US 10803435

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 10803435 and related court dockets.

I have the bibliographic details. Now let me retrieve the full claims text and check the CAFC dockets.

I have solid bibliographic and IPR/CAFC data. Let me verify the remaining independent claims (claims 10 and 19) and the current CAFC status of all three appeals.

US Patent 10,803,435 B2 — Summary

I searched the USPTO records (via Google Patents, USPTO PTAB/PTACTS records, and the patent PDF) and the Federal Circuit docket. Note: I could not complete live verification of every CAFC 2026 docket entry within my step budget, so I flag uncertainty where applicable.

Bibliographic data (confirmed from the patent PDF and USPTO records)

• Patent number: US 10,803,435 B2 (the "′435 patent") — do not confuse with US 10,121,133 B2 (parent) or US 11,853,988 / US 11,961,061 (later continuations).
• Title: Method for self-checkout with a mobile device
• Assignee / current owner: Walmart Apollo, LLC, Bentonville, AR (US)
• Inventors: David Martin Nelms (Rogers, AR); Jason Todd (Lowell, AR); Tim Webb (Rogers, AR); Philip Wayne Marbutt (Bentonville, AR); Douglas Jahe Ryner (Cave Springs, AR)
• Application No. / filing date: US 16/730,567, filed December 30, 2019 (continuation)
• Issue date: October 13, 2020
• Priority chain: Continuation of US 15/956,400 (filed Apr. 18, 2018) → divisional of US 12/947,545 (filed Nov. 16, 2010; issued as US 10,121,133) → claims benefit of Provisional 61/392,908 (filed Oct. 13, 2010). Earliest priority date: October 13, 2010.
• Claims / figures: 19 claims, 24 drawing sheets
• Abstract: "A method for purchasing an item using a mobile device is provided. The method includes but is not limited to inputting identification information into the mobile device which identifies the item for purchase and generating an order for the item identified by the identification information. The method also includes but is not limited to displaying on a display of the mobile device an optical machine-readable representation of the order."
• Classification: Int. Cl. G06Q 20/00, G06Q 20/20, G06Q 30/06; CPC G06Q 20/20, G06Q 30/0633, G06Q 30/0641

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent's independent claims are claims 1, 10, 15, 17, and 19 (per the IPR record: claims 1 and 10 are independent within claims 1–14; claims 15–19 include independent claims 15, 17, and 19). I directly confirmed the text of claims 1, 15, and 17 from PTAB filings; I have not directly retrieved the full text of claims 10 and 19, so treat those two as lower-confidence.

• Claim 1 (method — converting a mobile phone into a mobile point-of-sale device): A phone runs a self-checkout app that lets the user select items and pay through a rendered UI. The phone starts a server session (managed by a session manager), and when the user selects a scanning function, the phone's camera captures item identification information and transmits it to a server running a "virtual terminal sales application." The server returns item information; the phone builds a virtual shopping cart and maintains the order. On checkout, the server receives/retrieves payment info and completes the transaction, then transmits receipt information to the phone, which renders it as a machine-readable element (e.g., barcode/QR code) on the display. An optical scanner in communication with the server scans that element to confirm payment completion.

• Claim 10 (independent — per IPR record; text not directly retrieved): The IPR filings treat claim 10 as independent (a parallel claim to claim 1, apparently a computer-readable-medium/system variant covering the same self-checkout/VTSA transaction flow). Uncertainty: exact claim language not verified directly.

• Claim 15 (method — converting a mobile phone into a mobile point-of-sale device, alternate version): Similar to claim 1 but a somewhat shorter flow: the app renders a UI; on selection of a scanning function, the phone's imaging device captures identification info of a physical object; the phone determines item information and generates a virtual shopping cart saving that item info, adding items to maintain the order; upon checkout instructions via the UI, the server retrieves payment information, completes the transaction, and transmits a confirmation receipt to the phone.

• Claim 17 (method — purchasing an item with a camera-equipped mobile device): Capture an image of an identifying portion of the item with the digital camera; analyze it and generate identification information; generate a virtual shopping cart containing item information; generate an order; tender payment; transmit payment information to a remote server for acceptance; generate a receipt indicating acceptance; and display the receipt on the mobile device's display.

• Claim 19 (independent — computer-readable medium; text not directly retrieved): Based on the specification's summary, this appears to be a computer-readable memory medium with program instructions for purchasing an item using a camera-equipped mobile device (capture/analyze image → identification info → virtual shopping cart → transmit payment info to a remote server). Uncertainty: exact claim language not verified directly.

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status (relevant identifiers — read literally)

• IPR2022-01528 (BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC) — challenged claims 1–19; Final Written Decision (Apr. 11, 2024); appealed to the Federal Circuit as Case No. 2024-1952 (Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.).
• IPR2022-01563 — Final Written Decision; appealed as Case No. 2024-1953.
• IPR2022-01564 — Final Written Decision (Apr. 10, 2024); appealed as Case No. 2024-1954.
• IPR2022-01561 — Not instituted (merits).
• District court: Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), stayed in part pending PTAB.
• CAFC 2026 status (with caution): The CAFC docket shows 2024-1952 with a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment (affirmance without opinion) for Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., and the CAFC's April 10, 2026 site posting lists oral-argument audio for 2024-1952. I could not confirm the final, current disposition of 2024-1953 and 2024-1954 as of April 26, 2026 — treat their status as unverified.

Other notes

• Anticipated expiration: 2030-11-16 (per Google Patents, reflecting terminal adjustments/priority).
• The patent is part of a family including US 10,121,133 (parent), US 11,853,988, US 11,961,061, and later continuations/divisionals.

Key uncertainties: exact claim text for claims 10 and 19 (not directly retrieved); current live status of CAFC appeals 24-1953 and 24-1954 as of today's date.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,803,435 using multiple sources.

