Tiare Technology Inc v. Lowes Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00180, E.D. Tex., 08/02/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates regular and established places of business in the district, distributes the accused mobile application to users in the district, and derives revenue from the use of its mobile ordering services within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for retail store ordering infringes patents related to mobile ordering systems that incorporate location-tracking functionalities.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to systems and methods for providing services to patrons in a specific venue using portable wireless devices for ordering and location tracking to facilitate order fulfillment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details an extensive prosecution history for the asserted patent family before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, noting that claims were examined and ultimately allowed after initial rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the Alice v. CLS Bank framework. Plaintiff specifically highlights that amendments, such as adding a "venue-specific application" limitation, were key to overcoming these rejections.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 - "Patron Service System and Method," issued March 25, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional systems for ordering goods or services in large venues like resorts or restaurants were inefficient (Compl. ¶¶33-35). Patrons struggled to find staff to place an order, and staff struggled to locate patrons to deliver the completed order, leading to delays and dissatisfaction ('729 Patent, col. 2:1-6). Centrally-located kiosks were also inconvenient, requiring patrons to leave their location ('729 Patent, col. 2:22-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method using a wireless "patron unit" (e.g., a mobile device) that connects to a server within a venue. A patron can use the unit to place an order, and the system determines the patron's location. The system can then update both the order status and the patron's current location on the unit, particularly when the patron moves, thereby streamlining the delivery process ('729 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve service efficiency by integrating patron-initiated mobile ordering with real-time location tracking, a departure from fixed kiosks or staff-operated mobile POS systems (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
• Claim 1 Elements: A method of using a wireless patron unit within a venue, comprising:
  • providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit with a venue specific application program;
  • connecting the wireless patron unit to a server;
  • entering a patron order for an item or service 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; and
  • displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 - "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 18, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related '729 Patent, the invention addresses the logistical challenges of service delivery in large, distributed environments where patrons are mobile, making order placement and fulfillment difficult ('414 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors (e.g., a server system) that manages interactions with a mobile device. The system provides a venue-specific application, authenticates the user, receives location information from the device, maps that location to a region associated with the venue, and receives order information. Crucially, it tracks the device's location at different times, allowing for dynamic location updates to facilitate service ('414 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:8-40).
• Technical Importance: This patent focuses on the server-side method for processing location and order data from mobile devices to enable location-aware services, which the complaint alleges is a technical improvement over prior art systems (Compl. ¶38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶76).
• Claim 8 Elements: A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors, comprising:
  • providing, over a wireless communications channel, a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device;
  • communicating with the device to authenticate a user of the application;
  • receiving location information from the device;
  • determining a location of the device at a first time based on the location information;
  • mapping the location to a region associated with a venue;
  • receiving order information for the venue from the device;
  • receiving updated location information from the device; and
  • determining an updated location of the device at a second time based on the updated location information.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 - "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 7, 2021 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims a system for locating multiple electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to the devices, receives location signals from them at different times to determine their locations, and receives order information from a particular device. In response to the order, the system sends data indicating the updated location of that specific device to a computing system associated with the venue, for display in a graphical user interface.

Asserted Claims

At least independent Claim 10 (Compl. ¶97).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Lowe's system provides its venue-specific application to multiple user devices, receives location information from them (e.g., via device location services), receives order information from a user, and, in response, sends updated location data to a Lowe's system to facilitate services like curbside pickup (Compl. ¶¶104-115).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Lowe's application," including the software and the devices on which it runs (e.g., smartphones and tablets) (Compl. ¶14, fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentality is a mobile software application that allows users to order products from Lowe's retail stores for in-store or curbside pickup (Compl. ¶50). The application uses the mobile device's location services to find nearby stores and to facilitate a "check-in" process when a user arrives at a store for order pickup (Compl. ¶52). The complaint provides a screenshot showing a map interface where users can select a nearby store, illustrating the application's association with specific physical locations (Compl. p. 14).
• The complaint alleges that the mobile ordering functionality has generated significant revenue and that the application has been used to complete a significant number of mobile orders (Compl. ¶54).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'729 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a national chain of retail stores constitutes a "venue" as described in the patent, which primarily uses resorts and hospitality settings as examples. The interpretation of "venue-specific application" will be critical, specifically whether an application for a national brand is specific to a "venue."
• Technical Questions: Does the Lowe's app's check-in feature, which a user may actively initiate, perform the function of "updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location" as required by the claim? The complaint shows screenshots of a "Mobile Check-In" process and a "Tell Us You're on the Way" button, which may be argued to satisfy this element (Compl. p. 15).

'414 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: As with the '729 Patent, the definitions of "venue" and "venue-specific application" will be pivotal. The complaint alleges the Lowe's app is venue-specific because its functionality is associated with Lowe's stores (Compl. ¶51).
• Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the server-side "one or more processors" perform the claimed "mapping" step? The complaint points to the user-facing map display as evidence, but a question remains as to the underlying server-side operation (Compl. ¶91).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "venue" (in '729 Claim 1 and '414 Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to whether the patents apply to a national retail chain like Lowe's. The patent specifications are heavily focused on hospitality settings like resorts, pools, and beaches, but contain some language that could support a broader application.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the system may be used in "various other venues including, but not limited to, stadiums, arenas, retail locations, zoos, transportation centers..." ('414 Patent, col. 4:4-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background" and "Detailed Description" sections almost exclusively use "resort" as the exemplary environment, describing problems and solutions specific to that context (e.g., ordering drinks to a lounge chair) ('414 Patent, col. 1:24-3:4; col. 4:18-21).

• The Term: "venue-specific application" (in '729 Claim 1 and '414 Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation was added during prosecution of the family to overcome § 101 rejections, making its meaning critical to both infringement and validity (Compl. ¶47-48). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether an application for a national chain with hundreds of "venues" (stores) qualifies, or if the term is limited to an application for a single, discrete location.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. An argument could be made that any application tied to a specific business or service provider (like Lowe's) is "venue-specific" relative to a general-purpose application.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to providing services at "a resort 101" (singular), suggesting the application is specific to a single establishment ('414 Patent, col. 4:18-21). The complaint itself alleges the app is specific to a "store-chain" but also to a "single store" (Compl. ¶51), presenting a potential ambiguity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The alleged acts of inducement include supplying the Accused Products to consumers and providing instructions (e.g., through the app's user interface and app store descriptions) that encourage users to operate the app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶60, 80, 101).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents "since at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶61, 81, 102). This is a claim based on alleged post-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "venue," rooted in the patent's detailed description of a resort hospitality environment, be construed to cover a national chain of retail stores? The outcome of this question will significantly impact the applicability of the asserted patents to the accused system.
• Another key issue will be the interpretation of "venue-specific application," a limitation added to secure patentability. The case may turn on whether an application that serves an entire national retail chain can be considered "specific" to a venue in the manner required by the claims, or if the term implies a narrower focus on a single, discrete location.
• A central evidentiary question will concern technical implementation: what evidence will emerge to show that Defendant's server-side processors perform the specific steps of "mapping" a user's location to a venue-associated region and "updating" that location in response to user movement, as recited in the claims, versus simply displaying location information on a user's device?