DCT
1:20-cv-00518
Ameranth Inc v. OLO Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ameranth Inc (Delaware)
- Defendant: OLO Inc (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00518, D. Del., 04/16/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital ordering platform for restaurants infringes a patent related to an information management and communications system for the hospitality industry.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to integrated digital platforms that allow restaurants to manage orders from various sources, such as mobile apps and websites, and coordinate with different systems, including point-of-sale and delivery services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes the asserted patent is part of a larger patent family but alleges its claims cover "materially different concepts" and that this is the first litigation asserting them. The complaint also references the prosecution history, stating the claims are directed to "IAA [intelligent automated assistant] functionality" to distinguish them from prior art and abstract ideas.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-21 | '651 Patent Earliest Priority Date (U.S. App. 09/400,413) |
| 2005-11-07 | Plaintiff's Magellan System deployed with Zagat |
| 2017-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,747,651 Issued |
| 2020-04-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,747,651 - "Application Software Based Information Management and Real Time Communications System Including Intelligent Automated Assistants (Bots) in a Computing Ecosystem Including Different Types of Remote Computing Devices with Different User Interfaces and with a Master Database that is Accessible from and Stored at a Central Location," issued August 29, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the historical difficulty in the hospitality industry of moving away from paper-based ordering and reservation systems. It notes that early digital solutions like PDAs had small, non-standard displays, making it hard to create user-friendly menus, and that there was no integrated way to synchronize data in real-time between a central server, various handheld devices, and web-based systems ('651 Patent, col. 1:40-2:12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a comprehensive system architecture to solve this synchronization problem. It centers on a "back-office" hospitality application connected to a "master database" at a central location ('651 Patent, Abstract). This central system uses a communications control module to interface bi-directionally with a variety of remote devices, including those using "free format messaging" (like an intelligent assistant) and those using "fixed format messaging" (like a web browser), ensuring data consistency across the entire ecosystem ('651 Patent, col. 21:44-22:24; Fig. 9). The system is designed to execute rules, such as those for managing reservations or orders, and to integrate with external applications.
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention addresses the need for a unified platform that can manage heterogeneous devices and communication protocols, a key challenge in the transition to digital ordering for an industry with diverse technology vendors and operational needs ('651 Patent, col. 5:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶25).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
- A hospitality software back-office application with an "intelligent automated assistant ('IAA')-based interface" enabled to execute rules while communicating via "free format messaging" and an interface for "fixed format messaging communications with web browsers" for bi-directional communication with two or more different remote wireless handheld devices.
- A master database with a predefined file structure, accessible via an API.
- A computer server for data storage.
- A communications control module (CCM) integrated with the hospitality application.
- A web server enabled by the CCM to communicate with the remote devices.
- A first wireless handheld device with an IAA mobile application for "free format messaging."
- A second wireless handheld device using a web browser for "fixed format messaging."
- An external API for integrating with non-hospitality applications.
- Independent Claim 3 is similar to Claim 1 but requires communication with "three or more" remote devices and specifies different interfaces for each (e.g., web browser, IAA mobile app, and another mobile hospitality application) ('651 Patent, col. 23:14-24:10).
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 6 and 11 (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "OLO Inc Digital Ordering Platform," which includes its Ordering API, Digital Ordering, Rails, and Dispatch components (the "Accused System") (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused System is a software platform that enables restaurant brands to receive and manage digital orders from customers using various devices like mobile phones and tablets (Compl. ¶26).
- It includes "intelligent automated assistants technology" for implementing business rules, such as "throttling" (managing order flow to the kitchen), "make time strategies" (timing order preparation), and "freshness logic" (coordinating food readiness with driver arrival) (Compl. ¶¶26, 48-50).