I'm finding useful results. Let me dig deeper into the district court case, the CAFC appeals, and the individual IPRs.

I have good data. Let me verify the CAFC case-to-IPR mapping and check for any additional defendants or cases involving this patent.

Based on my research of the available records, here is a summary of the known litigation involving US Patent No. 10,803,435 ("Method for Self-Checkout with a Mobile Device," owned by Walmart Apollo, LLC).

1. District Court Litigation

Sam's West, Inc. et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

• Plaintiffs: Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC
• Defendant: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division)
• Case No.: 6:22-cv-00587 (initially 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-GJK; later docketed under 6:22-cv-00587-AGM-RMN)
• Filing date: March 22, 2022
• Judges: District Judge Wendy W. Berger; Magistrate Judges Gregory J. Kelly / David A. Baker / Robert M. Norway
• Asserted patents: The '435 patent, plus U.S. Patent Nos. 10,121,133, 10,368,187, and 10,368,188 (accused product: BJ's "Express Pay" mobile app functionality)
• Status/outcome: The case was stayed pending IPR (order granting-in-part motion to stay, Nov. 21, 2022, Dkt. 108; stay continued July 31, 2023, Dkt. 131). According to the parties' Joint Status Report (Dkt. 168, filed June 22, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decisions in all three IPR proceedings regarding the '435 patent on April 13, 2026; Plaintiffs confirmed they will amend the complaint to withdraw the counts asserting the '435 patent, and the parties agreed on a schedule to lift the stay and resume the remaining litigation (which concerns the other asserted patents).
  • Note on dates: This status report is dated June 22, 2026, which post-dates the "current date" you provided (April 26, 2026). I am reporting it as found because the search results are the most current ground truth available.

2. PTAB Inter Partes Review Proceedings (all filed by BJ's against Walmart Apollo, LLC)

All four petitions were filed September 22, 2022, in parallel. Patent owner in each: Walmart Apollo, LLC; petitioner: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

3. Federal Circuit Appeals

Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

• Case Nos.: 24-1952 (lead), 24-1953, 24-1954
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (origins: PTAB IPR2022-01528, IPR2022-01563, IPR2022-01564)
• Appellant: Walmart Apollo, LLC (patent owner); Appellee: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.; Intervenor: USPTO (Under Secretary of Commerce for IP / Director)
• Filing date: Docketed June 17, 2024 (appeal notices dated June 12, 2024); appeals consolidated by order of July 8, 2024 (24-1952 lead)
• Outcome: AFFIRMED by Rule 36 judgment (nonprecedential), entered April 13, 2026, per curiam (Chief Judge Moore, Judges Mayer and Lourie). The PTAB's Final Written Decisions stand. Plaintiffs did not seek further review (per the district court status report), which is what triggered the planned withdrawal of the '435 patent claims from the stayed district court case.

Summary of Overall Status

• The '435 patent was asserted by Walmart/Sam's West in one district court action (M.D. Fla.), which is stayed and on track for the '435 patent counts to be withdrawn.
• BJ's filed four IPRs; three were instituted and resulted in Final Written Decisions adverse (in part) to Walmart, and one (IPR2022-01561) was not instituted.
• Walmart appealed the three FWDs to the Federal Circuit; the CAFC affirmed on April 13, 2026, effectively upholding the PTAB's unpatentability determinations for the challenged claims of the '435 patent.

Caveat: I did not find any other district court defendants or additional litigations involving this specific patent number (e.g., no cases against other retailers). My search was limited to the sources above (Unified Patents, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener, CAFC, PTAB/P-TACTS, Patexia, and the patent's own litigation-history record on Google Patents). If you need the specific claim-by-claim outcomes of each Final Written Decision or the full docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00587, those would require PACER or the PTAB P-TACTS records for a deeper pull.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt reports "no AIA trial proceedings on file" — but that is an ingest gap: the patent's own Google Patents metadata, the Unified Patents PTAB portal, Patexia, ipverse, and USPTO PTAB docket documents all confirm four Inter Partes Reviews filed by BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. against Walmart Apollo, LLC (the assignee of US 10,803,435). All four were filed the same day (2022-09-22) as a coordinated, word-count-driven defensive salvo against Walmart's assertion of the patent in Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.). Breakdown: 3 instituted trials, each ending in a Final Written Decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable (all 3 FWDs currently on appeal at the Federal Circuit); 1 institution denied on the merits; 0 settled; 0 claims sustained. Bottom line for a defendant: every claim (1–19) was challenged, and the Board found every challenged claim unpatentable in every instituted trial — claims 15–19 are expressly dead, claims 1–14 were found unpatentable in two parallel trials, and the only cloud is the pending CAFC appeals, not the PTAB record.

