DCT
2:22-cv-00490
Tiare Technology Inc v. Dine Brands Global Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dine Brands Global, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00490, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has regular and established places of business in the district, and distributes its accused mobile application to users within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for its restaurant chains infringes patents related to mobile ordering systems that incorporate location-tracking features.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrating mobile ordering with location services to manage service delivery in specific venues, a key feature in the modern restaurant and retail industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint emphasizes an extensive prosecution history for the asserted patent family, noting that the claims were allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after examination under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice v. CLS Bank framework.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted 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 |
| 2022-12-23 | 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 section 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. 1:44-51, col. 2:1-6). It notes that conventional solutions like centrally-located kiosks or staff-operated handheld terminals are inconvenient and do not solve the problem of locating a mobile patron for order fulfillment (’729 Patent, col. 2:21-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "wireless patron unit" (e.g., a mobile wireless device) with a venue-specific application that allows a patron to place an order directly (’729 Patent, col. 3:1-16). A central server manages communications, and the system determines the patron unit's current location to facilitate delivery and updates the order status, thereby solving the "last mile" problem of connecting the service provider with a mobile customer (’729 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a technical architecture for combining mobile ordering with location tracking before such systems became conventional, aiming to improve service efficiency and revenue in large-scale venues (Compl. ¶¶36-37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- Providing a patron with a wireless patron unit that includes 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 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’729 Patent, this patent addresses the logistical challenges of providing timely service to patrons in large, distributed environments where both patrons and staff are mobile (’414 Patent, col. 2:21-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors (e.g., a server system) that manages interactions with a mobile device (’414 Patent, col. 26:7-9). The method involves providing a venue-specific application, authenticating the user, receiving location information at a first time, mapping that location to a venue-associated region, receiving an order, and then receiving and determining an updated location at a second time, thereby enabling location-aware service fulfillment (’414 Patent, col. 26:10-50; Fig. 13).
- Technical Importance: This patent refines the technical solution by explicitly claiming the server-side processing steps, including mapping a device's electronic location data to a physical region associated with the venue, a key step in operationalizing location-based services (Compl. ¶¶46-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶75).
- Claim 8 is a computer-implemented method claim with the following essential elements:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 claims a system for locating multiple electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to the devices, receives location information from them at a first time, and then receives second, updated location information at a later time. Upon receiving an order from one device, the system sends data indicating that device's updated location to a computing system associated with the venue for display.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶95).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s system, which provides its mobile application and tracks user locations for ordering and pickup, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶102-111).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s mobile-ordering solution, which includes its mobile application (e.g., the IHOP app) (Compl. ¶3, n.1; ¶50).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a "venue-specific application" associated with Defendant's store chain (Compl. ¶51). A user can download the application, select a store, place an order from the menu, and pick it up (Compl. ¶18).
- The application is alleged to track the user’s location to perform functions such as finding nearby restaurants and notifying the restaurant upon the user's arrival for curbside pickup (Compl. ¶52). This functionality is supported by a screenshot in the complaint showing a map-based store locator titled "IHOP Locations" (Compl. p. 14).
- The complaint alleges the application has been used to complete a significant amount of mobile orders, generating substantial revenue for the Defendant (Compl. ¶54).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'8,682,729 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 patrons with its mobile application (a venue-specific application program) for downloading onto their patron-owned smartphones or tablets (wireless patron units). | ¶¶64-65 | col. 3:1-16 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication between the wireless patron unit and the server | The patron’s smartphone connects to a server via the application over a Wi-Fi or cellular connection. | ¶66 | col. 6:12-16 |
| 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. A screenshot shows the user's order in "My Bag" prior to checkout (Compl. p. 18). | ¶67 | col. 4:26-32 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The application determines the device's location to, for example, find local stores. A screenshot shows a list of "10 Nearby Locations" (Compl. p. 14). | ¶¶68-69 | col. 15:8-14 |
| updating a status of the patron order, and the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves... | The system updates the order status (e.g., placed, in progress) and tracks the user’s location as they approach the store for pickup. | ¶¶70-72 | col. 5:21-44 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The application displays the patron's order on the smartphone screen. A screenshot shows the order details under the heading "My Order" (Compl. p. 14). | ¶73 | col. 18:2-12 |
'10,157,414 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 its venue-specific mobile application to users' smartphones over wireless channels (e.g., cellular, WiFi). | ¶83 | col. 26:10-13 |
