advertisement
advertisement

Jury Rules For Barnes & Noble In Gift Card Patent Case, But The Implications Are Mixed

Written by Evan Schuman
June 12th, 2013

On Friday (June 7), a federal jury ruled in favor of (Barnes & Noble (NYSE:BKS)) in a giftcard patent case being closely watched in retail. The arguments focused on when a giftcard transaction is truly processed—is it when the card has money placed into it or is it when the products/services are delivered?—and whether a processor is acting as a bank. And if the retailer controls the full transactions, is it acting bank-like?

The reason the bank-like issue comes into play is that the patent in this case specified that a transaction would go through a bank connection and Barnes & Noble argued that it handles the transactions internally, as a stored payment. Therefore, the chain argued, it’s a different process and does not violate the patent.

The patent holder, Alexsam, said that the way Barnes & Noble processed these payments was using its payment processor. Given that the payment processor network also handled traditional bank card payments, it’s a bank network and it’s therefore the same as the patent. The jury sided with the bookseller.

Alexsam is also pushing these identical patent claims against several other major chains, including Home Depot (NYSE:HD), McDonald’s (NYSE:MCD), JCPenney (NYSE:JCP), Gap (NYSE:GPS) and ToysRUs. Best Buy (NYSE:BBY) was also involved, but it opted out by agreeing to pay Alexsam an amount that was not made public.

The dollars being sought in these cases are far from trivial. Alexsam had asked for $72 million from Barnes & Noble, an attorney involved in the case said.

The giftcard payment issue is one of the more intriguing topics raised at trial. It would seem reasonable that the payment part of a giftcard transaction happens the instant that card is populated with value, often done through a traditional payment card transaction.

A giftcard is akin to running up a tab at a bar (not that I nor any other journalist would ever do such a thing). The payment happens when the money is paid, either at the end (long after most of the product has been delivered and consumed) or at the beginning, when the customer gives the bar money now, with the intent of taking the products over time.

The way it typically works in retail, though, is that the payment is usually seen happening when the product is accepted and the card’s value is appropriately reduced. But nothing payments-wise happens at that instant, other than the card account noting that it has XX dollars less value.

In Barnes & Noble’s case, for convenience, the chain had its card processor track all stored-value activity on its system. That convenience move gave the patent owner the ability to argue that it was using a bank network to process the transaction. In this case, the jury didn’t buy it.

But that argument was strong enough that an appellate panel last month ruled that the patent case couldn’t be dismissed before it went to the jury.

There has been a lot more pushback recently against these kind of patent retail lawsuits, with Neiman Marcus recently winning against such a patent troll, along with a particularly hard-fought win by Newegg and Overstock.

The challenge is as old as law itself. With so many retail patents being filed, it’s inevitable that some process done by a major chain will come close to something that’s been filed. And given the high-cost of patent defenses, it’s almost always cheaper to settle than to fight.

But if these nonsense cases are ever to

stop—leaving only truly egregious patent violations—some chains are going to have to make the difficult financial decision (including losing key personnel for endless depositions and sitting around in court). That’s a hard call to make, to do the right thing for the industry when it’s the wrong thing short term for your chain. That said, trust me: It will feel really good.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.