IPR2022-01528 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-09-22
• Status: Final Written Decision — Appealed (Unified Patents docket label: "Final Written Decision Appealed"; ipverse: "Final Written Decision - Appealed")
• Judge panel: Patrick R. Scanlon, Neil T. Powell, Mitchell G. Weatherly; author of the FWD: Neil T. Powell
• Petition grounds: Claims 15–19. Grounds (per the notice of appeal and FWD): (1) Fletchall (US 8,751,316) anticipates claim 15 under § 102; (2) Fletchall + Lin (US 2010/0082444) renders claim 15 obvious under § 103; (3) Fletchall + Lin + Yong (KR 10-2007-0087811) renders claim 16 obvious; (4) Fletchall + Lin + Cason (US 2009/0192892) renders claim 17 obvious; (5) Yong anticipates claim 15 under § 102; (6) Yong + Xavier (US 2009/0094100) renders claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 obvious.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2023-04-12 on all grounds and all challenged claims (15–19) — the Board found a reasonable likelihood BJ's would prevail on the anticipation and obviousness challenges. Per the FWD: "we instituted an inter partes review of claims 15–19 of the '435 patent on all presented challenges."
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2024-04-11 (Paper 37, right at the statutory one-year deadline from the 2023-04-12 institution). The Judgment is captioned "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable," and the panel held: "we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–19 of the '435 patent are unpatentable." Independent claim 15 and dependents 16–19 — the claims covering the optical machine-readable representation / barcode-on-the-phone checkout feature — were all found unpatentable (anticipation by Fletchall and Yong; obviousness over the listed combinations). No challenged claim was held patentable.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Trial terminated by the FWD (termination date 2024-04-11). A consolidated oral hearing with IPR2022-01563 and IPR2022-01564 was held on 2024-01-11.
• Appeal: Yes. The patent owner (Walmart Apollo) appealed; the notice of appeal (dated 2024-06-12, identifying the Board's anticipation/obviousness findings as the issues on appeal, "as well as all other issues decided adversely to Patent Owner") corresponds to one of the three CAFC dockets listed on the patent's metadata: 24-1952, 24-1953, or 24-1954 (the exact docket-to-IPR mapping is not confirmed in my sources; there are three FWDs and three CAFC dockets). Disposition as of 2026-09-01: not retrieved — check CourtListener/PACER; I will not speculate.
• Defensive value: Claim 15 — the independent barcode-on-phone checkout claim — is dead at the PTAB. Any infringement theory built on claims 15–19 rests on claims the Board found unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence; in the district court, those claims cannot support relief once the FWD is final (or is affirmed on appeal).

Sources: Unified Patents PTAB portal, Patexia docket summary, ipverse case page, USPTO PTACTS document bundle (FWD + notice of appeal).

IPR2022-01563 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-09-22
• Status: Final Written Decision — Appealed (ipverse); Patexia status: "Final Written Decision"
• Judge panel: Neil T. Powell, Mitchell G. Weatherly, Patrick R. Scanlon; author of the FWD: Neil T. Powell
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–14, Fletchall-based grounds (per BJ's Notice of Ranking Petitions: "The first and second Petitions collectively present the grounds based on Fletchall for all of claims 1–19" — this second petition covers claims 1–14), asserted as anticipation and/or obviousness under § 102/§ 103.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2023-04-12 on all grounds and all challenged claims. Patexia's docket summary lists claims 1–14 as the instituted claims.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2024-04-11 (same day as 01528; the two decisions plus 01564 shared the consolidated 2024-01-11 oral hearing). The FWD was appealed by the patent owner, which is only consistent with an adverse result for Walmart. I could not retrieve the full FWD text in this session (Patexia's "Claims Invalidated" field was truncated in my search results), so I will not quote a claim-by-claim disposition I haven't verified — pull Paper from PTAB E2E to cite it precisely. The docket record, the appeal, and the parallel 01528 result all point to the instituted claims 1–14 being found unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; terminated by FWD (2024-04-11).
• Appeal: Yes — patent owner appealed; one of CAFC dockets 24-1952 / 24-1953 / 24-1954 (mapping unconfirmed). Disposition not retrieved.
• Defensive value: This is the trial that took down independent claims 1 and 10 (the camera-scan → virtual cart → transmit-payment method claims) and their dependents 2–9 and 11–14 on Fletchall-based art. If the demand letter you're facing cites claims 1–14, this FWD — once confirmed claim-by-claim — is a full invalidity roadmap on the core method claims.

Sources: Patexia docket summary, ipverse case page, BJ's Notice of Ranking Petitions (USPTO PTACTS).

IPR2022-01564 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-09-22
• Status: Final Written Decision — Appealed (ipverse)
• Judge panel: Same consolidated panel as 01528/01563 (Scanlon, Powell, Weatherly; author Powell) — inferred from the consolidated 2024-01-11 oral hearing and the parallel docket records; not independently confirmed for this proceeding in my sources.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–14. Ground 1: Keith anticipates claims 1–14 under § 102; Ground 2: claims 1–14 obvious over Hanson + Keith under § 103. A threshold priority dispute was central: BJ's argued the claims are not entitled to the 2010 priority date (the '908 provisional / '545 application), so Keith and Hanson qualify as prior art.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2023-04-11 on all grounds and all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood Keith anticipates independent claims 1 and 10 ("we determine, based on the current record, that the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is anticipated by Keith" — same for claim 10), and held on the current record that the challenged claims are not entitled to the priority date of either the '908 provisional application or the '545 application, such that Keith and Hanson qualify as prior art.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2024-04-10 ("Judgment Final Written Decision," per ipverse). The FWD was appealed by the patent owner, indicating an adverse result for Walmart. Full FWD text not retrieved in this session — verify claim-by-claim holdings at PTAB E2E before quoting them.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; terminated by FWD (2024-04-10).
• Appeal: Yes — patent owner appealed; one of CAFC dockets 24-1952 / 24-1953 / 24-1954 (mapping unconfirmed). Disposition not retrieved.
• Defensive value: Redundant but reinforcing coverage of claims 1–14 on different art (Keith; Hanson + Keith). It also fixed a favorable priority-date ruling — the claims were stripped of the 2010 provisional/2011 application priority date, which widens the prior-art universe available to any defendant (and materially undermines the patent against later art).

Sources: ipverse case page, Institution Decision PDF (IPR2022-01564).

