been instituted on all asserted claims and were likely to simplify issues or potentially eliminate claims, creating estoppel benefits. The court also considered the advanced status of the litigation, with discovery complete and a trial set, but found that the simplification factor strongly favored a stay.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• 2023-01: Claim construction was decided by the court. Details of the specific claim construction rulings are not available in the provided snippets.

Discovery Milestones:

• Fact and expert discovery were completed prior to the court granting the stay.

Trial Events & Post-Trial Motions:

• A trial in the district court was initially set for October 2023; however, the case was stayed in May 2023 before the trial could commence, pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings. No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred due to the stay.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The case is currently active but stayed, pending the outcome of the parallel PTAB IPR proceedings. The most recent docket activity noted was on April 22, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2022-08-05: Instacart filed four IPR petitions challenging all asserted claims across the four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835.
• 2023-03-03: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted IPRs on all asserted claims. These IPR proceedings are ongoing and led to the district court case being stayed.

Here is the counsel of record representing CONSUMERON LLC in the patent infringement case 1:21-cv-01147 in the Delaware District Court, including those who represented the plaintiff in the related Federal Circuit appeal:

Lead Counsel (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP)

• Paul J. Andre

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Silicon Valley Office (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note on experience: Paul J. Andre is co-chair of the Intellectual Property practice and managing partner of the Silicon Valley office. He specializes in intellectual property disputes involving complex technology, including life sciences, computer science, and electrical arts, and has handled over 100 patent trials and litigations, securing significant verdicts. He also appeared in the District Court case. [cite: 2, previous search]

• James R. Hannah

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
  • Note on experience: Recognized by Patexia as a "Best Performing Attorney for Patent Litigation."

• Daniel Noah Lerman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, Washington, DC Office
  • Note on experience: Argued for Consumeron, LLC (as appellant) in the Federal Circuit appeal.

• Jenna Fuller

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, New York, NY Office
  • Note on experience: Listed as representing the appellant (Consumeron, LLC) in the Federal Circuit appeal.

• Jeffrey Price

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, New York, NY Office
  • Note on experience: Listed as representing the appellant (Consumeron, LLC) in the Federal Circuit appeal.

• Roy T. Englert, Jr.

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets in relation to this case, but listed alongside Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer attorneys for the appellant in the Federal Circuit appeal.
  • Note on experience: Roy T. Englert, Jr. is a prominent appellate attorney known for his work before the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit.

Local Counsel (District of Delaware)

Based on available search results, a definitive "Delaware local counsel" for CONSUMERON LLC in case 1:21-cv-01147 could not be definitively identified by full name and firm. A docket entry indicated "Appearance of Attorney Paul J. Andre, Lisa ... Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware ...", suggesting a "Lisa" was involved as local counsel [cite: 2, previous search]. However, further targeted searches did not yield specific information to fully identify this "Lisa" as local counsel for the plaintiff in this particular case. While several prominent Delaware patent litigators with the first name "Lisa" exist (e.g., Lisa A. Schmidt), no direct connection to CONSUMERON LLC in this case could be established through the searches. It is common for out-of-state lead counsel to engage local Delaware counsel for district court proceedings.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

I have the core docket data. Let me dig deeper into the defendant's counsel details and any changes over time.

Let me check for recent docket activity (whether the case was dismissed after the Federal Circuit affirmance) and details on the Keker attorneys.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — MapleBear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

Bottom line: Instacart has been represented by a two-firm district-court team: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (San Francisco) as lead trial counsel (appearing pro hac vice), with Shaw Keller LLP (Wilmington) as Delaware local counsel. Separately, the Haynes and Boone, LLP IPR team handled the parallel PTAB proceedings and the Federal Circuit appeal. No in-house counsel appears on the docket.

Sourcing caveat: The attorney roster below is drawn from the D. Del. docket as captured in a PTAB exhibit (1:21-cv-01147-VAC-MPT docket sheet) and the Justia docket (last retrieved May 12, 2023). Because the case has been stayed since May 2023, no withdrawal/substitution entries are reflected in the sources I could reach. Recent filings (post-January 2026) are not fully captured in the free dockets I could access, so a PACER pull would be needed to confirm the current appearance list. I did not find any sealed attorney filings.

---

Lead Trial Counsel (District Court) — Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP

Office: 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111

Local Counsel (D. Del.) — Shaw Keller LLP
Office: I.M. Pei Building, 1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801

---

PTAB / Federal Circuit Counsel — Haynes and Boone, LLP (for Petitioner/Appellee Instacart)

These attorneys did not appear in the Delaware district court action; they represented Instacart in the four IPRs (IPR2022-01356/01357/01358/01359) and consolidated Federal Circuit appeals Nos. 24-1703-1706.

---

Notes, flags, and cross-checks

1. Two-firm structure is normal here. Keker (out-of-state IP boutique) handled the merits; Shaw Keller provided the Delaware local-counsel function required by D. Del. L.R. 83.5(d). Instacart did not use the same firm for its district and IPR work — Haynes and Boone ran the PTAB and appellate tracks.
2. Contradiction/update vs. the prior sections: The earlier "Key legal developments" section stated the case remains "active but stayed" pending the IPRs. That is directionally consistent with the stay, but newer developments go further: the PTAB final written decision in the '835 IPR (IPR2022-01357) issued Feb. 29, 2024, holding all challenged claims unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on January 12, 2026 (Rule 36 judgment, Nos. 24-1703 et al., Dyk/Stoll/Cunningham). Per Daily Journal profiles of the Keker team, "every asserted claim was canceled." I could not locate a dismissal entry in the district court docket in the free sources available, so I cannot confirm whether the Delaware case has since been dismissed or formally closed — flagging this as unverified.
3. Party/judge metadata check: The case number and D. Del. venue are confirmed. The docket caption now reads C.A. No. 21-1147-GBW-MPT (Judge Gregory B. Williams, with Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge), consistent with the metadata. The docket sheet in the older PTAB exhibit still shows "VAC-MPT" (vacant judgeship), reflecting the earlier reassignment chain — not a contradiction, just timing.
4. No fabricated counsel. I found no in-house Instacart attorney on the docket. If PACER shows a substitution order or new appearance after the 2026 affirmance, that would not appear in the sources I could reach.