DCT

1:20-cv-00699

Tablesafe Inc v. Dineriq Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00699, D. Del., 05/26/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and resides in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pay-at-the-table systems infringe a patent related to a device for presenting and facilitating bill payment in a restaurant setting.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated electronic payment devices designed to streamline the process of paying a bill, particularly for groups, directly at a restaurant table.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to one of Defendant's customers, Brinker International, which allegedly admitted to testing the accused devices with billfolds at two of its restaurants before temporarily suspending their use.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-15 ’794 Patent Priority Date
2008-05-13 ’794 Patent Issued
2020-05-26 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,370,794 - Device and System for Presenting and Facilitating Payment of a Restaurant Bill, issued May 13, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the traditional process of paying a restaurant bill as "cumbersome" and "inefficient," particularly when a group of patrons wishes to divide the bill or pay with different methods (e.g., cash and multiple credit cards) (’794 Patent, col. 1:39-41, col. 1:50-61). This process requires significant waitstaff time and can lead to "socially uncomfortable and embarrassing situations" for patrons regarding gratuity and cost-splitting (’794 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that integrates a computing system into a form factor resembling a conventional restaurant billfold (’794 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-16). This device allows patrons to view an itemized bill, divide the payment among multiple people, calculate gratuity, and process payments via a built-in magnetic stripe reader, all at the table without needing to hand their credit cards to a waitperson (’794 Patent, col. 2:16-23; Fig. 6). The familiar billfold appearance is noted as an advantage for user acceptance by both patrons and staff (’794 Patent, col. 2:15-16).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aimed to increase efficiency in restaurants by automating the payment process, reducing waitstaff labor, and improving the customer experience for group dining (’794 Patent, col. 2:3-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶10, ¶18). It generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the ’794 patent" (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "devices for presenting and facilitating payment of restaurant bills" sold by Defendant under the "PayMyTab" trademark (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the PayMyTab devices are used by purchasers "with billfolds" to form an infringing combination (Compl. ¶10). Plaintiff identifies itself and Defendant as "direct competitors" in the pay-at-the-table market (Compl. ¶11). The complaint points to Brinker International as a customer that has purchased and used the accused PayMyTab devices with billfolds (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on a claim-by-claim basis, as it fails to identify any specific claims of the ’794 Patent that are allegedly infringed. The infringement theory is articulated only in general terms, alleging that Defendant infringes by selling the PayMyTab devices and that direct infringement occurs when customers, such as Brinker International, use those devices "with billfolds" (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The complaint does not contain a claim chart or map any specific product features to any specific claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction, as it does not assert any specific claims. A potential dispute, however, may arise over the meaning of terms defining the physical relationship between the payment device and the billfold. For example, independent claim 1 of the ’794 Patent requires a "billfold comprising at least a first flap, a second flap and a hinge" and that "the billfold houses at least a portion of the computing system" (’794 Patent, col. 12:1-4).

  • The Term: "billfold houses at least a portion of the computing system"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case may depend on whether Defendant's PayMyTab device, when used "with" a billfold as alleged, satisfies this "houses" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint suggests the PayMyTab device and the billfold may be separate components that are combined by the end-user (Compl. ¶10, ¶13). The court would need to determine if such a combination meets the structural requirement of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is broad, stating the invention includes a "computing system and a billfold for housing at least a portion of the computing system" (’794 Patent, Abstract). The term "houses" is not explicitly defined, which may support a broader interpretation that does not require permanent integration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a single, integrated unit where the computing system components (like the display) are physically embedded within the flaps of the billfold (e.g., ’794 Patent, Fig. 2A, Fig. 4A). For example, the specification states "pressure sensitive display 314 is housed within flap 204 of billfold 202" (’794 Patent, col. 4:60-63). This could support a narrower construction requiring the components to be part of a unitary, pre-assembled device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement. The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant sells the PayMyTab devices and has "either been providing the PayMyTab devices to its customers with billfolds and/or actively inducing its customers to acquire billfolds for use with the purchased PayMyTab devices" (Compl. ¶13).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement." However, it requests treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is the statutory remedy for willful or egregious infringement (Prayer for Relief, ¶E). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’794 Patent.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint’s failure to identify any specific asserted patent claims meets the plausibility pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal. The court may need to resolve whether the general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" is sufficient to proceed.

  2. Claim Scope and Combination Products: A central technical and legal question will be one of structural definition: can the claim limitation "billfold houses at least a portion of the computing system" be met by the alleged use of Defendant's separate PayMyTab device "with" a billfold? The case may turn on whether the claims require a single, integrated product or can be read to cover a multi-component system assembled by an end-user.

  3. Proof of Inducement: A key evidentiary question will be one of intent and action: what specific evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that Defendant actively encouraged its customers to combine the PayMyTab device with a billfold, thereby intending to cause infringement, as required for an inducement claim?