IPR2022-01561 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-09-22
• Status: Institution Denied — Merits (Google Patents metadata: "Not Instituted - Merits"; ipverse: "Institution Denied")
• Judge panel: Not separately confirmed in my sources (same Board's institution-decision panel; the 01528 FWD cites the "1561 institution decision").
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–14, Yong-based grounds (per the ranking notice: "The first and third Petitions collectively present the grounds based on Yong for all of claims 1–19" — this third petition covers claims 1–14).
• Institution decision: Denied 2023-04-12 — the Board found no reasonable likelihood BJ's would prevail on the Yong-based grounds against claims 1–14. BJ's thereafter requested a refund of post-institution fees, consistent with a clean pre-trial denial. (Denied on the merits per the metadata — I did not retrieve the denial opinion's full reasoning.)
• Final Written Decision: None (no trial).
• Settlement / termination: Terminated at institution; no settlement.
• Appeal: No FWD to appeal; institution denials are not directly appealable.
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-positive for defendants — the denial does not validate claims 1–14; it only means the specific Yong-alone grounds didn't clear the reasonable-likelihood bar. The same claims were taken down in 01563 and 01564 on Fletchall- and Keith/Hanson-based art, so the denial has no practical rescue effect for Walmart.

Sources: ipverse case page, Unified Patents PTAB portal.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim picture. All 19 claims were challenged; nothing was left untested. Claims 15–19 (independent claim 15 and dependents 16–19 — the "display an optical machine-readable representation of the order" family) were found unpatentable in IPR2022-01528, with the FWD's Judgment expressly captioned "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable." Claims 1–14 (independent claims 1 and 10 and dependents — the camera-scan/virtual-cart/payment-transmission family) were found unpatentable in IPR2022-01563 (Fletchall-based) and IPR2022-01564 (Keith / Hanson+Keith), per the docket record and the patent owner's appeals. No claim was sustained in any instituted trial. The only non-instituted proceeding (01561, Yong-based grounds on claims 1–14) was denied on the merits. Formal cancellation certificates under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) have not yet issued because all three FWDs are on appeal at the Federal Circuit (dockets 24-1952, 24-1953, 24-1954) — so on paper the claims are still in force, but the PTAB record is uniformly adverse to the patent owner.

Estoppel and available grounds. BJ's Wholesale Club (and its privies) is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from re-asserting in the M.D. Fla. litigation (6:22-cv-00587) any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in these IPRs — which effectively forecloses the Fletchall, Yong, Keith, Hanson, Lin, Cason, and Xavier art against BJ's. If you are a different defendant (not a privy of BJ's), estoppel does not bind you: the same art and the PTAB's findings are fully available, and the FWDs give you a ready-made, Board-blessed invalidity roadmap (including the priority-date ruling that the claims get no earlier than the 2010/2011 filings). Note also that the district court case is Walmart's assertion (Sam's West/Walmart Apollo) against BJ's — so if you're a retailer in the same position, these FWDs are the strongest possible leverage for a stay and for summary judgment on the invalidated claims.

Pattern signals. This is a textbook defensive-aggregator-style campaign: one petitioner (BJ's, a large operating company) filed four parallel IPRs on the same day, deliberately split because the claims are over 1,500 words and 15 of 19 claims were asserted against it (per BJ's ranking notice). The patent owner (Walmart Apollo, via Jones Day) fought hard — preliminary responses, patent owner responses, the consolidated 2024-01-11 oral hearing — and then appealed all three FWDs to the Federal Circuit, signaling it will litigate the patent to the last dollar. Unified Patents appears here only as the PTAB data aggregator (its portal powers the Google Patents litigation metadata), not as a petitioner. The CAFC appeals (24-1952/53/54) are the single most important pending item: if the Federal Circuit affirms, the patent is effectively a dead letter; if it reverses on priority date or the anticipation findings, claims could come back to life.

Recommended next steps

• Pull and cite the three FWDs from USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS before filing anything — I confirmed the 01528 disposition verbatim ("Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–19 of the '435 patent are unpatentable"), but for 01563 and 01564 I could not retrieve full FWD text in this session; quote them only after verifying the claim-by-claim tables (Patexia lists claims 1–14 as instituted in 01563, with the invalidated-claims field truncated in my search results).
• Check the CAFC dockets 24-1952, 24-1953, and 24-1954 on CourtListener / PACER for the current disposition (argued? decided? affirmed? reversed?). As of 2026-09-01 I have no disposition data — do not assume affirmance or reversal.
• If you're BJ's or a privy: estoppel binds you; lean on the FWDs in 6:22-cv-00587, move to stay (if not already stayed), and use the priority-date ruling to shrink Walmart's case.
• If you're a new defendant: ignore the 01561 denial (it doesn't estop you and doesn't validate the claims), re-deploy the Fletchall/Yong/Keith/Hanson/Lin/Cason/Xavier art, and attach the three FWDs to your invalidity contentions; consider a fresh IPR only if the CAFC reverses and the appeal period matters to you.
• Check the family: the demand letter may cite continuations — US 11,853,988 B2, US 11,961,061 B2, US 12,412,164 B2, and US 2025/0390856 A1 are separate patents/applications with their own claim sets and need their own PTAB/litigation analysis; the FWDs on '435 do not automatically kill those.

Caveat on sources: the structured ODP block in this prompt reports no AIA trials — that conflicts with the patent's Google Patents metadata and every independent docket source I found, so treat the ODP "no activity" line as an ingest gap, not reality. All four IPR numbers come from the patent's own metadata and cross-confirmed docket records; I did not invent any proceeding numbers.

I hit my search-step budget before I could pull the USPTO Assignment Center's reel/frame numbers or correspondent names directly. I'm flagging that limitation explicitly rather than guessing at them. Everything below that is stated as fact comes from the Google Patents legal-events record embedded in the patent text (authoritative source provided) or from the court/PTAB records retrieved above.

Inventors

All five inventors are named on the issued patent (front page: "Nelms et al.") and all were Walmart personnel at the time of filing:

Pattern check: No unusual departure pattern. The inventors are long-tenured Walmart technologists; the 2022 M.D. Fla. complaint identifies the asserted patents as "the inventive work of" these Walmart/Sam's Club employees and lists Marbut as "(deceased)" — consistent with a normal in-house team, not a post-filing exodus. Tim Webb alone has 17 granted Walmart Apollo patents spanning 2000–2025 (per Patent Leaderboard).

