OrderMagic LLC v. Toast Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Toast, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13139, N.D. Ill., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of alleged infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s restaurant point-of-sale and ordering systems infringe a patent related to a remote ordering system for restaurants.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on electronic menu and payment processing technology used in the hospitality industry, a sector increasingly reliant on digital systems to streamline operations and enhance customer experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475 - Remote ordering system

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes inefficiencies in traditional restaurant ordering that rely on waitstaff for order transcription and payment processing (Compl. ¶9; ’475 Patent, col. 1:21-34). It also identifies drawbacks of then-current electronic menus, such as tablet PCs, citing their high cost, fragility, susceptibility to liquid damage, and reliance on unstable operating systems that could crash (’475 Patent, col. 1:35-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more robust and streamlined remote ordering apparatus. Embodiments describe a device resembling a physical, multi-page menu binder, but equipped with electronic components. The device includes input means (such as membrane switches or buttons) aligned with menu items on the physical pages and a page-indexing mechanism to detect which page a customer is viewing, allowing the same set of buttons to select different items depending on the open page (’475 Patent, col. 2:50-65; col. 5:16-34). A small display provides feedback on selected items, and a wireless transmitter sends the completed order to a remote location like a kitchen or server station (’475 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The described solution sought to blend the familiar tactile experience of a traditional menu with the efficiency of electronic ordering, while prioritizing durability and simplicity over the full-computing capability of a tablet PC (’475 Patent, col. 2:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "exemplary claims" in an exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a first and second "customer menu apparatus"
  • Each apparatus includes at least one display listing items, an input means for selection, and a feedback means for confirmation
  • The feedback means includes a "feedback display," and the input means includes a "touch screen overlaying said feedback display"
  • The system is constructed to allow a first and second customer to "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses"
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (’475 Patent, col. 10:25-38; Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" made, used, sold, or offered for sale by Toast, Inc. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide a specific description of the accused products' functionality. It states that charts comparing the patent claims to the products are provided in an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint, therefore, does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific features or market positioning.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’475 Patent, and it incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided Exhibit 2 to support this allegation (Compl. ¶16-17). Without access to these charts or a more detailed description of the accused products, a tabular analysis of the infringement contentions cannot be constructed. The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the assertion that Defendant's products "practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the ’475 Patent and the general nature of modern restaurant POS systems, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether Defendant's system, which likely involves a combination of cloud-based software, fixed POS terminals, and/or customer mobile devices, constitutes a "customer menu apparatus" as contemplated by the patent. A further question is whether communication between diners, if any, occurs "via the first and second customer menu apparatuses" as required by claim 1, or if it is mediated entirely by a central server in a manner that falls outside the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products meet specific claim limitations, such as the requirement in claim 1 for a "touch screen overlaying said feedback display" on each apparatus.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "customer menu apparatus"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted system claims. Its construction will determine whether the claims read on an integrated, handheld device as depicted in the patent's embodiments, or if they can be interpreted to cover a distributed system of hardware and software components, as is common in modern POS architectures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "apparatus" or "menu" as a single, physical unit that contains pages, selection means, a display, and a transmitter, much like a self-contained electronic binder (’475 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 2:50-65). This may support an argument that the term is limited to such integrated devices.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly require all components to be housed in a single chassis. A party could argue that "apparatus" should be given its ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing a set of coordinated components that work together to perform the claimed functions, even if physically separate.

• Term: "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 1 requires a specific mode of interaction between two distinct apparatuses. The viability of the infringement allegation will depend on whether the accused system enables this type of communication and whether the communication occurs "via" the apparatuses themselves.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of such communication, including the ability for menus to "communicate with other menus, providing an ability to send messages, pay for all or just selected items, play games, or otherwise interact" (’475 Patent, col. 4:5-10). This suggests a direct or peer-to-peer style of interaction initiated and managed at the device level.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system architecture that allows one user's device to affect another user's device (e.g., by sending an order to a shared ticket that is then displayed on the second device) satisfies the "communicate with" requirement, even if routed through a central server. The interpretation of "via" will be critical.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’475 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15). The allegation of knowledge for inducement is tied to the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but the prayer for relief requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D). The factual basis for this appears to be the allegation of "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the court’s determination of several key issues that bridge the gap between the patent's 2006-era technology and the defendant's modern systems.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "customer menu apparatus," which the patent describes as a self-contained, physical device blending paper menus and electronic buttons, be construed to cover a distributed, software-centric restaurant management system?
• A second key issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused system's method of communication between different users or devices, likely mediated by a central server, meet the claim 1 requirement for two apparatuses to "communicate with each other via" those apparatuses?
• Finally, an evidentiary question will be one of elemental proof: given the complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit, what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused products meet each specific limitation of the asserted claims, including the "touch screen overlaying said feedback display" required by claim 1?