Tiare Technology Inc v. Panera Bread

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Panera Bread Company and Panera, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00181, E.D. Tex., 05/26/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Panera operates multiple "regular and established places of business" within the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application and supporting systems infringe three patents related to location-aware mobile ordering technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile ordering systems that utilize a patron's portable device to place orders and track the patron's location to facilitate service and delivery within a specific venue.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights that the asserted patents underwent extensive examination at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, specifically noting that claims were allowed after overcoming rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. This suggests patent eligibility may be a central issue in the litigation.

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: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in service environments like resorts, where patrons struggle to find staff to place orders and staff struggle to locate patrons for delivery (’729 Patent, col. 1:40-2:6). Conventional systems like "centrally-located kiosks" or staff-operated handheld terminals failed to solve both problems simultaneously, forcing patrons to leave their location or wait for service (’729 Patent, col. 2:7-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a patron with a "wireless patron unit" (e.g., a smartphone) that runs a "venue specific application program" (’729 Patent, Abstract). This allows the patron to place an order directly on their device, which connects to a server. The system then determines the device's location and updates its status, enabling efficient order fulfillment without the patron or staff member needing to search for one another (’729 Patent, col. 3:1-26).
• Technical Importance: The technology proposed a patron-centric, location-aware mobile ordering architecture, addressing the technical problem of coordinating service delivery to mobile customers in large, complex environments before such systems were conventional (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A method of using a wireless patron unit within a venue.
  • Providing a patron with the wireless patron unit by providing a venue-specific application for download.
  • 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 a status of the order and the current location of the unit on the unit itself.
  • Displaying the patron order on the unit's display.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation, the ’414 Patent addresses the same technical problems of inefficient ordering and delivery in service venues as the ’729 Patent (’414 Patent, col. 1:24-2:63).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a computer-implemented method, focusing on the server-side operations. The method involves providing a "venue-specific application" to a mobile device, authenticating the user, receiving initial location information, and then "mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue." After receiving an order, the system receives "updated location information" to track the device's new position, enabling precise, location-aware service (’414 Patent, col. 26:8-40). Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture, with portable patron units (102) communicating through a network (110) to a central unit (106) that manages order fulfillment (’414 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a technical solution for integrating real-time location data with mobile commerce by defining a server-side process that maps a device's electronic signals to a specific physical region tied to a venue (Compl. ¶38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶76).
• Claim 8 requires:
  • A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors.
  • Providing a venue-specific application to a mobile 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 the device's location at a first time.
  • Mapping the location to a region associated with a venue.
  • Receiving order information from the device.
  • Receiving updated location information from the device.
  • Determining an updated location of the device at a second time based on the updated information.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 11,195,224, "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 7, 2021.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’224 Patent claims a system for locating multiple electronic devices. It describes providing a venue-specific application, receiving location signals from the devices to determine their positions, and, in response to receiving order information from one device, sending data indicating its updated location to a venue's computing system for display in a graphical user interface (’224 Patent, col. 26:11-28). This focuses on the system-level process of communicating a specific user's location to the venue upon an order event to facilitate fulfillment.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶97).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Panera's mobile application system infringes by providing the app to multiple users, tracking their locations, and, in response to a curbside pickup order, using the user's updated location (e.g., arrival at the store) to send a notification to the local restaurant's system (Compl. ¶104-115).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are identified as the Panera mobile application and the associated backend systems and servers that enable its functionality, including the mobile devices on which the application runs (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Panera application allows users to find restaurant locations, browse menus, customize and place orders, and submit payment using a mobile device (Compl. ¶50). A key accused feature is its location-tracking functionality, which is used to identify nearby stores and to facilitate order fulfillment, particularly for curbside pickup (Compl. ¶51-52). The complaint provides a screenshot showing the application prompts the user to "TELL US WHEN YOU ARRIVE" by clicking an "I'm Here" button, which notifies the restaurant of the user's presence for order delivery (Compl. p. 14). The complaint alleges that the mobile-ordering market has grown exponentially and that Panera derives significant revenue from the accused application (Compl. ¶1, ¶54).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’8,682,729 Infringement Allegations

’10,157,414 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a nationwide application for a restaurant chain (Panera) qualifies as a "venue-specific application" under the claims. The patents' specifications heavily describe a "venue" as a single, contained environment like a resort or stadium (’414 Patent, col. 1:20-22). The analysis may turn on whether "venue" can be construed to mean a single store location, a group of stores, or the entire brand.
• Technical Questions: For the ’729 Patent, it may be disputed whether the accused product performs the step of "updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit... on the wireless patron unit." The complaint alleges location tracking, but it is unclear if the user's geographical coordinates are continuously updated and displayed to the user on their screen, or if location is primarily used as background data to trigger events like an arrival notification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "venue-specific application" (’414 Patent, Claim 8; ’729 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory depends on the Panera app meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its single, nationwide app is not "specific" to a "venue" in the manner described by the patents, which emphasize contained environments like resorts.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint argues the Panera app is "specifically configured for a venue (e.g., a Panera restaurant) but may apply to more than one location (e.g., multiple Panera restaurants)" (Compl. ¶51). The patent specification states the system may be used in "various other venues including, but not limited to, stadiums, arenas, retail locations..." (’414 Patent, col. 4:3-6), which could support applying the term to individual restaurant locations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the invention is framed almost exclusively in the context of a "resort," including its "pool, beach, spa, deck, lounge" (’414 Patent, col. 4:20-22). This focus on a single, cohesive, geographically-limited area could support an interpretation that the application must be tailored to one such discrete location, not a national brand.

The Term: "mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue" (’414 Patent, Claim 8)

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for this element relies on the Panera app using location to find nearby stores. The construction of "region" and how it is "mapped" will be pivotal. A dispute may arise over whether simply identifying the closest point of interest on a general map constitutes the specific "mapping to a region" claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term "region." A broad interpretation could encompass any act of associating a device's GPS coordinates with a predefined area, such as the area immediately surrounding a restaurant location.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and description imply a more structured mapping, such as displaying patron locations on a grid-like map of a specific area like a pool deck (’414 Patent, Fig. 10). This could support an argument that the claim requires a more detailed, predefined micro-location mapping system rather than simply identifying a nearby address.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Panera knowingly encourages infringement by supplying the mobile application and instructing consumers on how to use its features for mobile ordering and location-based pickup in the intended, infringing manner (Compl. ¶60, ¶80, ¶101).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having "actual knowledge" of the patents since at least the filing of the complaint. The complaint asserts that any continued infringement after this date is willful and deliberate, and also makes a conclusory allegation that Defendant was "willfully blind" to the patents' existence pre-suit (Compl. ¶61, ¶81, ¶102).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "venue-specific application," which is rooted in the patent's disclosure of a single, contained resort, be construed to cover a single, nationwide software application used across thousands of separate fast-casual restaurant locations?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system's method of determining a user's location, which appears to be linked to discrete user actions (e.g., searching for stores or pressing an "I'm Here" button), meet the claim requirements for "determining" and "updating" location, or is there a functional mismatch with the more dynamic tracking process envisioned by the patents?
• A foundational legal question will be patent eligibility: despite the patents surviving § 101 challenges during prosecution, the court will have to determine whether the claims are directed to the abstract idea of using location to coordinate ordering and delivery, and if so, whether they contain a sufficient inventive concept to be patent-eligible.