DCT
4:25-cv-00137
Maplebear Inc v. Fall Line Patents LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Maplebear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart (Delaware)
- Defendant: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C.; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00137, USDC ND/OK, 03/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Oklahoma because Defendant Fall Line Patents, LLC is a resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Instacart seeks a declaratory judgment that its online marketplace technology does not infringe Defendant's patent related to systems for remote data collection using electronic questionnaires.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating, deploying, and managing data collection forms on remote, network-connected computing devices, including the use of location data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant has filed nearly fifty lawsuits asserting the patent-in-suit since 2018, including recent litigation against several of Instacart's retail partners. This prior litigation forms the basis for Instacart's claim of an actual controversy. Notably, the patent-in-suit has survived two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The IPRs resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, but Claim 7, which is a focus of the current complaint, was found patentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 |
| 2016-09-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 Issued |
| 2017-10-06 | IPR2018-00043 Filed (Resulted in cancellation of claims) |
| 2019-01-22 | IPR2019-00610 Filed (Resulted in cancellation of claims) |
| 2022-12-19 | IPR2019-00610 Certificate Issued (Confirmed Claim 7) |
| 2023-08-22 | IPR2018-00043 Certificate Issued (Confirmed cancellation) |
| 2024-11-25 | Defendant filed lawsuits against Instacart Retail Partners |
| 2025-03-25 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - "System and Method for Data Management"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748 Patent”), “System and Method for Data Management,” issued September 27, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in collecting data from workers in the field using early handheld computers. These challenges included software programs being incompatible with different devices, the need for specialized programming skills to create data-gathering applications, and the unreliability of network connections for transferring collected data. (’748 Patent, col. 1:48-65, col. 2:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user on a central computer can design a data-collection "questionnaire" with branching logic, without needing to be a programmer. This questionnaire is converted into device-independent "tokens" and transmitted to remote computing devices. (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:40-66). The remote devices can operate in a "loosely networked" environment, meaning they can collect data even when a network connection is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored. (’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12).
- Technical Importance: The system aimed to replace error-prone paper forms and manual data entry, allowing businesses to create and deploy custom mobile data collection applications more easily and receive field data in a more timely and accurate fashion. (’748 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 7 as a claim previously asserted by Defendant against Instacart's partners. (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
- designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer platform, where at least one question requests location identifying information
- automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with integrated GPS
- executing the questionnaire on the loosely networked computer at the particular location to collect user responses
- using the GPS to automatically provide location identifying information as a response to the questionnaire
- automatically transferring collected responses in "real time" to a central computer via the "loose network"
- making the transferred responses available via the Internet
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any enforceable claim." (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Instacart’s "online marketplace technology," which is used by its retail partners to power their e-commerce mobile applications and websites. (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The technology provides customers with "location-based store availability lookup, fulfillment, pickup, and delivery functionality." (Compl. ¶13). It allows a user to receive a list of nearby retail locations and arrange for online shopping orders. (Compl. ¶8). This functionality is driven by communications between the user's device (e.g., a mobile app) and Instacart's servers. (Compl. ¶13). The complaint asserts Instacart is the "leading grocery technology company in North America." (Compl. ¶8).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Because this is a declaratory judgment action, the complaint outlines Instacart’s denials of infringement. The following chart summarizes the elements of Claim 7 that Instacart specifically contends its technology does not meet.
’748 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Instacart's denials) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| designing a questionnaire including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having branching logic on a first computer platform wherein at least one of said questions requests location identifying information | Instacart denies that its technology involves designing a questionnaire with branching logic customized for a particular location that requests location information. | ¶18 | col. 15:46-51 |
| automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto | Instacart denies the automatic transfer of a "designed questionnaire" to a loosely networked computer. | ¶18 | col. 15:52-56 |
| while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire | Instacart denies that its technology uses GPS to automatically provide location information as a response to an executing questionnaire. | ¶18 | col. 15:63-67 |
| automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer | Instacart denies the "real time" transfer of collected responses via a loose network to a central computer. | ¶18 | col. 16:1-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether Instacart’s system of presenting store and product information to a user constitutes a "questionnaire" as contemplated by the patent. The complaint’s denial suggests Instacart will argue its system is a search and display platform, whereas the patent describes a more structured survey with pre-defined questions and branching logic. (Compl. ¶18; ’748 Patent, col. 8:25-39).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's denials raise the question of whether the Instacart technology "us[es] said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire." (Compl. ¶18; ’748 Patent, col. 15:63-67). The dispute may turn on whether using location data as an input to filter results (e.g., show nearby stores) is the same as providing the location data itself as a "response" to a specific question within a form, as the claim language requires.
- Technical Questions: A further point of contention may arise from the term "in real time" in claim 7(e). The patent broadly describes a "loosely networked" system tolerant of communication delays, but this claim element imposes a real-time transfer requirement. (Compl. ¶18; ’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12, col. 16:1-3). The parties may dispute whether Instacart's data synchronization protocol meets the "real time" standard as defined within the context of the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire"
- Context and Importance: The applicability of the entire claim hinges on this term. If Instacart's technology for presenting retail options does not constitute a "questionnaire," then infringement may not be found. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples depict structured, survey-like forms, which may differ from Instacart’s commercial interface.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the terms "program" and "form" are used interchangeably with "questionnaire," which could support a broader definition encompassing any system for prompting for and collecting user input. (’748 Patent, col. 8:36-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of questionnaires, such as a mystery shopper rating a restaurant, which involves a series of explicit questions and answers. (’748 Patent, col. 10:40 - col. 11:27). This context, along with the requirement for "designing a questionnaire" with "branching logic," may support a narrower construction limited to survey-style instruments. (’748 Patent, col. 15:46-49).
The Term: "loosely networked computer"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the type of device on which the method operates and provides context for other limitations, such as the "real time" transfer requirement. Its construction will be important for determining whether modern smartphones, which are the likely platform for Instacart's technology, fall within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term as describing a system "tolerant of intermittent network connections" where information can be "temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted." (’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12). This could be interpreted broadly to cover any device, like a modern smartphone, that can cache data when offline.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states the system is "communication channel indifferent," able to use whatever connection it "can find available." (’748 Patent, col. 5:15-20). A court could be asked to decide if this requires a specific design for channel indifference, rather than just the default Wi-Fi/cellular switching common to all modern mobile devices.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of any theory of indirect infringement, including contributory infringement or inducement. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint's basis for this is that Defendant has accused Instacart's partners' mobile applications, which are powered by Instacart's technology, of infringing the ’748 Patent. (Compl. ¶13). No specific facts supporting an inducement or contributory theory are detailed, other than this background context.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire," which the patent describes in the context of creating custom surveys with branching logic, be construed to read on Instacart’s commercial system for displaying location-based retail and product search results?
- A second key issue will be one of functional distinction: does the Instacart platform’s use of GPS data to filter and present nearby store options constitute "automatically provid[ing] said location identifying information as a response" to a question, as required by claim 7(d), or is this a fundamentally different technical operation from what the patent claims?
- A third question will involve claim construction and potential contradiction: how will the court interpret the "real time" data transfer requirement of claim 7(e) in light of the patent's overall framework of a "loosely networked" system designed specifically to accommodate, rather than require, persistent connectivity? The resolution of this apparent tension may be critical to the infringement analysis.