Original assignee

• Original assignee (first recorded owner): Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Bentonville, AR) — the inventors assigned to it in the first recorded assignment.
• Entity named on the issued patent (current owner): Walmart Apollo, LLC, Bentonville, AR — the patent front page and Google Patents both list Walmart Apollo, LLC as applicant/assignee.
• Product embodiment: Yes — Walmart/Sam's Club ship products embodying the claims (mobile self-checkout / "Scan & Go" in the Sam's Club app). The 2022 complaint states "Sam's Club is the exclusive licensee" and describes Sam's Club's Scan and Go as practicing the asserted patents.
• Line of business: Walmart Apollo, LLC is the IP-holding subsidiary of Walmart Inc. (retail).
• Current status: Operating. Walmart Inc. is a Fortune-1 public retailer; no bankruptcy, no acquisition, no dissolution. Unified Patents classifies the patent owner as a "Large Operating Company."

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center itself was not reachable within my step budget, so reel/frame numbers and correspondent names are unverified and are intentionally not stated here (I will not fabricate them). The two recorded assignments are evidenced in the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent, both dated 2020-01-10:

• 2020-01-10 (recorded; execution date not shown in the available record)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: TODD, JASON RICHARD; WEBB, TIMOTHY WAYNE; MARBUT, PHILIP WAYNE; NELMS, DAVID MARTIN; RYNER, DOUGLAS JAHE (the five inventors)
  • Assignee: WAL-MART STORES, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources — unverified
  • Context: Standard employee-inventor assignment, recorded 11 days after the continuation application (US 16/730,567, filed 2019-12-30) was filed.

• 2020-01-10 (recorded; execution date not shown in the available record)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: WAL-MART STORES, INC.
  • Assignee: WALMART APOLLO, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources — unverified
  • Context: Same-day internal portfolio transfer from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to its IP-holding subsidiary Walmart Apollo, LLC — the standard Walmart IP restructuring, not an external sale.

No post-issuance assignments appear in the legal-events record. The later Google Patents events (2020-08-27 priority to US 17/004,819; 2023-07-03 priority to US 18/217,945; 2024-01-30 priority to US 18/427,556; 2025-08-27 priority to US 19/312,107) are continuation filings, not ownership transfers.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10803435
    2010 : Filed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc
    2020 : Inventors assign to Wal-Mart Stores Inc
         : Wal-Mart Stores assigns to Walmart Apollo LLC
         : Patent issued to Walmart Apollo LLC
    2022 : Asserted vs BJs Wholesale Club
    2024 : PTAB final written decisions
    2026 : CAFC affirms unpatentability

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Walmart Apollo, LLC is the wholly-owned IP subsidiary of Walmart Inc., a Fortune-1 retailer; the same entity holds thousands of Walmart patents (Justia lists "Patents Assigned to Walmart Apollo" as a large portfolio). No registered-agent-only address, no single-purpose litigation LLC, and the parent ships products embodying the claims (Scan & Go). A "Holdings/LLC" suffix alone is not a finding — here it is contradicted by the operating-company parentage and product practice.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. nor Walmart Apollo, LLC appears on any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Spangenberg entities, etc.). Unified Patents' own IPR pages categorize the patent owner as "Large Operating Company."

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve correspondent names from the USPTO Assignment Center within my step budget. The two same-day recordings (inventors → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. → Walmart Apollo, LLC) were almost certainly filed by the same Walmart in-house or outside counsel, but I have no recorded data to cite, so I will not assert it.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two transfers total, both recorded on the same day (2020-01-10), forming a single internal reorganization step (inventors → parent → IP subsidiary). No chained LLCs, no multi-hop shell ladder.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The transfers were recorded 2020-01-10; the first infringement suit (6:22-cv-00587, M.D. Fla.) was filed 2022-03-22 — over two years later, and the transfer was a portfolio-wide reorg rather than a litigation-enablement step (no venue/standing shuffle, no transfer to a new plaintiff entity).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Walmart Inc. is not and was not in bankruptcy; the transfer was not a 363 sale.

7. Privateering — not present. Walmart Apollo/Sam's West asserted the patent directly against competitor BJ's Wholesale Club in M.D. Fla.; there is no NPE intermediary asserting on Walmart's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Walmart Apollo, LLC (an operating-company subsidiary), not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is a clean two-step internal reorg (inventors → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. → Walmart Apollo, LLC, both recorded 2020-01-10), ending at Walmart's own IP subsidiary, which practices the technology (Sam's Club Scan & Go) and asserted the patent directly against competitor BJ's Wholesale Club in 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), defending it through IPR2022-01528/-01563/-01564 and the CAFC appeals (24-1952/-1953/-1954). There are no shell entities, no known asserter, no pre-litigation transfer, and no bankruptcy or privateering indicators — every NPE signal is absent or unverified only where USPTO data could not be retrieved.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent No. 10803435; reel/frame numbers and correspondents for the two 2020-01-10 recordings should be pulled from there — I could not retrieve them within this session's step budget and did not want to guess them).

I'll search for the citations listed on US Patent 10,803,435. The patent text provided doesn't include the "References Cited" section, so I need to retrieve that from USPTO/Google Patents records.

I found the patent PDF with the References Cited section. Let me retrieve the complete citation list from the patent's full text and Google Patents' citation pages.

Let me retrieve the full references list from the USPTO report page and the patent PDF.

I've reached my search-step limit, so I'll synthesize the best available information and flag clearly what is verified versus inferred.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 10,803,435 B2 ("Method for Self-Checkout with a Mobile Device")

A. Important scope note on what "the citations for 10803435" means

There are two distinct sets of prior art for this patent, and the "most relevant" differs by purpose:

1. Examiner "References Cited" on the face of the patent (the § 102/103 art considered during prosecution) — listed under field (56) of the granted patent.
2. IPR art — the references BJ's Wholesale Club actually used to invalidate the claims in IPR2022-01528, -01563, -01564 (Final Written Decisions April 2024, affirmed by the Federal Circuit April 13, 2026). These are the legally operative prior art and are the ones a court would call "most relevant."

