Consumero, LLC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

Consumero, LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart in the Delaware District Court (Case number: 1:21-cv-01147), which is identified as a parallel infringement action. The plaintiff, Consumero, LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) that seeks to monetize patents through litigation or licensing, rather than by manufacturing or providing products/services. Defendant Maplebear Inc., operating as Instacart, is a prominent retail media and delivery company based in San Francisco. Instacart offers online grocery and alcohol delivery and pickup services via its website and mobile app, operating a multi-sided marketplace that connects customers, shoppers, and retailers. Its business model also includes an enterprise platform and an advertising segment.

The core of the dispute revolves around Instacart's e-commerce delivery system, which Consumero, LLC alleges infringes its patent rights related to online shopping and delivery technology. While the specific patent listed for this case is 10,115,067, searches for its technical details reveal an unrelated patent concerning a "flush-to-grade vault with wall-mounted cross-connect panels." This suggests a potential discrepancy in the listed patent number for this specific district court case. However, in related proceedings, a very similarly named entity, "Consumeron LLC," which is also described as a patent holding NPE, has asserted other patents against Instacart concerning "systems and methods for remote acquisition and delivery of goods." These patents, specifically US9202191B2 and US8244594B2, cover technology at the intersection of e-commerce logistics and consumer-facing delivery platforms.

The case is proceeding in the District of Delaware, a venue frequently chosen for patent litigation due to its experienced judges who possess deep knowledge of patent law, established patent-specific rules, and a mature body of precedent. The court's jurisdiction over a significant portion of major U.S. technology and pharmaceutical companies incorporated in Delaware also contributes to its prominence following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision. The assigned judge for this case (1:21-cv-01147) is District Judge Maryellen Noreika. This litigation is particularly notable due to the plaintiff's likely status as an NPE and its ongoing patent assertion activities against Instacart. In fact, "Consumeron LLC" has faced inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated by Instacart, where several of "Consumeron's" patents related to online shopping and delivery were found unpatentable due to obviousness in light of prior art. This IPR linkage and the Federal Circuit's affirmation of invalidity for at least one of these patents (US9202191B2) highlight Instacart's aggressive defense strategy against patent assertions in its core business area.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Consumero, LLC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

The patent infringement lawsuit, Consumero, LLC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, Case No. 1:21-cv-01147, in the Delaware District Court, concluded with a finding of patent invalidity affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The case involved U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067, along with three other patents.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• 2021-08-06: Complaint Filed. Consumero, LLC initiated the action by filing a complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,244,594; 9,202,191; 10,115,067; and 10,628,835.
• 2021-12-03: First Amended Complaint Filed. Consumero, LLC filed its First Amended Complaint.
• 2022-05-26: Answer Deadline. Defendant Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart was given until this date to respond to the complaint.
  (Note: The exact filing date of the answer and any counterclaims by Maplebear Inc. could not be found in the provided search results.)
• 2022-08-05: Parallel PTAB IPR Petitions Filed. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the asserted patents:
  • IPR2022-01356 for U.S. Patent No. 8,244,594
  • IPR2022-01357 for U.S. Patent No. 10,628,835
  • IPR2022-01358 for U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067
  • IPR2022-01359 for U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191
• 2023-01-18: Claim Construction Order Issued. The District Court entered its Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (Markman order).
• 2023-03-03: PTAB Instituted IPRs. The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings on all four asserted patents.
• 2023-03-17: Motion to Stay Granted. The District Court granted Instacart's motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings at the PTAB.
• 2023-03-23: Motion to Stay Filed. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart formally filed its Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review.
  (Note: There is a slight chronological discrepancy in the provided snippets, with the order granting the stay (March 17, 2023) appearing before the motion filing date (March 23, 2023) in one source. The operative date for the court's action is generally the date the order is entered.)
• 2024-02-29: PTAB Final Written Decision (e.g., IPR2022-01359). For at least IPR2022-01359 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191, a final written decision was issued by the PTAB. While not explicitly stated for 10,115,067 in the provided snippets, it is inferred that similar decisions were made for the other IPRs as they were all part of the consolidated appeal.
• 2024-04-17: Federal Circuit Appeals Filed. Consumero, LLC appealed the PTAB's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeals were docketed under case numbers 24-1703, 24-1704, 24-1705, and 24-1706, corresponding to the respective IPRs.
• 2026-01-12: Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity. In a per curiam ruling, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the challenged patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067 B2, which was a central patent in the dispute. The appeals resulted in a "Defendant Win — Patent Invalidated" outcome. The ruling upheld the lower tribunal's finding in an invalidity and cancellation action.

Outcome:

The ultimate outcome of the litigation is a victory for Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, with the Federal Circuit affirming the invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,115,067 B2, and likely the other related patents challenged in the IPRs. This decision effectively terminated Consumero, LLC's infringement claims based on these patents.

(Note: While the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity on January 12, 2026, the specific dismissal order for the District Court case (1:21-cv-01147) formally closing the case based on this outcome was not explicitly found in the provided search results. The prompt metadata indicates the case is "active" as of today's date, June 26, 2026, which may mean post-appeal administrative closure is still pending or was a very recent event not reflected in the available snippets.)

Despite extensive web searches for publicly available docket information and legal news, the specific counsel of record representing Consumero, LLC in Consumero, LLC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, case number 1:21-cv-01147, could not be definitively identified.

While the plaintiff, Consumero, LLC, is an inventor-controlled entity and its president and CEO, Mark B. Barron, is a named inventor on at least one of the asserted patents (10,115,067), no attorneys have been explicitly named in public sources as representing Consumero, LLC in this particular District of Delaware patent infringement lawsuit.

Several prominent Delaware law firms specializing in intellectual property litigation, such as Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Morris James, Richards, Layton & Finger, and Cross & Simon, LLC, are frequently involved as local counsel in patent cases in the District of Delaware. Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC is also noted for its IP litigation practice in Delaware. However, none of the available search results explicitly link these firms or their attorneys to Consumero, LLC in this specific case.

It is possible that the filings listing counsel are sealed, or the information is not readily available through public web searches without direct PACER access.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart in Consumero, LLC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, case number 1:21-cv-01147:

Lead Counsel:

• Michelle Ybarra (Partner, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California
  • Relevant Experience: Michelle Ybarra is recognized as a Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California. She secured a defense win for Instacart in this case, where the PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirmed, canceling every asserted claim. Her practice focuses on intellectual property litigation.

• Daniel K. Jackson (Attorney)

  • Firm: Skiermont Derby LLP
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas, and Los Angeles, California (firm has a national footprint)
  • Relevant Experience: Daniel K. Jackson assists in handling patent disputes from trial preparation to appeals before the Federal Circuit and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Skiermont Derby LLP is noted for its top patent litigation practice, representing patent owners and assisting companies accused of infringement. While one news article identified a "Daniel Jackson (paralegal)" in a different Delaware patent case, Daniel K. Jackson's firm profile describes him as an attorney with patent litigation experience. An "Appearance of Attorney Dan Jackson" was filed on behalf of Maplebear Inc. in this case.

Local Counsel:

While direct PACER access is unavailable, it is standard practice in the District of Delaware for out-of-state lead counsel to engage local counsel. Given Skiermont Derby LLP's recent collaboration with Bayard, P.A. on a significant patent case in the District of Delaware, Bayard, P.A. is a strong candidate for local counsel. However, no specific attorney from Bayard, P.A. or another Delaware firm could be definitively identified as having filed an appearance for Instacart in this particular case based on the available search snippets. Therefore, the specific local counsel of record is not definitively identified from the provided information.