DCT
2:22-cv-00047
Tiare Technology Inc v. McAlisters LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: McAlister's LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00047, E.D. Tex., 02/09/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple regular and established places of business (McAlister's restaurant locations) within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application infringes three patents related to systems and methods for location-aware mobile ordering within a specific venue.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses mobile ordering systems for service industries, integrating location tracking of a patron's wireless device to facilitate order fulfillment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint emphasizes the patent family's extensive prosecution history, noting that the patents were allowed after overcoming rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff argued to the USPTO that the claims were directed to a patent-eligible technical solution for tracking distributed mobile devices, not an abstract business practice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’729, ’414, and ’224 Patents |
| 2014-03-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 Issues |
| 2018-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 Issues |
| 2021-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 Issues |
| 2022-02-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 - "Patron Service System and Method"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenges of ordering services (e.g., food and beverages) in large, sprawling venues like resorts prior to the proliferation of modern smartphones. Patrons faced difficulties in finding staff to place an order and, once an order was placed, staff faced difficulties in locating patrons who may have moved before the order was delivered. Conventional solutions like centrally-located kiosks or staff-operated handheld terminals were described as inadequate. (’729 Patent, col. 1:41-2:56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where patrons use a "wireless patron unit" (a portable wireless device) running a "venue specific application program" to place orders. The system connects the patron unit to a central server, which can determine the patron's location and communicate it to staff, thereby solving the problem of delivering an order to a mobile patron. (’729 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-4:31). The overall system architecture is depicted in Figure 1.
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a technical architecture for integrating user-operated mobile ordering with real-time location tracking to improve service efficiency in large-scale environments. (Compl. ¶¶29, 33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶54).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1 (Method):
- Providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit that includes at least one venue specific application program.
- Connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication between the unit and the server.
- Entering a patron order for at least one item or service provided by the venue into the wireless patron unit.
- Determining a current location of the wireless patron unit.
- Updating a status of the patron order, and the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location, on the wireless patron unit.
- Displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 - "Patron Service System and Method"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’414 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’729 Patent: the inefficiencies of pre-smartphone ordering systems in large venues, where locating mobile patrons for order delivery was a significant challenge. (’414 Patent, col. 1:22-2:60).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is a computer-implemented method executed by a server system. The server provides a venue-specific application to mobile devices, authenticates users, receives location and order information from the devices, and tracks updated locations over time to facilitate service. (’414 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8-17).
- Technical Importance: This patent claims a server-side method for managing multiple mobile devices in a location-aware ordering system, focusing on the centralized processing of location and order data. (Compl. ¶¶35-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8. (Compl. ¶74).
- Essential Elements of Claim 8 (Method):
- Providing, over a wireless communications channel, a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device.
- Communicating with the mobile computing device to authenticate, based on a security protocol, a user of the application.
- Receiving location information from the mobile computing device.
- Determining a location of the mobile computing device at a first time based on the location information.
- Mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue.
- Receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue.
- Receiving updated location information from the mobile computing device.
- Determining an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 - "Patron Service System and Method"
Technology Synopsis
- This patent, also in the same family, claims a system for locating electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to multiple mobile devices, receives location signals from them, determines their updated locations over time, and, in response to receiving an order from one device, sends its updated location to a computing system associated with the venue for display. (’224 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶29-33).
Asserted Claims
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶95).
Accused Features
- The complaint accuses the McAlister's mobile application system of infringement by providing a venue-specific application to users, receiving location information from their devices, determining updated locations as users approach a restaurant, and sending location data to a venue-associated system upon user arrival (e.g., via the "I'M HERE" function). (Compl. ¶¶102-113).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are identified as the "McAlister's application, including the devices on which the application runs." (Compl. ¶9 n.1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a mobile ordering solution that provides a venue-specific application for the McAlister's restaurant chain. (Compl. ¶47). The application allows a user to find nearby McAlister's locations, place an order for pickup, and use the mobile device's location to facilitate the pickup process. (Compl. ¶¶48-49). A key alleged feature is the use of location tracking to determine when a user is in the vicinity of the store, particularly for curbside service where the user taps an "I'M HERE" button upon arrival. (Compl. ¶50). The complaint includes a screenshot of the McAlister's application asking for permission to use the device's location. (Compl. ¶66).
- The complaint alleges that McAlister's derives a significant portion of its revenue from the use of this mobile ordering application. (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’8,682,729 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... that includes at least one venue specific application program... | Defendant provides a venue-specific application (the McAlister's app) for download onto a patron's smartphone, which functions as the wireless patron unit. | ¶63 | col. 4:21-31 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication... | The app on the patron's device connects to a server via a Wi-Fi or cellular connection. | ¶64 | col. 4:18-20 |
| 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 and places an order through the application's interface. | ¶65 | col. 4:28-31 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The app accesses the device's location services to determine its current location, shown as a blue dot on a map. | ¶66 | col. 4:32-34 |
| updating a status of the patron order, and the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location... | The system allegedly updates the order's status and tracks the user's location as they approach the store, as evidenced by location services being used upon arrival for pickup. | ¶¶68-71 | col. 5:28-44 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The app displays an order summary and a confirmation screen to the user. | ¶72 | col. 4:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a downloadable, third-party application running on a patron's personal smartphone constitutes "providing... a wireless patron unit" as contemplated by the patent, which also describes venue-owned hardware. (Compl. ¶62; ’729 Patent, col. 4:35-38).