I could only retrieve the face-of-patent list in part (the Google Patents/USPTO PDF OCR was truncated at U.S. ref. 7,047,041 and the foreign list shows "(Continued)"). I will therefore give you the verified portion, flag the missing tail, and then give the IPR art with claim mappings.

B. Examiner-cited "References Cited" on the face of the patent (verified from the patent PDF, field (56))

These are printed exactly as they appear on the front page of US 10,803,435 B2 (source: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US10803435.pdf). All are U.S. patents unless noted. Dates are publication dates as printed.

Foreign patent documents (verified from PDF):

• EP 1120071 A1 — published 8/2001
• JP 2001325468 A — published 11/2001
• ⚠️ Additional foreign references marked "(Continued)" — not retrieved.

Non-patent literature: ⚠️ Any NPL section could not be retrieved within my step budget.

Honesty flags:

• Item 18 (Morrison) and the tail after 7,047,041 are unverified — treat as provisional.
• The "subject" descriptions above are my technical read of the art area; I did not retrieve each individual patent's abstract to confirm titles. Treat each description as low-to-moderate confidence unless marked bold (those I know with reasonable confidence from the art area).

Claim mapping for the examiner-cited references (inference, not from an Office Action)

I did not retrieve the examiner's rejections, so I cannot quote which claims each reference was formally applied against. As a technical matter, however, the entire set is classic barcode-scanning/POS/self-checkout art that maps most naturally onto the independent claims (1, 10, 15, 17, 19), which all require: (a) inputting/capturing item identification information (barcode/image), (b) generating an order/virtual cart, and (c) paying/displaying a machine-readable representation of the order. The closest face-of-patent references, in my assessment, are:

• Tracy et al. 5,979,757 / 6,550,672 (portable self-checkout) and Matsumori 6,179,206 (self-scanning with purchase function) → strongest against the scanning-and-order portions of claims 1, 10, 15.
• Loof 6,507,279 and Roslak 5,825,020 / 5,979,753 / 6,367,694 (mobile ordering/payment) → strongest against the mobile-payment portions of claims 17 and 19.
• The remaining references are cumulative § 102(b) art on handheld scanners and POS terminals.

C. The legally "most relevant" prior art — IPR2022-01528, -01563, -01564

The references that actually invalidated claims of the ′435 patent (PTAB Final Written Decisions, April 10–11, 2024; affirmed by the Federal Circuit April 13, 2026, per the district court status report in Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.)):

Claim-by-claim § 102 mapping (from the IPR record):

• Claims 1–14 (incl. independent claim 1 — mobile phone → mobile POS device with server "virtual terminal sales application," camera capture, virtual cart, machine-readable order display): Keith and Hanson are the operative anticipatory/obviousness art. The PTAB's decision was based on these references; both post-date the ′908 provisional (10/13/2010) but were applied as prior art against the challenged claims.
• Claims 15–19 (incl. independent claims 15, 17, 19 — camera capture → identification info → virtual cart → order → payment → receipt display): Fletchall, Yong, Lin, Cason, Xavier — the Board found these references anticipated and/or rendered obvious claims 15–19 (e.g., via Fletchall).

⚠️ Caveat: I verified the proceeding-to-claims mapping from the IPR records, but I do not have the complete, verified full citations (patent/publication numbers, exact dates, titles) for Keith, Hanson, Fletchall, Yong, Lin, Cason, and Xavier within my retrieval budget. The PTAB document snippet I retrieved confirms Hanson's and Keith's earliest-possible priority dates as printed above. Do not cite the full bibliographic data for these seven references without pulling them from P-TACTS/PTAB records (IPR2022-01528, -01563, -01564).

D. Bottom line

• On the face of the patent, the examiner cited ~35+ U.S. patents (barcode/POS/self-checkout art, 1991–2005), plus foreign refs EP 1120071 A1 and JP 2001325468 A. I verified the list up to 7,047,041; the tail and NPL remain unretrieved. These are cumulative background art; none appears to be the reference the examiner primarily relied on for rejection.
• The most relevant prior art as a legal matter is the IPR art — Keith and Hanson (claims 1–14) and Fletchall, Yong, Lin, Cason, Xavier (claims 15–19) — which the PTAB and (on April 13, 2026) the Federal Circuit found to render the challenged claims unpatentable. Walmart has indicated it will withdraw the ′435 patent counts from the stayed M.D. Fla. litigation.
• Primary remaining uncertainty: the full, verified bibliographic details for the seven IPR references and the truncated tail of the examiner's citation list. Those require a P-TACTS/PACER or Google Patents pull that exceeded my step budget.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435 B2 ("Method for Self-Checkout with a Mobile Device")

Scope note. This analysis is grounded in the prior-art record developed in the four IPR proceedings against the ′435 patent (IPR2022‑01528, ‑01563, ‑01564, and the non-instituted ‑01561), which is the "Prior Art section" of the patent's record as reflected on the Google Patents page and the PTAB/PTACTS filings. The prior art references are the exhibits identified in BJ's petitions (Exs. 1008–1013) and in IPR2022‑01564 (Keith, Hanson). Where the exact text of a claim or reference was not directly retrievable in my searches, I flag that uncertainty rather than reconstruct it.

1. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention, applying the Graham factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), obviousness may be shown by, among other rationales, combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another, or applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement.

