Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Neptune Cigars, Inc.
Dismissed- Docket:
- 2:16-cv-03836
- Filed:
- 2016-06-01
The defendant filed a motion arguing the patent was invalid under Alice v. CLS Bank, after which the case was dismissed.
Defendant
1 case as defendant.
Neptune Cigars, Inc. is a privately held retailer of cigars and tobacco products. The company was founded in 1999, first as a cigar brand, and incorporated in Florida in 2002. Headquartered in Miami, Florida, Neptune Cigars employs between 21 and 50 people. The company is an omni-channel retailer, operating the e-commerce site Neptunecigar.com as well as three physical "SuperStore" locations in the South Florida area (Pinecrest, Fort Lauderdale, and Little Havana).
Neptune Cigars is primarily an operator of retail stores and an online shop selling a wide variety of premium cigars, pipe tobacco, humidors, and other smoking accessories. The company carries thousands of different cigars from numerous manufacturers, with a particular focus on boutique brands. In addition to retailing products from other companies, Neptune Cigars sells its own house brand of "Neptune" cigars, which are handmade in the Dominican Republic.
The company's patent litigation history consists of a single case in which it was a defendant, positioning it as an operating company defending its business. It has no record of initiating patent lawsuits. In 2016, Neptune Cigars was sued by Shipping and Transit, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The case against Neptune Cigars was part of a massive litigation campaign by Shipping and Transit, LLC (formerly Arrivalstar), an entity widely described as a "prolific patent troll." Shipping and Transit sued hundreds of companies, often retailers, over patents related to package and vehicle tracking notifications. Neptune Cigars, like other defendants, challenged the validity of the asserted patents. The plaintiff's litigation campaign ultimately collapsed after numerous defendants fought back, and courts began awarding attorney's fees against Shipping and Transit, which later filed for bankruptcy.
The defendant filed a motion arguing the patent was invalid under Alice v. CLS Bank, after which the case was dismissed.