DCT
3:12-cv-01655
Ameranth Inc v. Micros Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ameranth, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Micros Systems, Inc. (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Caldarelli Hejmanowski & Page LLP; Fabiano Law Firm, P.C.; Osborne Law LLC; Watts Law Offices
- Case Identification: 3:12-cv-01655, S.D. Cal., 10/01/2013
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the Southern District of California, including the sale and maintenance of the accused hospitality systems.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hospitality information technology products and point-of-sale systems infringe three patents related to generating and synchronizing electronic menus for use on wireless handheld devices and web pages.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated software systems for the hospitality industry that allow for the creation of dynamic, hierarchical menus on a central server and their synchronized deployment to various endpoints, such as server handhelds and customer-facing websites.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this case is one of many related actions filed by Ameranth asserting the same patents against various defendants in the hospitality industry, with many cases consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit as early as October 2007 through a subpoena in prior litigation. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant review proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all claims of the '850 Patent and claims 1-13 and 15 of the '325 Patent, a development that may significantly impact the viability of the infringement counts related to those patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-21 | Priority Date for ’850, ’325, and ’077 Patents |
| 2002-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 Issued |
| 2005-03-22 | U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 Issued |
| 2007-10-01 | Alleged first knowledge of patents by Micros via subpoena |
| 2012-03-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 Issued |
| 2012-07-01 | Original complaint filed against Micros |
| 2013-10-01 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
| 2018-02-06 | Post-Grant Review Certificate issues cancelling all claims of '850 Patent |
| 2018-02-07 | Post-Grant Review Certificate issues cancelling claims of '325 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 - "Information Management and Synchronous Communications System with Menu Generation," Issued May 7, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the hospitality industry's reliance on inefficient paper-based ordering systems. It notes that early personal digital assistants (PDAs) were not widely adopted because their small screens were ill-suited for displaying complex menus, and no effective software existed to synchronize information between a central database, multiple handhelds, and web ordering systems (’850 Patent, col. 1:18-31, col. 2:6-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can build a "first menu" on a central computer, organizing items into categories and sub-categories in a hierarchical tree structure. This centrally-managed menu can then be used to generate a "second menu" that is formatted and transmitted for use on a wireless handheld device or a web page, ensuring data consistency across different platforms (’850 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:22-26). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates the core concept, showing a "menu tree" (7) on a central system used to configure menus.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a unified framework for managing restaurant menu data, solving the problem of how to create, modify, and deploy menus consistently across the varied hardware (desktops, handhelds) and software (internal POS, web) platforms emerging at the time (’850 Patent, col. 2:46-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one unspecified independent claim (Compl. ¶20). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A central processing unit, data storage device, and an operating system with a graphical user interface (GUI).
- A "first menu" with menu categories and items, stored on the data storage device and displayable in the GUI in a "hierarchical tree format."
- A "modifier menu" and a "sub-modifier menu."
- "Application software for generating a second menu from said first menu" and transmitting it to a "wireless handheld computing device or Web page."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes broad allegations of infringing "one or more valid and enforceable claims" (Compl. ¶19).
U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 - "Information Management and Synchronous Communications System with Menu Generation," Issued March 22, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '850 patent, the '325 patent addresses the same fundamental challenge: the lack of an integrated and synchronized digital ordering system for the hospitality industry, particularly the difficulty in adapting complex menus for small-screen handheld devices and web interfaces (’325 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention refines the system for generating menus by explicitly linking the generated "second menu" to a "predetermined type of ordering" (e.g., table-based, drive-through, or internet ordering). It further details a "communications control module" that acts as a single point of entry to synchronize data between all system components, including a central database, wireless devices, and web servers, to maintain data equilibrium (’325 Patent, col. 4:1-13).
- Technical Importance: This patent emphasized a more robust, full-system architecture, focusing not just on menu generation but also on the critical need for a centralized communication hub to manage different types of ordering workflows and ensure real-time data synchronization across an entire enterprise (’325 Patent, col. 2:11-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one unspecified independent claim (Compl. ¶35). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 are substantially similar to Claim 1 of the '850 Patent, but add the key limitation:
- "wherein said second menu to applicable to a predetermined type of ordering."
