DCT
2:22-cv-00493
Tiare Technology Inc v. Wendy's Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Wendy's Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00493, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant operates multiple "regular and established places of business" (stores) within the Eastern District of Texas, distributes its mobile application to users in the district, and derives revenue from mobile ordering services provided to customers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application infringes patents related to systems and methods for mobile ordering that incorporate patron location tracking.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile commerce systems, specifically for the food and beverage industry, that use a customer's device location to improve order fulfillment efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff notes it has previously resolved patent disputes with numerous other companies in the restaurant and retail sectors. The complaint also highlights the extensive prosecution history of the asserted patent family before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, noting that claims were allowed after overcoming rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by arguing the inventions represent a technical solution to problems rooted in computer technology, rather than an abstract idea.
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 | Non-Final Rejection issued by USPTO during prosecution of the ’414 Patent |
| 2018-12-18 | ’414 Patent Issued |
| 2020-04-29 | Non-Final Rejection issued by USPTO during prosecution of the ’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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729, "Patron Service System and Method," issued March 25, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes that prior to the invention, ordering systems relied on inconvenient "centrally-located kiosks" or staff-operated handheld terminals that did not allow patrons to place their own orders and were unable to effectively track a patron's location for delivery (Compl. ¶¶ 33-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a patron uses a "wireless patron unit" (e.g., a modern smartphone) with a "venue specific application program" to place an order with a server. The system solves the delivery problem by determining the patron unit's location and updating that location as the patron moves, with order status and location information updated on the patron's device (’414 Patent, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶36).
- Technical Importance: The technology is presented as an early technical solution for integrating then-nascent location-tracking technologies (like GPS and Wi-Fi) into a mobile ordering architecture to improve service efficiency (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- Key elements of Claim 1 include:
- Providing a patron with a wireless patron unit having a venue specific application.
- Connecting the wireless patron unit to a server.
- Entering a patron order into the wireless patron unit.
- Determining a current location of the wireless patron unit.
- Updating a status of the order and the current location of the unit on the wireless patron 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 for the ’729 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 - "Patron Service System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414, "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 18, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section details inefficiencies in service environments like resorts, where patrons cannot easily find staff to place an order and staff cannot easily find patrons to deliver a completed order, leading to delays and dissatisfaction (’414 Patent, col. 1:46-58, col. 2:1-6).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-implemented method, typically run on a central server, that provides a venue-specific application to a patron's mobile device. The server authenticates the user, receives location information from the device at a first time, maps that location to a region within the venue, receives an order, and then receives "updated location information" from the device at a second time to track the patron's movement for fulfillment (’414 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:7-60).
- Technical Importance: This server-side method provides a technical architecture for managing multiple mobile users, enabling a centralized system to track their locations and orders to coordinate service delivery efficiently (’414 Patent, col. 6:12-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶75).
- Key elements of Claim 8 include:
- Providing a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device over a wireless channel.
- Authenticating a user of the application.
- Receiving location information from the device and determining its 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.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’414 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 - "Patron Service System and Method" (Multi-Patent Capsule)
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224, "Patron Service System and Method," issued December 7, 2021.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for locating multiple electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application, receives initial and subsequent location signals from the devices to determine their locations, and, in response to an order from one device, 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 (’224 Patent, Abstract; Claim 10). This appears to focus on the technology enabling venue staff to visualize a customer's location for fulfillment.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶95).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's system provides its mobile application to multiple users, receives location information from them, determines their locations, receives orders, and sends updated location data to a computing system associated with the venue (i.e., the store) (Compl. ¶¶ 102-111).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's mobile ordering solution, which includes The Wendy's Company mobile application and associated backend systems (Compl. ¶9, n.1; ¶50).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused application provides "venue-specific" functionality associated with the Defendant's store chain (Compl. ¶51). Its functions include allowing users to select a store, place an order from the menu, and pay for the order (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 50). The system also tracks the user's location to "help find a Wendy's near you" and to "start making your food right when you arrive," which involves determining a current and updated location to "prepare your food when you check in" (Compl. ¶52). The complaint provides a screenshot from the application showing a map for store selection, menu categories, and an order summary screen (Compl. p. 14).
