DCT
2:22-cv-00491
Tiare Technology Inc v. Kroger Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Kroger Co. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00491, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple regular and established places of business in the District, distributes its mobile application to users in the District, and derives revenue from mobile ordering within the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application infringes three patents related to systems and methods for mobile ordering combined with patron location tracking.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses mobile commerce systems that use a portable device's location to facilitate ordering and fulfillment of goods or services within a specific commercial environment or "venue."
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff has previously resolved patent disputes with numerous other companies in the retail and restaurant industries. It also details an extensive prosecution history before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the asserted patent family, noting that patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 were overcome by amending claims to include limitations such as a "venue-specific application," which may be a focal point for claim scope arguments.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | 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 |
| 2022-12-23 | 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 the inefficiencies and inconveniences patrons face when ordering goods or services in large venues like resorts (Compl. ¶33-35; ’414 Patent, col. 1:40-58). Conventional methods, such as staff-operated handheld devices or fixed kiosks, created delays, required patrons to leave their location, and presented challenges in locating the patron for order delivery once they moved (’414 Patent, col. 2:1-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where patrons use a "wireless patron unit" (such as a modern smartphone) running a "venue specific application program" to place orders directly (Compl. ¶36; ’414 Patent, col. 3:1-17). The system connects the device to a central server and determines the device's location, allowing for status updates and facilitating order fulfillment even if the patron moves within the venue (’414 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology combined patron-initiated mobile ordering with real-time location tracking, representing a technical improvement over static or staff-dependent systems at a time when such integrated mobile technologies were not conventional (Compl. ¶36-37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A method of using a wireless patron unit within a venue.
- Providing a patron with a wireless patron unit, either by providing a venue-owned device or by providing a "venue specific application program" for download to a patron-owned device.
- 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 wireless patron unit.
- Updating a status of the order and the current location of the unit when the patron moves to a different location.
- 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 with the ’729 Patent, this patent addresses the limitations of pre-existing service systems that could not effectively integrate patron-controlled mobile ordering with location awareness to facilitate timely and convenient service delivery in large venues (Compl. ¶33-35; ’414 Patent, col. 1:22 - col. 2:62).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a computer-implemented method, executed by one or more processors (e.g., a server system), that manages the mobile ordering process. The method involves providing a venue-specific application, authenticating the user, receiving initial and updated location information from the mobile device, mapping the location to a venue, and receiving order information, thereby enabling a centralized, location-aware service system (’414 Patent, Abstract; Claim 8). The screenshot provided in the complaint exemplifies the venue-specific application interface (Compl. p. 14).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific technical architecture for a server-side system to track distributed mobile computing devices in real-time for service fulfillment, an unconventional solution at the time of invention that addressed the technical limitations of kiosk-based or staff-operated POS systems (Compl. ¶37, 46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶75).
- Essential Elements of Claim 8:
- A computer-implemented method providing a "venue-specific application" to a mobile device over a wireless channel.
- Communicating with the device to authenticate a user.
- Receiving location information from the device.
- Determining a location of the device at a first time based on that information.
- 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 No. 11,195,224, “Patron Service System and Method,” issued December 7, 2021 (Compl. ¶26, 27).
- Technology Synopsis: The ’224 Patent claims a system for locating multiple electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to the devices, receives first and second location signals from them to determine their updated locations, and, in response to receiving order information from one device, sends data indicating its updated location to a computing system associated with the venue for display (’224 Patent, Abstract; Claim 10).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶95).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Kroger’s system of providing its mobile application to users, receiving initial and updated location information from their devices, and using that location information to facilitate order pickup after an order is placed (Compl. ¶102-111).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is The Kroger Co.’s mobile application (“Kroger App”) and the associated mobile-ordering system (Compl. ¶9, fn. 1; ¶50).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Kroger App is a "venue-specific application" associated with the Kroger store chain (Compl. ¶51). Its relevant functionality includes allowing users to place orders for pickup and tracking the user's location via the mobile device's location services (Compl. ¶51-52). The app allegedly uses this location data to "help find stores near you" and facilitate "order pickup," for instance through features that allow a user to indicate they are "On My Way" or "I'm Here" (Compl. ¶52). The complaint asserts that mobile ordering is a rapidly growing market and that Defendant has generated significant revenue through the accused application (Compl. ¶1, 54).
