DCT
2:22-cv-00488
Tiare Technology Inc v. Applebees Restaurants LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Applebees Restaurants, LLC and Dine Brands Global, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00488, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant operates regular and established places of business (Applebee's restaurant locations) within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement in the district through the use of its mobile ordering application.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application infringes patents related to systems and methods for providing services to patrons using location-tracking technology on mobile devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to the mobile ordering sector, a market that has experienced significant growth, particularly in the restaurant and service industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously resolved patent disputes with numerous other companies in the restaurant and retail sectors. It also highlights the extensive prosecution history of the asserted patent family, noting that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office repeatedly raised and ultimately withdrew subject matter eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during the examination of the applications that led to the '414 and '224 patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for '729, '414, and '224 Patents |
| 2014-03-25 | '729 Patent Issued |
| 2017-12-29 | USPTO Non-Final Rejection issued in prosecution of '414 Patent |
| 2018-03-28 | Applicant Response to Non-Final Rejection ('414 Patent prosecution) |
| 2018-08-28 | USPTO Final Rejection issued in prosecution of '414 Patent |
| 2018-10-22 | Applicant Claim Amendment filed in prosecution of '414 Patent |
| 2018-10-31 | USPTO Notice of Allowance issued for '414 Patent |
| 2018-12-18 | '414 Patent Issued |
| 2020-04-29 | USPTO Non-Final Rejection issued in prosecution of '224 Patent |
| 2020-09-29 | Applicant Claim Amendments filed in prosecution of '224 Patent |
| 2021-12-07 | '224 Patent Issued |
| 2022-12-23 | Complaint Filed |
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 describes inefficiencies in conventional service systems at venues like resorts, where patrons faced difficulties ordering items and staff faced challenges locating patrons for delivery ('729 Patent, col. 1:40-2:2). Prior systems, such as centrally-located kiosks or staff-operated handheld devices, required patrons to either leave their location or wait for a staff member to initiate an order, and did not solve the problem of delivering an order to a patron who may have moved ('729 Patent, col. 2:3-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered on a "wireless patron unit" (a portable, patron-operated device) that runs a venue-specific application ('729 Patent, Abstract). This unit allows a patron to place an order directly and connects to a server, which can then determine the unit's location to facilitate service delivery. The system is designed to track the patron's location and update the order status, solving the delivery problem even if the patron moves ('729 Patent, col. 4:18-31).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention represented an architectural shift from staff-centric or fixed-kiosk systems to a patron-centric model where the customer's own mobile device becomes the hub for ordering and location tracking for service fulfillment (Compl. ¶37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit having at least one venue specific application program;
- connecting the wireless patron unit to a server;
- entering a patron order for at least one 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;
- displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’729 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 - "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 18, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patents, the '414 Patent addresses the shortcomings of conventional service models in large venues, where locating patrons for order fulfillment is a persistent technical challenge, leading to service delays and inefficiencies ('414 Patent, col. 1:40-2:57).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors (e.g., a server system). The method involves providing a "venue-specific application" to a mobile device, authenticating the user, and then repeatedly receiving location information from the device, determining the device's location at different times (e.g., a first time and a second, updated time), and mapping that location to a region associated with the venue ('414 Patent, Abstract; Claim 8). This server-side process allows the system to track a patron's location over time in relation to an order.
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a specific technical method for a centralized server to manage real-time location data from distributed mobile devices to enable service fulfillment, an improvement over prior static or staff-dependent systems (Compl. ¶39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶76).
- Essential elements of Claim 8 include:
- providing, over a wireless channel, a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device;
- 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;
- 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.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’414 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 - "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 7, 2021
Technology Synopsis
The '224 Patent claims a system for locating a plurality of mobile electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to each device, receives and determines initial and updated locations for all devices, and, upon receiving an order from one particular device, sends data indicating that device's updated location to a separate computing system associated with the venue for display in a graphical user interface ('224 Patent, Abstract; Claim 10). This shifts the focus to managing a fleet of devices and communicating a specific user's location to a fulfillment point (e.g., a kitchen or service desk). (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶96).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Defendant's system of infringing by providing its mobile app to a plurality of users, tracking their locations, determining updated locations as they approach a store for pickup, and communicating that location information to facilitate order fulfillment (Compl. ¶¶103-114).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's mobile ordering solution, which includes its mobile application (the "Applebee's App") (Compl. ¶10, fn 1; ¶51).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused product as a "venue-specific application" that allows a user to find nearby Applebee's stores, select a store, place an order, and arrange for pickup (Compl. ¶¶19, 52). The application allegedly uses the mobile device's location services for two key functions: (1) to "find nearby restaurants" when a user is deciding where to order from, and (2) to "notify [the] restaurant if you arrive on-site for curbside pickup" to coordinate order handoff (Compl. ¶53). The complaint alleges that this mobile ordering functionality generates significant revenue for the Defendant (Compl. ¶55). The screenshots provided in the complaint show an interface for selecting a nearby restaurant and for building an order from a menu. The screenshot on page 15 shows a list of nearby restaurants with distances, alongside a menu and order basket interface (Compl. p. 15).
