DCT
2:22-cv-00016
Tiare Technology Inc v. Yadav Enterprises Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Yadav Enterprises, Inc. (California) and YTC Enterprises, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-0016, E.D. Tex., 01/11/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants conduct business in the district, have committed acts of infringement there, and operate multiple Taco Cabana stores that constitute regular and established places of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Taco Cabana mobile application infringes patents related to mobile ordering systems that utilize location-tracking technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow patrons in a specific venue, such as a restaurant, to place orders wirelessly from a mobile device and be located for service fulfillment, a market that has grown significantly with smartphone adoption.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the application leading to the ’414 Patent underwent extensive examination, during which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office considered patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the Supreme Court's Alice v. CLS Bank decision before allowing the claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | ’729 and ’414 Patents - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2014-03-25 | ’729 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2018-12-18 | ’414 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2021-07-01 | Defendant Yadav Enterprises, Inc. acquires Taco Cabana |
| 2022-01-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 - "Patron Service System and Method" (Issued Mar. 25, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies and inconveniences in service environments like resorts, where patrons struggle to find staff to place an order, and staff in turn struggle to locate patrons to deliver that order, especially in large or crowded areas like a pool or beach (’729 Patent, col. 1:46-59). It also notes the limitations of then-existing solutions like fixed kiosks, which require patrons to leave their seats, and staff-operated handheld terminals, which still require the patron to wait for a staff member to initiate an order (’729 Patent, col. 2:22-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system comprising portable wireless "patron units" that allow customers to browse menus and place orders directly, a central server to process these orders, and portable "staff units" that receive order details and can display the location of the patron unit to facilitate efficient delivery (’729 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system is designed to create a direct, on-demand link between a patron and the venue's service infrastructure, regardless of the patron's location within the venue.
- Technical Importance: This technology conceptualized a comprehensive mobile ordering and fulfillment ecosystem for hospitality venues before the widespread proliferation of modern smartphones and app-based economies.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A method of using a wireless patron unit within a venue.
- Providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit by either (a) permitting temporary use of a venue-owned unit with a venue specific application or (b) providing a venue specific application for downloading into a patron-owned wireless device.
- Connecting the wireless patron unit to a server.
- Entering a patron order for an item or service into the unit.
- Determining a current location of the unit.
- Updating the order status and the unit's current location on the unit when the patron moves.
- Displaying the patron order on the unit's display.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 - "Patron Service System and Method" (Issued Dec. 18, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the ’414 Patent addresses the same service inefficiency problems in venues like resorts as the ’729 Patent (’414 Patent, col. 1:22-col. 2:62).
- The Patented Solution: The ’414 Patent claims a server-centric method that focuses on the back-end processing for a mobile ordering system. The claimed method involves providing a venue-specific application to a mobile device, authenticating the user, receiving location information from the device, mapping that location to a region associated with the venue, receiving an order, and then receiving and determining updated locations of the device based on updated location information (’414 Patent, Claim 8). This represents an evolution of the inventive concept tailored to a software-application-on-personal-device model rather than a dedicated hardware model.
- Technical Importance: The patent's claims reflect the technological shift from proprietary hardware to downloadable software applications running on users' own multi-purpose devices for providing venue-specific services.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶74).
- Claim 8 Elements:
- A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors.
- Providing a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device over a wireless channel.
- Communicating with the device to authenticate a user based on a security protocol.
- Receiving location information from the device.
- Determining a location of the device at a first time based on that information.
- Mapping the location to a region associated with a venue.
- Receiving order information from the device indicating a user selection.
- Receiving updated location information from the device.
- Determining an updated location of the device at a second time based on the updated information.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Taco Cabana application, including the devices on which the application runs" (Compl. ¶11, fn 1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a venue-specific mobile application for the Taco Cabana restaurant chain (Compl. ¶45). Its functionality includes allowing users to browse a menu, place orders for pickup, and create user accounts (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 84). The application also allegedly uses the mobile device's location services to find nearby stores and to facilitate "curbside order updates" (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47). A screenshot from the complaint shows a map interface displaying Taco Cabana store locations relative to the user (Compl. p. 11). The complaint alleges the application is one of the top Food & Drink applications on the Google Play and Apple App Stores (Compl. ¶51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'729 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit... by providing at least one venue specific application program... for downloading into a patron-owned wireless communication device | Defendant provides the Taco Cabana application for download onto patron-owned smartphones via app stores. | ¶61 | col. 1:1-10 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication between the wireless patron unit and the server | The application connects the smartphone to a server via Wi-Fi or cellular connection to enable communication. | ¶62 | col. 4:10-14 |
| entering a patron order for at least one item or service provided by the venue into the wireless patron unit | A user selects menu items (e.g., a "Bacon & Egg Taco") and adds them to an order within the application. | ¶63 | col. 4:30-32 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The application accesses the smartphone's location services to determine its current location, as shown by location permission prompts. | ¶64 | col. 6:33-36 |
| updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location, on the wireless patron unit | Defendant tracks the device's location as it approaches a restaurant for an order and uses the location for "curbside order updates." | ¶¶68-69 | col. 6:28-32 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The application displays the user's order details on the smartphone screen. | ¶72 | col. 4:58-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The central dispute may concern whether "providing... a venue specific application program for downloading" onto a user's personal smartphone meets the claim limitation of "providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit." The definition of "unit" will be critical.