| 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 the purchase. | ¶¶84-86 | col. 26:14-18 |
| receiving, by the one or more processors, location information from the mobile computing device | The system's processors receive location information from the user's device via its location services. | ¶87 | col. 26:19-21 |
| determining...a location of the mobile computing device at a first time based on the location information | The system determines the device's location to find local stores. | ¶89 | col. 26:22-24 |
| mapping...the location to a region that is associated with a venue | The system maps the device's location to a region associated with nearby stores for mobile ordering. | ¶90 | col. 15:8-14 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue | The system receives order information when a user selects items from the menu in the application. Screenshots show the "My Order" screen where a user's selections are compiled (Compl. p. 14, p. 18). | ¶91 | col. 26:31-34 |
| receiving...updated location information from the mobile computing device | The system receives updated location information as the device (and user) approaches the store for pickup. | ¶92 | col. 26:35-37 |
| determining...an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time | Based on the updated information, the system determines the device's location at a second time, such as when the user is in proximity to the store. The complaint alleges notifications like "We see you in the parking lot" evidence this (Compl. ¶52). | ¶93 | col. 26:38-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’729 Patent may be whether "providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit" can be construed to cover making a software application available for download onto a patron’s own device. The patent specification discusses providing a "rugged mobile computer device" or a "venue-owned" unit, which may suggest a narrower scope than alleged (Compl. ¶64; ’729 Patent, col. 4:21-23).
- Technical Questions: For the ’414 Patent, a key factual question may be whether the accused application’s function of identifying nearby stores constitutes "mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue" as required by the claim. The complaint alleges this mapping occurs (Compl. ¶90), but the technical details of how the accused system defines a "region" and performs the "mapping" may be a point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"wireless patron unit" (’729 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental to the infringement theory for the ’729 Patent. The complaint equates a patron's personal smartphone or tablet running the accused app with the claimed "wireless patron unit" (Compl. ¶63). The definition will determine whether the claim reads on a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) model or is limited to a device physically provided by the venue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly state that the unit must be owned or physically handed over by the venue. The patent also discusses an alternative to providing a venue-owned unit, which is "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, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently describes the unit as a "rugged mobile computer device" that is "provided to a patron to use at resort 101" and may be attached to furniture with a "secure locking mechanism" (’729 Patent, col. 4:18-23, 33-36). This language could suggest the "unit" is a piece of hardware supplied by the venue.
"mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue" (’414 Patent, Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it requires a specific technical operation beyond simply determining GPS coordinates. Infringement depends on whether the accused system performs an affirmative "mapping" step that associates a device's coordinates with a defined "region." Practitioners may focus on whether simply displaying nearby store pins on a map meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not narrowly define "mapping" or "region," which could allow for a plain and ordinary meaning that covers associating a point location with a general area, such as a zip code or a search radius around a store.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses using specific location-finding technology like the "Ekahau Positioning Engine (EPE)," which "provides location coordinates" that are then relayed and displayed on a map showing an "area or zone being served" (’414 Patent, col. 15:11-29). This could be argued to imply a more structured process of translating raw coordinates into predefined service zones, rather than just finding nearby points of interest.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The basis is that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by supplying the accused application to consumers through app stores and providing instructions on how to use its infringing features (Compl. ¶60, ¶79, ¶99).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint asserts that Defendant "knew or should have known" of the patents but was "willfully blind," and that at a minimum, Defendant has had actual knowledge since the filing and service of the complaint. The claim for enhanced damages is based on continued infringement after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶61, ¶80, ¶100).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "providing...a wireless patron unit," which is described in the specification as a venue-provided hardware device, be construed to cover the modern software-as-a-service model of offering a downloadable application for a user's own smartphone? The outcome of this construction may be dispositive for the allegations related to the ’729 Patent.
- A second central question will be one of technical implementation: what is the specific mechanism by which the accused system "maps" a user's location "to a region," as required by the ’414 Patent? The case may turn on evidence showing whether the system performs a distinct technical step of defining and associating a location with a "region," or if it simply uses raw location data to find the nearest predefined store locations, and whether that latter functionality meets the claim limitation.
- A third question concerns patent eligibility: while the complaint highlights that the patents survived § 101 scrutiny during prosecution, the Defendant may challenge the claims as being directed to the abstract idea of location-based ordering. The key question for the court will be whether the claims, particularly their focus on updating location at multiple times and mapping to venue-specific regions, recite a sufficient inventive concept to represent a patent-eligible technical improvement over prior art systems.