- The complaint makes broad allegations of infringing "one or more valid and enforceable claims" (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 - "Information Management and Synchronous Communications System with Menu Generation, and Handwriting and Voice Modification of Orders," Issued March 27, 2012
Technology Synopsis
This patent extends the family's technology by integrating manual order modifications with the automated menu system. It describes a system allowing a server to select a standard item from a generated menu on a handheld device and then supplement it with a handwritten note or a voice recording (e.g., adding "extra crispy" to a chicken order), which is then combined with the standard order information and transmitted through the system (’077 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-22).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts infringement of at least one unspecified independent claim (Compl. ¶49). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
Accused Features
The complaint alleges infringement through the configuration and transmission of menus, enabling synchronous communications, and formatting menu configurations for different wireless device display sizes (Compl. ¶49(a)-(b)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Micros Systems," which collectively refers to a suite of hospitality technology products including Micros Simphony, OPERA, OPERA Enterprise, OPERA Property Management System, Micros eCommerce Solutions, mycentral, mymenu, and others (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these systems are used to provide comprehensive information technology solutions for the restaurant, foodservice, and hospitality industries (Compl. ¶2). The accused functionality includes generating and transmitting menus, synchronizing applications and data between central databases, wireless handheld devices (such as iPhones and Androids), and web pages, and enabling ordering and other hospitality functions through these various interfaces (Compl. ¶¶20, 35, 49). Figure 1 of the ’850 Patent (attached as Compl. Ex. A) illustrates a graphical user interface with a hierarchical "menu tree" (7), which the complaint alleges is a feature of the accused systems for generating menus (Compl. ¶20(a)).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’850 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first menu consisting of menu categories... said first menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface in a hierarchical tree format | Generating menus in a system that includes displayable main menus, modifier menus, and sub-modifier menus. | ¶20(a) | col. 6:15-21 |
| a modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface | The system contains and displays modifier menus. | ¶20(a) | col. 6:19-21 |
| a sub-modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface | The system contains and displays sub-modifier menus. | ¶20(a) | col. 6:19-21 |
| application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or a Web page | Application software generates a second menu and transmits it to a wireless handheld computing device or a Web page for ordering. | ¶20(a) | col. 14:52-64 |
’325 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first menu consisting of menu categories... said first menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface in a hierarchical tree format | Generating menus in a system that includes displayable main menus, modifier menus, and sub-modifier menus. | ¶35(a) | col. 6:15-21 |
| application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page | Application software generates a second menu and transmits it to a wireless handheld computing device (e.g., iPhone, Android) or a Web page. | ¶35(a) | col. 8:51-59 |
| wherein said second menu to applicable to a predetermined type of ordering | Enabling various types of ordering and other hospitality functions via handheld devices and Web pages. | ¶35(b) | col. 15:20-24 |
| synchronizing applications and data... between at least one central database, wireless handheld computing devices, and at least one Web server and Web page | Synchronizing applications and data related to orders between a central database, wireless devices, and a web server/page. | ¶35(b) | col. 2:11-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Procedural Question: The primary point of contention for the ’850 and ’325 patents is procedural: given the post-filing cancellation of the asserted claims in post-grant reviews, it raises the question of whether any basis remains for the infringement allegations related to these two patents.
- Technical Question: For any surviving claims, a core technical question is whether the accused Micros Systems actually perform the "generating a second menu from said first menu" process. The defense may argue that modern database-driven systems do not use a static "first menu" as an intermediary, but rather generate various user-facing views directly from a dynamic, centralized database, which may not align with the claimed process.
- Scope Question: A key claim construction dispute may arise over the term "hierarchical tree format." The question will be whether this term is limited to the specific tree-view GUI shown in the patent figures or if it can be read more broadly to cover any data structure with parent-child relationships, such as those commonly found in modern databases.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "generating a second menu from said first menu" (’850 Patent, Claim 1; ’325 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core operational step of the invention. The infringement analysis for the system claims will depend heavily on whether the accused Micros Systems perform this specific two-step transformation, or if they generate device-specific menus through a different, one-step process (e.g., direct rendering from a database).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a general process of configuring a menu on a desktop and then downloading it to a handheld device, which could support an interpretation where any use of a master data set (the "first menu") to create a derivative, device-specific version (the "second menu") meets the limitation (’850 Patent, col. 8:7-12, "Download the menu database to the handheld device").
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses heavily on the embodiment of a user interacting with a GUI on a desktop PC to manually build a "menu tree," which is then downloaded. This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, user-facing "first menu" object that is then converted, rather than just using a back-end database as a data source (’850 Patent, col. 7:4-12, "The steps taken in building a menu are as follows...").
The Term: "application program interface" or "API" (’850 Patent, Claim 13)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claims concerning system integration and data synchronization. The scope of this term will determine whether the interfaces in the accused Micros Systems, which allow communication with third-party software and hardware, fall within the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the API in broad, functional terms as what "enables third parties such as point of sale ('POS') companies... to fully integrate with computerized hospitality applications" (’850 Patent, col. 2:12-16). This suggests any interface that achieves such integration could be considered an API.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifically mentions ActiveX Data Objects ("ADO") as the API used in the preferred embodiment for database access (’850 Patent, col. 10:38-40). This could be used to argue for a narrower definition tied to the specific type of technology disclosed as the preferred embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Micros induces infringement by providing customers with instructions, product literature, and encouragement to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶21-24, 36-38, 50-52). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating that the Micros Systems are "specialized software systems" that are "non-staple articles of commerce" with no substantial non-infringing use, and are specially adapted to be used in an infringing way (Compl. ¶¶25, 28, 39, 53).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Micros has had knowledge of the patents since at least October 2007, when it was served with a subpoena in a related litigation involving Ameranth's patents, and that its General Counsel subsequently contacted Ameranth (Compl. ¶15). Willfulness is also alleged based on knowledge gained from the filing of the original complaint in this action in July 2012 (Compl. ¶19). The prayer for relief requests a finding that infringement of the ’850 and ’325 patents was willful (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive threshold issue will be one of procedural finality: given that all claims of the '850 patent and the core claims of the '325 patent were cancelled in post-grant proceedings after this complaint was filed, the central question is whether the infringement counts associated with those patents are now moot, leaving only the '077 patent in dispute.
- For any surviving claims, a key evidentiary question will be one of architectural congruence: does the accused Micros software architecture map onto the specific "first menu to second menu" generation process required by the claims, or does it employ a more modern, direct database-to-endpoint rendering model that is technically distinct and non-infringing?
- The outcome will also likely turn on a question of claim scope: will the court interpret the term "hierarchical tree format" broadly to encompass modern relational database structures, or will it be narrowly construed to the specific file-explorer-like visual interface detailed in the patent's preferred embodiments, a distinction that could place the accused systems outside the scope of the claims.