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 | Defendant provides its mobile application for download onto patron-owned smartphones or tablets (Compl. ¶66). | ¶¶65-66 | col. 4:25-31 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication between the wireless patron unit and the server | The application on the user's smartphone connects to Defendant's server via a Wi-Fi or cellular connection to transmit and receive order and location information (Compl. ¶67). | ¶67 | col. 6:11-14 |
| entering a patron order for at least one item or service provided by the venue into the wireless patron unit | A user selects items from the Applebee's menu within the application to place an order (Compl. ¶68). The screenshot on page 19 of the complaint depicts a user interface for adding a menu item to an order (Compl. p. 19). | ¶68 | col. 4:30-31 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The application determines the location of the user's smartphone, for example, to find local stores (Compl. ¶¶69-70). | ¶¶69-70 | col. 15:9-22 |
| updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location... | The system tracks the location of the smartphone to determine when a user arrives at the store for curbside pickup, which constitutes an updated location from the initial location used to find the store (Compl. ¶¶53, 71, 73). | ¶¶71, 73 | col. 15:23-33 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The application displays the user's order details on the screen of the smartphone or tablet (Compl. ¶74). The screenshot on page 15 of the complaint shows an "Order Details" and "Basket" section displaying the order (Compl. p. 15). | ¶74 | col. 18:1-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "wireless patron unit," described in the patent's specification in the context of a "rugged mobile computer device" potentially provided by the venue, can be construed to cover a modern, patron-owned smartphone running a third-party application ('729 Patent, col. 4:21-22).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for "updating... the current location when the patron moves" relies on two discrete location checks: one to find a store and a later one to detect arrival for pickup (Compl. ¶53). This raises the question of whether this functionality meets the claim limitation, which may be interpreted to require a more continuous or responsive form of location tracking as a user travels between two points.
’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... | Defendant provides its mobile application to users over cellular or WiFi networks for download onto their mobile devices (Compl. ¶84). | ¶84 | col. 26:10-12 |
| communicating... with the mobile computing device... to authenticate, based on a security protocol | The system authenticates a user via a login and password and uses secure protocols for transmitting financial information for purchases (Compl. ¶¶85-87). | ¶¶85-87 | col. 26:13-17 |
| receiving, by the one or more processors, location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's servers receive location information from the user's device via its location services (Compl. ¶88). | ¶88 | col. 26:18-19 |
| determining, by the one or more processors, a location of the mobile computing device at a first time | Based on the received location information, Defendant's processors determine the device's location, for instance, to find nearby stores (Compl. ¶¶89-90). | ¶¶89-90 | col. 26:20-22 |
| mapping, by the one or more processors, the location to a region that is associated with a venue | The system allegedly maps the determined location to a region associated with a nearby store or group of stores (Compl. ¶91). | ¶91 | col. 26:23-25 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue | Defendant's servers receive order information from the user's device after the user selects menu items in the application (Compl. ¶92). | ¶92 | col. 26:26-29 |
| receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device | The system receives updated location information to determine when the user's device is in proximity to the store for pickup (Compl. ¶93). | ¶93 | col. 26:30-31 |
| determining... an updated location... at a second time based on the updated location information | Defendant's processors determine an updated location of the device as it approaches the store site, based on the updated location data (Compl. ¶94). | ¶94 | col. 26:32-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The construction of "venue-specific application" will be critical. The accused app applies to a national chain of thousands of restaurants, not a single, discrete "venue" like the resort examples in the patent's specification ('414 Patent, col. 3:58-4:17). This raises the question of whether an application for a brand with multiple, geographically dispersed locations meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a server-side "mapping... the location to a region." The complaint makes this allegation but provides evidence primarily related to the app's user-facing function of displaying nearby stores (Compl. ¶91). The case may turn on what evidence can be produced to show that Defendant's servers actually perform this specific mapping step as part of their backend process.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’729 Patent
- The Term: "wireless patron unit"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central piece of hardware in the claimed system. Its construction is critical because the patent was filed in 2002, before the proliferation of modern smartphones. The dispute may center on whether the term is limited to the specific embodiments described in the patent or broadly covers any patron-operated wireless device, including a modern iPhone or Android device running an app.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying the type of unit. The abstract similarly uses the general term "wireless patron unit" without further limitation ('729 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description characterizes the device as a "rugged mobile computer device" and discusses it being "provided to a patron," which could suggest a venue-owned device rather than a patron's personal phone ('729 Patent, col. 4:18-22).
For the ’414 Patent
- The Term: "venue-specific application"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears in all asserted patents and is central to the infringement analysis. The accused product is an application for a national restaurant chain. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether an application for a brand with thousands of locations can be considered "specific" to a "venue."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the system may be used in "various other venues," not just single resorts, which may support a broader concept of "venue" ('414 Patent, col. 4:4-11). The complaint argues an application can be configured for a single store or multiple stores (Compl. ¶52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section consistently uses examples of single, contiguous locations like a "resort," "stadium," "beach," or "pool" to describe the problem solved by the invention ('414 Patent, col. 1:18-2:57). This context may support an interpretation that "venue" implies a single geographic location, making an application "specific" to that site.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Defendant for all three asserted patents. The basis for inducement is that Defendant allegedly encourages and instructs consumers on how to use the accused mobile application in an infringing manner, such as by distributing the application through app stores with instructions on its use (Compl. ¶¶61, 80, 100).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement is and has been willful. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendant having actual knowledge of the asserted patents since at least the filing and service of the complaint, establishing a basis for potential post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶62, 81, 101).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "venue-specific application," rooted in the patent's context of a single resort or stadium, be construed to cover a mobile application for a national chain of thousands of restaurants? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for all asserted patents.
- A second key question will be one of technical operation: does the accused application’s use of two discrete location checks—one for finding a store and a later one for detecting curbside arrival—satisfy the '729 Patent's requirement of "updating... the current location... when the patron moves"? This will likely involve a factual analysis of how the accused system functions compared to the specific language of the claim.
- Finally, an evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant's servers perform the specific backend process of "mapping" a user's location "to a region," as required by Claim 8 of the '414 Patent, beyond merely presenting a list of nearby stores to the user.