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 to the at least one patron for downloading into a patron-owned wireless communication device | Defendant provides the Kroger App for patrons to download onto their smartphones. | ¶64-65 | col. 4:5-14 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication between the wireless patron unit and the server | The Kroger App on a user's smartphone connects to Defendant's servers via a Wi-Fi or cellular connection. | ¶66 | col. 6:11-18 |
| 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 store's inventory and places an order for pickup using the app interface. The complaint provides a visual of the ordering process (Compl. p. 18). | ¶67 | col. 4:29-32 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The application determines the smartphone's location to, for example, find nearby stores. | ¶68-69 | col. 4:56-67 |
| 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 | The app 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. 18:14-24 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The user's order is displayed on the smartphone screen within the application. | ¶73 | col. 4:38-41 |
’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 provides the Kroger App over cellular or WiFi networks to users' mobile devices. | ¶83 | col. 26:7-10 |
| 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. | ¶84-86 | col. 21:32-37 |
| receiving, by the one or more processors, location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's system receives location information from the user's device via its location services. | ¶87 | col. 22:45-53 |
| determining... a location of the mobile computing device at a first time based on the location information | Based on the received data, Defendant's system determines the location of the user's smartphone. | ¶89 | col. 26:49-52 |
| mapping, by the one or more processors, the location to a region that is associated with a venue | The system maps the device's location to a region associated with nearby Kroger stores for mobile ordering. | ¶90 | col. 26:53-55 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue | Defendant's system receives order information when a user selects items and confirms a purchase in the app. | ¶91 | col. 26:56-59 |
| receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's system receives updated location information as the user travels toward the store for pickup. | ¶92 | col. 26:60-62 |
| determining... an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information | Defendant's system determines the device's new location at a later time, such as when the device is in proximity to the store. | ¶93 | col. 26:62-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "venue," as described in the patents with examples like resorts and stadiums, can be properly construed to read on a geographically distributed chain of retail grocery stores. The prosecution history's focus on the "venue-specific application" limitation suggests this term's interpretation will be critical.
- Technical Questions: For the ’729 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the accused app's functionality meets the "updating... the current location... when the patron moves" limitation. A key question is whether the app performs this action automatically as required by the claim's plain language, or if it relies on manual user inputs (e.g., pressing an "I'm Here" button), which might not satisfy the claim element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "venue-specific application"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of the ’414 and ’224 Patents and was added during prosecution to overcome patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Compl. ¶47-48). Its construction is therefore central to both patent validity and the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges that the term should be interpreted to mean an application program configured for a particular venue or chain of venues, such as Kroger stores (Compl. ¶51). The claims themselves do not limit the "venue" to a single, contiguous physical area.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification heavily features embodiments set in a "resort" environment (e.g., hotels, pools, beaches) where tracking a patron's movement within that single property is key to the described delivery service (’414 Patent, col. 3:56-67). This context might support an interpretation that limits the term to an application tied to a single, localized establishment rather than a national chain of separate stores.
The Term: "mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue"
- Context and Importance: This term from claim 8 of the ’414 Patent defines a specific data processing step. The dispute will likely concern the technical meaning of "mapping" and "region" in the context of the accused system's operation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification discusses identifying a patron's location on a map of an area or zone served by staff (’414 Patent, col. 15:28-34). This could support an argument that "mapping" simply means associating GPS coordinates with a predefined service area, such as the vicinity of a Kroger store.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and description show graphical maps of a resort with icons representing patron locations (’414 Patent, Fig. 10). This may support a narrower construction requiring the creation or use of a graphical map data structure that visually situates the device, rather than merely determining if a device's coordinates fall within a geofenced area.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement on the basis that Defendant provides the Kroger App to consumers through app stores and provides instructions that allegedly encourage use of the app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶60, 79, 99).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the asserted patents acquired, at the latest, upon the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶60, 80, 100).
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 was added to secure patentability and is described in the context of single-location resorts, be construed to cover a mobile app for a national retail chain? The answer will heavily influence both the patent eligibility and infringement determinations.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system, which facilitates customer pickup by identifying proximity, perform the same dynamic location determination and mapping functions as the patented invention, which is described as a system for facilitating staff delivery to a mobile patron within a venue? The distinction between the accused product's actual operation and the specific steps recited in the claims will be a central point of contention.