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 its mobile application for download to patron-owned smartphones via app stores. | ¶64 | col. 25:20-29 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server... | The application connects the user's smartphone to Defendant's server via a Wi-Fi or cellular connection. | ¶66 | col. 25:30-32 |
| 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 interface for building an order (Compl. p. 18). | ¶67 | col. 25:33-36 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit... | Defendant's system determines the location of the smartphone through the application's use of the device's location services. | ¶68 | col. 25:37-38 |
| 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 application updates order status (e.g., placed, in progress) and tracks the user's location to determine when the device is in proximity to the store. | ¶¶ 70-72 | col. 25:39-43 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit. | The application displays the user's order on the smartphone's screen. | ¶73 | col. 25:44-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a "venue" as described in the patent (primarily single, contained locations like resorts) can be construed to read on a national chain of individual quick-service restaurant locations as alleged (Compl. ¶51).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires "updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit... on the wireless patron unit." It raises the question of what evidence shows that the accused system updates location information on the user's device itself, as opposed to merely tracking the location on a backend server to determine proximity to a geofence (Compl. ¶72).
’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 its mobile application to users' smartphones over wireless channels (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi). | ¶83 | col. 26:10-13 |
| communicating... to authenticate, based on a security protocol, a user of the venue-specific application... | The system authenticates users via login and password and secures financial information for purchases. | ¶¶ 85-86 | col. 26:14-18 |
| receiving, by the one or more processors, location information from the mobile computing device... | Defendant's processors receive location information from the smartphone via the device's location services. | ¶87 | col. 26:19-21 |
| mapping, by the one or more processors, the location to a region that is associated with a venue... | Defendant's system maps the device's location to a region associated with a store or group of nearby stores. | ¶90 | col. 26:25-27 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue... | Defendant's processors receive order information based on user selections within the application. | ¶91 | col. 26:28-31 |
| receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device... | Defendant's processors receive updated location information from the smartphone as the user travels. | ¶92 | col. 26:32-34 |
| determining... an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information. | Defendant determines updated locations as the device approaches the store site to time food preparation. | ¶93 | col. 26:35-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A point of contention may be the interpretation of "mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue." It raises the question of whether identifying a nearby store on a map (Compl. p. 14) constitutes the claimed "mapping," particularly when the patent specification's examples depict mapping to sub-regions within a single, contiguous venue like a resort pool area (’414 Patent, Fig. 10).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system determines location at a distinct "first time" and "second time" as required by the claim, versus a single proximity check or geofence event upon arrival? The complaint alleges tracking "at multiple points" (Compl. ¶93), which will be a factual question for discovery.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "venue" (asserted in claims of both ’729 and ’414 Patents)
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the scope of the patents. The infringement theory depends on the Defendant's nationwide chain of restaurants qualifying as a "venue." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification heavily emphasizes examples like resorts, stadiums, and cruise ships.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not restrict the "venue" to a specific type of location. The specification provides a non-limiting list, stating a "resort" refers to "hospitality venues, such as, but not limited to, hotels... restaurants, bars..." which could support an argument that an individual restaurant is a venue (’414 Patent, col. 3:58-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and detailed description consistently frame the technical problem and solution in the context of large, contiguous properties like resorts where patrons are mobile within a single service environment (’414 Patent, col. 1:19-22, col. 2:48-52). The figures likewise depict resort-style environments, such as a map showing a "Pool" area (’414 Patent, Fig. 10).
The Term: "venue-specific application" (asserted in claims of both ’729 and ’414 Patents)
Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to whether an application designed for a national brand with thousands of locations infringes claims seemingly directed at an application for a single location.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint argues the application is "specifically configured for a venue (e.g., a Defendant store) but may apply to more than one location" (Compl. ¶51). This interpretation suggests "venue-specific" relates to the brand or type of service, not a single geographic site.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes providing an application program for use "during the at least one patron's visit to the venue" (’729 Patent, cl. 1). This language, combined with the specification's focus on single resorts, may support an argument that the application must be specific to the particular physical venue the patron is visiting.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe all asserted patents. The alleged acts of inducement include supplying the accused application to consumers through app stores and providing instructions that encourage users to operate the application in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶60, ¶79, ¶99).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents and infringement "at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶61, ¶80, ¶100). The complaint also pleads pre-suit willful blindness.
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 specification's context of contained environments like resorts and stadiums, be construed to cover a distributed national chain of individual quick-service restaurants? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may significantly influence the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system's location tracking function by performing the multi-step location determination ("at a first time" and "updated... at a second time") required by the claims, or does it utilize a simpler technical implementation, such as a one-time geofence check upon arrival, that may not meet all claim limitations?
- A third question, specific to the ’224 Patent, will be one of proof: can the Plaintiff substantiate its allegation, made on "information and belief," that the accused system sends a user's updated location data for display in a graphical user interface at the restaurant's local computing system, as required by the asserted system claim?