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused app's functionality meets the "updating... the current location... when the patron moves" limitation. The complaint points to location use upon arrival (Compl. ¶71), raising the question of whether a single location check at the destination is technically equivalent to the patent's description of tracking a patron who moves between different areas within a venue, such as from a pool to a beach. (’729 Patent, col. 6:5-11).
’10,157,414 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 distributes the McAlister's branded application to users' mobile devices via app stores over cellular or Wi-Fi networks. | ¶82 | col. 26:7-9 |
| communicating... to authenticate, based on a security protocol, a user of the venue-specific application... | The system authenticates a user via login and password and secures financial information for purchases. | ¶¶83-85 | col. 26:10-14 |
| receiving... location information from the mobile computing device | The Defendant's system receives location data from the mobile device via its location services. | ¶86 | col. 26:15-16 |
| determining... a location of the mobile computing device at a first time based on the location information | The system determines the device's initial location to, for example, find nearby stores. | ¶88 | col. 26:17-19 |
| mapping, by the one or more processors, the location to a region that is associated with a venue | The system displays the device's location (blue dot) on a map that also shows McAlister's restaurant locations, which are alleged to be regions associated with the venue. | ¶89 | col. 26:20-22 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue... | The system receives the user's menu selections and order submission from the app. | ¶90 | col. 26:23-26 |
| receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device | The system receives new location information as the user travels to the restaurant for pickup. | ¶91 | col. 26:27-28 |
| determining... an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information | The system determines the device's updated location upon arrival, as shown by the Location Services icon activating when the "I'M HERE" button is used. | ¶¶92-93 | col. 26:29-32 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The construction of "mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue" will be critical. The dispute may center on whether displaying a device's GPS coordinate on a general city map that also contains pins for restaurant locations meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more specific association, such as mapping the device to a predefined zone like a "pool area" or "beachfront." (’414 Patent, col. 19:40-45). The complaint shows the app displaying a user's location on a map of the Dallas area. (Compl. ¶89).
- Technical Questions: What level of temporal granularity is required by the sequence of "determining a location at a first time" and "determining an updated location... at a second time"? The case may explore whether the accused system performs two distinct, time-separated location determinations as required by the claim, or a more continuous or single-event location check.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "venue-specific application"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’414 and ’224 patents. Its construction is central to defining the scope of the patented system. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is an application for a national restaurant chain, whereas the patent specification frequently uses the example of a single, self-contained "resort."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "resort" as a type of "hospitality venue" and provides a non-limiting list that includes "restaurants, bars, pools, tennis courts," etc. (’414 Patent, col. 3:58-65). This language suggests "venue" can refer to a type of establishment, such as a restaurant, which could support interpreting the term to cover an application for a chain of such establishments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem statement repeatedly refers to locating a patron who moves within a single venue (e.g., from a pool to a beach), suggesting a geographically contiguous area. (’414 Patent, col. 2:48-53). This context could support a narrower reading where "venue-specific" implies an application tailored to a single, physical location rather than a dispersed chain.
The Term: "updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location"
Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 of the ’729 Patent is critical for determining infringement. The case may turn on whether the accused app's location-based features for curbside pickup meet the functional requirements of this clause.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language does not specify the distance moved or the frequency of updates. Any determination of location at a "different location" from a prior one could arguably meet this element. The complaint alleges the system updates the location when the patron arrives at the store. (Compl. ¶¶70-71).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes solving the problem where "the patron has moved and is not seated where the original order was taken," for example, moving between different areas of a resort. (’729 Patent, col. 2:3-5; col. 6:5-11). This could imply a system that actively tracks a user's movement between sub-locations within a venue to facilitate delivery, a potentially different function than merely confirming arrival at a single destination.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three asserted patents. The basis is that Defendant provides the McAlister's application to consumers and instructs them (e.g., through in-app prompts and user interface design) on how to use it in a way that directly infringes the patent claims, with the knowledge and intent that infringement will occur. (Compl. ¶¶58, 78, 99).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents. The allegation is based on Defendant having "actual knowledge" of the patents "since at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint" and continuing its allegedly infringing actions thereafter. (Compl. ¶¶59, 79, 100).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court’s interpretation of several key technical and definitional issues. The central questions for the case appear to be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term “venue,” which is described in the patents with examples like a self-contained resort, be construed to encompass a geographically dispersed chain of restaurant locations? The answer will likely determine whether a single mobile application for a national chain qualifies as a “venue-specific application.”
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused system’s use of location services—primarily to identify nearby stores and confirm a user’s arrival for order pickup—perform the specific function of “updating” a patron’s location “when the patron moves to a different location” as required by the claims? The case may turn on whether this arrival-confirmation feature is technically equivalent to the patent’s described solution for tracking a patron who moves between different areas within a single venue after placing an order.