Wepay Global Payments LLC v. McDonalds Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wepay Global Payments LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: McDonald's Corporation (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wawrzyn LLC
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01064, N.D. Ill., 03/01/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the animated graphical user interface (GUI) in Defendant’s mobile application infringes its design patent covering an ornamental GUI design.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of animated graphical user interfaces for mobile device applications, which are used to display information and guide user interaction.
• Key Procedural History: Post-filing events outside the complaint are highly relevant to this case. Two Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings were initiated against the asserted patent, which resulted in a certificate being issued in May 2023 cancelling the patent's only claim. Separately, the patentee filed a terminal disclaimer in September 2022, disclaiming the remaining term of the patent. These events raise fundamental questions about the continued viability of the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-09-03	’702 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2021-09-14	’702 Patent Issue Date
2022-03-01	Complaint Filing Date
2022-04-05	PGR2022-00031 filed against ’702 Patent
2022-06-09	PGR2022-00045 filed against ’702 Patent
2022-09-20	’702 Patent term disclaimed by patentee
2023-05-01	’702 Patent claim cancelled via PGR Certificate

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702 - "DISPLAY SCREEN PORTION WITH ANIMATED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE"

Issued September 14, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the same way utility patents do; instead, they address the challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. In this case, the article is an animated graphical user interface for a display screen.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design of a GUI, which includes an animated transition between different visual states. The complaint focuses on the second embodiment, which depicts a three-stage animation: an initial screen with three solid squares in a box (FIG. 3), a transition to a screen with a grid of circles (FIG. 4), and a final screen with a "cancel" area (FIG. 5) (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 1:49-52; Figs. 3-5). The claimed design consists only of the features shown in solid lines; all elements in broken lines, such as the text and the device screen itself, form no part of the claimed design (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 1:53-56).
• Technical Importance: The patent is directed to the ornamental appearance of an animated GUI, a common feature in modern mobile applications used to provide visual feedback and guide user interaction.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described" (’702 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
• The complaint asserts that the accused product infringes the second embodiment of this design (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14).
• The essential visual elements of the asserted embodiment are:
  • The specific appearance of the graphical elements shown in solid lines.
  • The sequential transition between the images shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "McDonald's mobile GUI device app" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that a "component" of the McDonald's mobile app "embodies the GUI design covered by the ’702 patent" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific details about the operation of the accused GUI or its market position, beyond alleging it is distributed to consumers in Illinois and the judicial district (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a side-by-side claim chart comparison in an "Exhibit B" which was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint’s infringement theory, based on the text, is that the McDonald's mobile app incorporates an animated GUI design that is substantially similar to the second embodiment of the ’702 Patent, as depicted in Figures 3 through 5 (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14). The complaint is internally inconsistent, with infringement count headings referencing U.S. Patent No. D857,702, while the body text consistently refers to the ’702 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 11-14). This analysis assumes the ’702 Patent is the intended patent-in-suit.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: For a design patent, the central infringement question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The analysis would have to determine the scope of the claimed design, which is defined by the solid-line drawings of Figures 3-5, and compare that to the overall visual appearance of the accused McDonald's app GUI.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question would be whether the accused GUI performs the specific three-stage animation claimed in the patent's second embodiment. This would require a direct visual comparison of the animated sequence in the app with the sequence shown in the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction involves the court providing a verbal description of the claimed design shown in the figures, rather than interpreting textual limitations.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: The court's description of the claimed design is critical as it defines the scope of what is protected. This verbal construction guides the "ordinary observer" test for infringement. Practitioners may focus on how the court describes the animation and the specific graphical elements shown in solid lines, as this will determine the breadth of the patent's protection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent disclaims all text and the device screen itself by rendering them in broken lines, which could support an interpretation where the claim covers the core animated graphical sequence regardless of the specific text labels or device it appears on (’702 Patent, col. 1:53-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual appearance of the solid-line elements, such as the three distinct solid squares in FIG. 3 and the exact sequence of transitions, could support a narrower interpretation. An argument could be made that any significant deviation from this precise visual sequence in an accused product falls outside the claim's scope (’702 Patent, Figs. 3-5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief makes a boilerplate request for judgment on indirect infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶(a)). However, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on acts of direct infringement by Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement and pleads no facts related to Defendant's knowledge of the patent or any objectively reckless conduct.

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

The future of this case appears to hinge on procedural and legal questions arising from events that occurred after the complaint was filed, rather than on the substantive merits of the infringement claim.

• A primary question is one of mootness and enforceability: given that the sole patent claim has been cancelled by the USPTO in a Post-Grant Review and the patent term has been disclaimed by the patentee, what, if any, part of the lawsuit remains viable? The court will need to determine whether a claim for damages predating these events can survive.
• Should the case proceed, a central issue will be one of ornamental similarity: would an ordinary observer find the overall visual appearance of the accused McDonald's app GUI to be substantially the same as the specific animated sequence claimed in the second embodiment of the ’702 patent, focusing only on the claimed solid-line features and disregarding the disclaimed elements?