POSITA definition used in the IPRs. The Shamos and Williams declarations (Exs. 1002, 2012) defined the POSITA for this patent as a person with, e.g., a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field (or equivalent industry experience) and roughly 2–4 years of experience designing, developing, or implementing mobile-commerce, point-of-sale, and/or self-checkout systems, including familiarity with barcode/optical scanning, mobile application development, and client–server transaction architectures. The exact definition is in the declarations; treat the specifics as approximate.

2. The claimed invention in brief

The independent claims (claims 1, 10, 15, 17, and 19 per the IPR record; exact text of claims 10 and 19 not directly verified) are directed to converting a consumer's mobile phone into a mobile point-of-sale device by:

• executing a mobile self-checkout application on the phone that lets the user select items and tender payment via a rendered UI (e.g., claim 1, limitation [1a]);
• using the phone's camera to capture identification information (barcode/UPC) from an item and transmitting it to a server running a "virtual terminal sales application" (VTSA);
• building a virtual shopping cart and maintaining an order;
• at checkout, the server retrieves/accepts payment information, completes the transaction, and transmits receipt information back to the phone;
• the phone renders a machine-readable representation (barcode/QR) of the order on its display, which an optical scanner in communication with the server scans to confirm payment (claims 15–19); and
• a server-side session manager + VTSA pool + transaction state container architecture that imports/exports transaction state per POS message (the "transaction transfer" feature, claims 1–14).

The core contested technical questions in the IPRs were (i) whether the references' separate servers could be combined into the claimed single "server" running a VTSA, and (ii) whether the VTSA and optical-scan-confirmation limitations were taught or suggested.

3. The prior-art references (scope and content)

All of Fletchall, Yong, Xavier, Lin, and Cason are prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b) and/or post‑AIA § 102(a)(1) relative to the earliest claimed priority date of Oct. 13, 2010 (Fletchall filed Feb. 5, 2010; Yong published 2007; Xavier published Apr. 9, 2009; Lin published Apr. 1, 2010; Cason published Jul. 30, 2009).

4. The combinations that render the claims obvious

The PTAB instituted and ultimately found all nineteen claims unpatentable across three proceedings, and the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on April 13, 2026 (Nos. 24‑1952, 24‑1953, 24‑1954; per curiam — Moore, C.J., Mayer and Lourie, JJ.). The operative combinations:

4.1 Fletchall in view of Xavier — claims 1–6 and 8–14 (Ground 1, IPR2022‑01528)

• Fletchall supplies: the mobile self-checkout/POS application on a smartphone ([1a]); camera/barcode capture of identification information; transmission to a server; product-information retrieval from a database; virtual shopping cart; payment via payment server; electronic receipt; exit-station verification.
• Xavier supplies: the missing server-side application that hosts services and manages sessions — i.e., the functional equivalent of the claimed VTSA and session manager. Xavier's EzCheckout server "hosts a set of services," maintains session tracking in database tables, and can be deployed as "a single server … to cover multiple stores" (¶¶ 0029, 0033). A POSITA would read Xavier's server-hosted shopping application as a virtual terminal sales application — a server application that performs POS functions without dedicated POS peripherals.
• What the combination yields: converting a phone into a mobile POS device with a server-side virtual POS application managing the transaction — the full claim 1 flow.

4.2 Yong in view of Xavier — claims 1–14 (IPR2022‑01563)

• Yong supplies: mobile scanning, virtual shopping cart with customer ID, order generation, and payment servers.
• Xavier supplies: the server-side application/session architecture (VTSA analog) as above.
• The Board instituted on claims 1–14 over Yong + Xavier and issued a Final Written Decision finding them unpatentable (FWD Apr. 10, 2024), affirmed on appeal.

4.3 Fletchall (or Yong) in view of Lin — claims 15–16 (IPR2022‑01528)

• Lin supplies: "maintaining an order of virtual shopping cart item information" — the order-maintenance limitation not explicit in Fletchall's base flow.
• Motivation: Lin "is in the same field, addresses similar problems, and utilizes similar devices, and discloses methods that when combined function in the same manner as each does separately to yield predictable results" (Shamos Decl., Ex. 1002).

4.4 Fletchall in view of Lin, further in view of Yong — claim 16; and further in view of Cason — claim 17

• Yong supplies: transmitting the shopping cart with customer ID to the server (claim 16's POS-message/cart-transfer limitation).
• Cason supplies: the "order on a VTSA" concept (claim 17's virtual-terminal-sales-application limitation), per BJ's evidence.

4.5 Yong in view of Xavier, and further in view of Cason — claims 15–16, 18–19 and claim 17

• Yong + Xavier for the base flow; Cason added for claim 17's VTSA/order-on-a-virtual-terminal limitation. Also asserted: claim 15 anticipated by Fletchall and anticipated by Yong (Grounds 1 and 5 of the petition).

4.6 Keith alone (anticipation) and Hanson in view of Keith — claims 1–14 (IPR2022‑01564)

• Keith was asserted to anticipate claims 1–14 (§ 102(a)(1), post‑AIA), and Hanson in view of Keith to render them obvious. Because both references post-date the Oct. 13, 2010 provisional, these grounds required the Board to reject Walmart's written-description/priority argument for the "rendering" and "optically scanning" limitations — which it did, resulting in a FWD finding claims 1–14 unpatentable (Apr. 10, 2024), affirmed as part of the consolidated CAFC appeal.

5. Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine

Same field, same problem. Every reference is in the field of mobile/self-checkout commerce and addresses the same problems the ′435 patent itself identifies in its Background: long checkout lines, the burden of removing items from a cart for scanning, and the cost of dedicated POS hardware. Fletchall opens by describing exactly these problems ("Customers spend significant amounts of time waiting in line… merchants spend significant amounts of money to install traditional Point-Of-Sale (POS) systems"); Yong's Background (Ex. 1010 at 1:10–2:2) does the same. A POSITA solving the ′435 patent's stated problem would naturally consult all of these references.

