Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Undisclosed

Monticello Enterprises LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), initiated an infringement lawsuit in the Western District of Texas. The case, 6:23-cv-00761, was filed against Petco Health & Wellness Company Inc. and Petco Animals Supply Stores Inc., though the initial prompt referred to the defendant as "Undisclosed." Monticello's litigation strategy involves asserting intellectual property rights in browser-based and mobile payment technologies. The specific accused products in this case involve Petco's browser payment request API integrations, in-app payment systems, and point-of-sale checkout interfaces.

The central patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,121,186, generally relates to an automated processing system that handles various types of electronic transactions by interacting with an external payment service. This case was procedurally consolidated into a lead case, 6:23-cv-753-XR, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's expressed interest in patent cases and his established litigant-friendly rules, which have made the Western District of Texas a popular choice for patent plaintiffs.

The case is notable as part of a broader patent assertion campaign by Monticello Enterprises LLC, which typically involves filing near-simultaneous complaints against multiple defendants. This strategy allows for consolidation, conserving resources while maintaining pressure across various defendants. While not directly for patent 10,121,186, Monticello's related patent 11,468,497, which covers similar payment data transmission technology and was asserted against other companies like Starbucks and Macy's, faced an ex parte reexamination filed by Unified Patents, resulting in a final rejection of all challenged claims. This highlights the counter-strategies employed by defendants and third-party organizations against NPE assertions in the highly active digital payment technology space, including alleged infringement through the use of systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay.

The case Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Undisclosed, case number 6:23-cv-00761, in the Texas Western District Court, initially filed against Petco Health & Wellness Company, Inc., was ultimately resolved through consolidation and summary judgment in a lead case.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (6:23-cv-00761):

• Complaint Filed: On November 9, 2023, Monticello Enterprises LLC filed an infringement suit against Petco Health & Wellness Company, Inc. and Petco Animals Supply Stores, Inc. in the Texas Western District Court, asserting patent 10,121,186. The complaint alleged infringement related to Petco's browser payment request API integrations, in-app payment systems, and point-of-sale checkout interfaces, particularly those utilizing Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay.

2. Consolidation & Lead Case:

• Administrative Closure and Consolidation: On April 19, 2024, case 6:23-cv-00761 was administratively closed and consolidated into lead case 6:23-cv-00753-XR, Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Macy's, Inc., et al., for judicial efficiency. The consolidated litigation involved several patents, including US11468497B2, US11461828B2, US11004139B2, and US10121186B2.

3. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (in the Consolidated Lead Case 6:23-cv-00753-XR):

• Motion to Dismiss for Patent Ineligibility (§ 101): Defendants, including Petco, Macy's, and Starbucks, filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that all six asserted patents claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• Denial of Motion to Dismiss: On January 21, 2025, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland's Report and Recommendation, denying the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. The Court allowed the defendants to raise the patent eligibility issue at the summary judgment stage.
• Joint Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendants subsequently filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that Monticello's infringement claims were precluded by patent sublicenses authorized by the Patent Sublicense Agreements (PSAs) of the initial sublicensees (Apple, Google, and Samsung).
• Granting of Summary Judgment: On March 18, 2026, the Court adopted, in part, Magistrate Judge Gilliland's Report and Recommendation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of all consolidated cases, including 6:23-cv-00761. The basis for the dismissal was the finding of a sublicense defense.

4. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While a claim construction hearing (Markman hearing) was anticipated as part of the consolidated proceedings, as indicated by a legal intelligence firm, the summary judgment on the sublicense defense appears to have resolved the case before a formal Markman order on claim terms was explicitly issued in the search results.

5. Discovery Milestones:

• Specific strategic discovery milestones for this case are not publicly detailed in the available search results.

6. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Due to the granting of summary judgment, the case did not proceed to trial, and therefore, there was no verdict or post-trial motions.

7. Final Disposition & Present Posture:

• Dismissal: The case (and its consolidated counterparts) was dismissed on March 18, 2026, based on the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
• Appeal: Monticello Enterprises LLC has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the consolidated cases, including the one against Starbucks (6:23-cv-00763). This indicates the final disposition is currently pending appeal.

8. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Ex Parte Reexamination of US11468497: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 11,468,497, one of the patents asserted by Monticello Enterprises LLC in the consolidated litigation. On November 7, 2024, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) entered a final rejection of all challenged claims of US11468497. This patent relates to transmitting user payment data to a merchant device.
• No information was found regarding IPR or PGR proceedings specifically against patent 10,121,186, or the other patents US11461828B2 and US11004139B2, in the provided search results.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Undisclosed, case number 6:23-cv-00761. My web searches did not yield direct access to the PACER docket for this specific case or a definitive list of attorneys who have entered an appearance for Monticello Enterprises LLC. The results primarily discuss other patent litigation involving Monticello Enterprises LLC, particularly related to patents other than 10121186, and general information about patent attorneys. Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about plaintiff's counsel, their firms, or their experience at this time.

Based on available information, the defendant in Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Undisclosed, case number 6:23-cv-00761, is Petco Health & Wellness Company Inc. and Petco Animals Supply Stores Inc.. The case status, contrary to the prompt's "active" status, is listed as "Closed" as of November 9, 2023.

The following counsel has been identified as representing the defendants:

• Name: Bryan P. Clark
• Role: Counsel for Defendants
• Firm: The Webb Law Firm, One Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
• Relevant Experience: Bryan P. Clark is noted as the contact for an expert witness, Michael Ian Shamos, who served for the defendants in this specific case, which involved patents related to online, wireless, and in-app payment systems, including U.S. Patent 10,121,186. The Webb Law Firm is a firm with a focus on intellectual property law.