- The platform also integrates with third-party services. The "Dispatch" feature selects the "best matched delivery service provider" based on rules, and the "Rails" feature integrates with third-party marketplaces and external platforms like Google Search and Google Maps (Compl. ¶¶36, 40, 76). The complaint includes a flowchart from Olo's website that illustrates how a customer order on a branded app is routed to a third-party delivery service provider and injected into the restaurant's POS system (Compl. ¶36, p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'651 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) at least one hospitality software back-office application with at least one IAA-based interface and enabled to execute one or more rules while communicating via free format messaging and at least one interface with fixed format messaging communications with web browsers for communicating bi-directionally with two or more different remote wireless handheld computing devices; | The Olo platform (including Digital Ordering, Rails, and Dispatch) is the back-office application. It has an "IAA-based interface" via its Ordering API that connects to Google Assistant or Facebook Messenger for "free format messaging." It executes rules like throttling, make time strategies, and freshness logic. It also communicates with web browsers. | ¶¶39-41, 44, 48 | col. 21:49-58 |
| b) a master database containing data and parameters...with predefined formats and specific fields and which is accessible through a database application programming interface (API); | Olo's system uses a master database on a server to store menu, ordering, and rules data. The complaint points to Olo's database maintenance schedules and job postings for database administrators as evidence. This database is accessible via Olo's API. A screenshot shows configurable "Delivery settings" parameters stored in the database. | ¶¶53-54, 58, 60; p. 25 | col. 21:59-22:5 |
| f) at least one wireless handheld remote computing device with at least one IAA mobile application and user interface with free format messaging that enables access to and communications with the back office hospitality software application and its IAA-based interface; | A mobile device running an IAA-based application like Google Assistant or Facebook Messenger, which communicates with the Olo platform via its Ordering API. | ¶¶70-72 | col. 22:6-12 |
| g) at least one other wireless handheld remote computing device which uses a web browser based user interface with fixed format messaging to access and communicate with the back office hospitality application software; | A mobile device with a web browser (e.g., Chrome) that accesses a restaurant's ordering website, which is powered by the Olo platform. | ¶¶73-74 | col. 22:13-17 |
| h) at least one external application programming interface for fully integrating via the internet the hospitality back office software application with one or more non hospitality software applications; | The Olo platform integrates with non-hospitality applications like Google Search and Google Maps via an external API. | ¶¶75-76 | col. 22:18-22 |
| wherein the system elements are enabled to communicate bi-directionally in real time...while maintaining consistency with the master database. | The system maintains consistency with the master database through features like "price updater" and "menu export," which syndicate data to partners in real-time. A diagram illustrates the information flow between a customer's device, Olo's system, third-party services, and the restaurant's POS. | ¶¶77-78; p. 19 | col. 22:23-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that integrations with modern conversational platforms like Google Assistant constitute an "IAA-based interface" that uses "free format messaging." A central question will be whether the patent's disclosure, which discusses bots and voice/handwriting recognition, supports construing these terms broadly enough to cover the API-based interactions with today's third-party AI assistants.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the system to communicate "bi-directionally" with "two or more different remote wireless handheld computing devices." The complaint identifies these as a device running an assistant like Google's and another device using a web browser. A technical question is whether the Olo platform's communication architecture, particularly its use of APIs, satisfies the specific bi-directional communication pathways described between the claimed "back-office application" and these distinct device types.
- Functional Questions: The complaint maps Olo features like "throttling" and "freshness logic" to the claim requirement to "execute one or more rules." The "Dispatch Freshness Logic" diagram shows a rule-based process for timing when an order is sent to the kitchen (Compl. ¶49, p. 23). The court will likely need to determine if these specific operational functions, which manage order timing and logistics, constitute the type of "rules" execution contemplated by the patent in the context of its overall system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"intelligent automated assistant ('IAA')-based interface"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty and appears in the title and the core claims. The complaint's infringement theory relies on mapping this term to Olo's API integrations with services like Google Assistant (Compl. ¶40). Its construction will likely determine whether the accused system's architecture falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will differentiate the claimed invention from simple web-based ordering systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title includes "Intelligent Automated Assistants (Bots)," suggesting the concept is not limited to a single embodiment. The specification discusses a wide range of communication conversions and integrations, which may support an interpretation that covers any interface to an automated or rule-based system ('651 Patent, Fig. 10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of automated communications, such as automated telephone calls with text-to-voice conversion and voice recognition for making reservations ('651 Patent, col. 15:30-47). This could support a narrower construction limited to systems that actively conduct human-like conversational interactions, rather than passive API endpoints.
"free format messaging"
- Context and Importance: This term is paired with the "IAA-based interface" and is contrasted with "fixed format messaging" from web browsers. The complaint alleges that communications via Google Assistant are "free format" (Compl. ¶41). The definition of this term is critical for distinguishing between different communication channels and device types as required by the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may allow for a broad interpretation covering any non-structured or conversational data input, as one might use with a modern digital assistant.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples of manual modifications to orders, such as handwritten notes ("with lemon") or voice messages, could be argued to be the intended meaning of "free format" ('651 Patent, col. 4:16-21). This could support a narrower definition limited to unstructured user-generated content, as opposed to the structured data exchanged via an API, even if the initial user command was conversational.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. While the prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the body of the complaint does not contain a separate count or specific factual allegations to support a claim of willfulness (Compl. p. 35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be whether the term "intelligent automated assistant ('IAA')-based interface", as described in a patent with a 1999 priority date, can be construed to encompass a modern platform's API that integrates with third-party conversational AI like Google Assistant. The outcome may depend on whether the court views an API as an "interface" in the manner claimed.
- System Architecture: A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence. Does the Olo platform, which acts as a centralized hub for routing order data between customers, restaurants, and third-party services, embody the specific "back-office application" architecture of the claims, which requires distinct bi-directional communication channels with different types of remote devices while maintaining real-time consistency with a "master database"?
- Functional Equivalence: The case will likely examine whether Olo’s specific, commercially-driven rules for logistical optimization (e.g., "freshness logic," "throttling") perform the same function as the rules described in the patent, which are presented in the broader context of generating and modifying hospitality orders and reservations.