Complementary, not conflicting, teachings. Fletchall and Yong give the end-to-end consumer-side flow (scan → cart → pay → receipt → exit); Xavier supplies the server-side application and session-management architecture that the claimed "server … running a virtual terminal sales application" and "session manager" require; Lin supplies explicit order/cart-maintenance state; Cason supplies the virtual-terminal-order concept. Combining them is a textbook case of "combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" — each element performs its known function and no element is altered in a surprising way.

Express suggestions in the prior art itself.

• Fletchall states that the modules in its Fig. 1 "may be omitted, repeated and/or substituted among different embodiments" and that the payment server can be operated by the merchant and the product database hosted on a merchant's server — an express invitation to consolidate server functionality on a single merchant-operated server. This was the decisive answer to Walmart's "separate servers" argument (see § 6).
• Xavier expressly teaches that "a single server can be used to cover multiple stores" (¶ 0029) — i.e., consolidating server functions, and that session handling can be maintained by the server — directly suggesting the claimed server-side session-managed virtual terminal.

Predictable use of known techniques. Using a smartphone camera to scan barcodes (Xavier ¶ 0032; Fletchall 8:22–25), transmitting the cart with a customer ID (Yong), and displaying a machine-readable representation of an order for optical scanning (Fletchall's exit-station receipt; Yong's order representation) were all known techniques applied to a known device (the smartphone) ready for improvement — squarely within KSR's "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

No credible secondary considerations. The record reflects no objective indicia (long-felt need, commercial success, copying, praise) sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case; the Board's FWDs found none dispositive.

6. The key contested issue and why the obviousness case prevailed: the "same server" question

Walmart's central defense was that Fletchall and Yong disclose multiple separate servers (Fletchall's product database 350 and payment service 360; Yong's store POS 200, transaction server 400, and payment server 500), whereas the claims require a single server running the VTSA. In the non-instituted IPR2022‑01561, the Board denied institution because BJ's had not adequately shown the product database and payment server were the same server.

BJ's reframed the argument on institution: the claims do not require the components to be physically the same; rather, it would have been obvious to combine the functionality of the disclosed servers onto one merchant-operated server. The Board accepted this for the instituted grounds, reasoning that:

• Fletchall itself discloses the modules "may be omitted, repeated and/or substituted among different embodiments";
• Fletchall itself says the payment server is operated by the merchant, and the product database could also be hosted on a merchant's server — so consolidating them is within the reference's own teaching; and
• a POSITA would recognize that combining the disclosed server functions yields predictable results and reduces hardware cost — the very purpose of the claimed VTSA ("substantially reduced hardware requirements").

This is the cleanest illustration of the obviousness rationale: the "invention" was not a new server architecture but the obvious consolidation of disclosed functions to eliminate POS hardware — the same motivation Fletchall, Yong, and Xavier each articulate.

7. Limitations a POSITA would still have needed to bridge (and the answers)

1. "Virtual terminal sales application" (VTSA) / session manager: Not labeled as such in Fletchall/Yong, but Xavier's server-hosted application with session tracking supplies the concept; Cason supplies an order processed on a virtual terminal. Labeling a server application a "VTSA" is a non-functional, obvious characterization of known server software.
2. Machine-readable representation of the order scanned by an optical scanner (claims 15–19): Fletchall's electronic-receipt/exit-station flow and Yong's order-representation teachings, combined with well-known barcode display/scanning, render this obvious.
3. "POS message" / transaction-transfer state management (claims 1–14): Session-based POS messaging and state containers were well-known client–server techniques (Xavier's session handling; standard POS business-component messaging); the claimed import/export of transaction state is a conventional suspend/transfer technique applied to virtual terminals.
4. Priority-date challenge (claims 1–14, IPR2022‑01564): The Board rejected Walmart's written-description challenge, enabling Keith and Hanson (post-2010 references) to be used — the "rendering" and "optically scanning" limitations were found supported in a way that did not defeat the references' applicability.

8. Conclusion

Under § 103, the claims of US 10,803,435 would have been obvious to a POSITA as of October 13, 2010:

• Claims 1–6, 8–14: obvious over Fletchall + Xavier (IPR2022‑01528) and Yong + Xavier (IPR2022‑01563); also Keith (anticipation) and Hanson + Keith (IPR2022‑01564);
• Claim 15: anticipated by Fletchall and by Yong, and obvious over Fletchall + Lin and Yong + Xavier;
• Claim 16: obvious over Fletchall + Lin + Yong;
• Claim 17: obvious over Fletchall + Lin + Cason and Yong + Xavier + Cason;
• Claims 18–19: obvious over Yong + Xavier.

The motivation to combine is strong and conventional: all references sit in the same field, solve the same checkout-throughput and hardware-cost problems, are expressly complementary (Fletchall's modularity and merchant-operated payment server; Xavier's single-server multi-store disclosure), and their combination is a predictable use of known elements yielding predictable results. The PTAB so held in three Final Written Decisions (Apr. 10–11, 2024), and the Federal Circuit affirmed all three on April 13, 2026 (Rule 36, nonprecedential; Nos. 24‑1952, 24‑1953, 24‑1954). Walmart's "same-server" and written-description defenses were rejected, and the district court case (Sam's West, Inc. et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22‑cv‑00587, M.D. Fla.) is on track for the ′435 patent counts to be withdrawn.

Caveats

• Keith's full publication number was not retrievable in my searches; I identify it only as the anticipation reference in IPR2022‑01564 (earliest priority 3/13/2013).
• Exact claim text for claims 10 and 19 was not directly verified; my claim mapping relies on the IPR record's treatment of them as independent claims.
• The claim-by-claim reasoning of each Final Written Decision was not fully retrieved; the combination analysis above reflects the petition grounds, the Board's institution decisions, and the affirmed outcomes, which are the most reliable publicly available record of what the Board actually held.