- Technical Question: What level of functionality is required by "updating... the current location... when the patron moves"? The complaint alleges this is met by tracking a device for curbside pickup (Compl. ¶69), but the patent specification discusses tracking patrons moving between distinct zones of a large resort (e.g., pool to beach). The question is whether the accused functionality is equivalent to what is claimed.
'414 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing, over a wireless communications channel... a venue-specific application, to a mobile computing device | Defendant provides the Taco Cabana application to smartphones over cellular or Wi-Fi networks via app stores. | ¶81 | col. 26:40-43 |
| communicating... to authenticate, based on a security protocol, a user of the venue-specific application | The application authenticates users via a login and password and secures financial information for purchases. A screenshot shows a "Sign In" screen (Compl. p. 24). | ¶¶82-84 | col. 21:33-37 |
| receiving... location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's system receives location data from the device's location services, as evidenced by permission prompts. | ¶85 | col. 25:58-61 |
| determining... a location of the mobile computing device at a first time based on the location information | Based on the received data, Defendant's system determines the location of the smartphone to find local stores. | ¶87 | col. 26:1-3 |
| mapping... the location to a region that is associated with a venue | Defendant's system maps the device's location to show nearby Taco Cabana stores on a map interface. | ¶88 | col. 26:10-12 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue | Defendant's system receives order information when a user selects items from the menu and proceeds to checkout. | ¶89 | col. 26:13-16 |
| receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's system receives updated location information to track when a device is in the vicinity of a store for "curbside order updates." | ¶¶90-91 | col. 26:17-19 |
| determining... an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information | Defendant determines the device's updated location at multiple points as it approaches the store. | ¶94 | col. 26:20-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: Does the term "mapping... the location to a region that is associated with a venue" read on the accused app's functionality of placing pins on a general-purpose map for a store locator? A potential argument is that the patent contemplates a more structured mapping to predefined operational zones within a single, contiguous venue, as described in the specification's resort context.
- Technical Question: Does the app's location tracking for curbside pickup, which may only become active as the user approaches the store, meet the claim requirement of receiving updated location information and determining a location at a "second time" in the manner claimed? The nature and timing of the "updated" location information will be a key factual question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "wireless patron unit" (’729 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis of the ’729 Patent. The case may turn on whether providing a downloadable software application for a patron's own device constitutes "providing" a "unit." Practitioners may focus on this term as it represents a potential mismatch between the claim language, rooted in an era of dedicated devices, and the accused technology, which is purely software.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself offers two ways to satisfy the "providing" step, including "by providing at least one venue specific application program to the at least one patron for downloading into a patron-owned wireless communication device" (’729 Patent, claim 1). This language explicitly contemplates a software-on-personal-device scenario.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "portable patron unit" as a "rugged mobile computer device" with an "outer protective casing" designed to withstand sun and saltwater, suggesting a physical piece of hardware provided by the venue (’729 Patent, col. 4:21-23; col. 7:59-col. 8:1). A screenshot in the complaint shows the login screen for user authentication (Compl. p. 24).
Term 2: "mapping... the location to a region that is associated with a venue" (’414 Patent, Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: The validity of the infringement allegation for the ’414 Patent depends on whether the accused app's store-finding feature performs the claimed "mapping." The dispute will likely focus on the technical meaning of "mapping" and "region" in the context of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is not explicitly limited to a single, contiguous venue. It could be interpreted to mean associating a set of geographic coordinates with any area defined as being "associated with a venue," such as the location of a restaurant in a chain.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the system in the context of a resort and discusses displaying a patron's location on a map of "any area or zone being served by the portable staff units" (’414 Patent, col. 15:29-32). This suggests "region" implies a defined sub-area within a larger venue (e.g., the pool area, the beach area) for operational purposes, not just a pin on a city-wide map.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents. It asserts that by distributing the Taco Cabana application and instructing consumers on how to use its mobile ordering and location-based features, Defendant knowingly encourages users to perform the steps of the patented methods (Compl. ¶57, ¶78).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant "knew or should have known" of the patents but was "willfully blind" prior to the suit, and has had actual knowledge since the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶58, ¶79).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "wireless patron unit," described in the ’729 Patent's specification as a physical, venue-owned device, be construed to cover a software application that a defendant makes available for download onto a patron's personal smartphone, even though the claim language itself appears to contemplate such a scenario?
- A second key issue will be one of technical and functional scope: does the accused application's use of location services primarily for a store locator and for "curbside order updates" perform the specific, multi-step location determination, mapping, and updating functions required by the claims, which were conceived for the different operational context of tracking mobile patrons within a large, contiguous hospitality venue like a resort?
- A third question will be one of patent eligibility: although the complaint notes the ’414 Patent survived § 101 scrutiny during prosecution, the defense may challenge the claims as being directed to the abstract idea of taking an order and tracking a customer's location for delivery, a common issue for software and business method patents. The case will examine whether the claims recite a sufficient inventive concept to constitute a patent-eligible application of that idea.