Tiare Technology Inc v. McDonalds Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's USA, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00252, E.D. Tex., 05/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple regular and established places of business (stores) within the District, distributes its mobile application to users in the District, and derives substantial revenue from activities there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application infringes three patents related to systems and methods for mobile ordering that utilize device location tracking to facilitate service delivery.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile commerce platforms, specifically for the food service industry, that integrate a user's real-time geographic location to streamline order preparation and pickup.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents and related family members underwent extensive examination at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, including overcoming subject-matter eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff also cites a ruling in prior litigation (Tiare Technology Inc v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC, No. 2:22-CV-182 (E.D. Tex.)) where the court reportedly denied a motion to dismiss based on eligibility challenges to the same patent family.

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 at large venues like resorts, where patrons struggle to find staff to place orders and staff struggle to locate patrons for delivery, especially if the patron moves after ordering. (U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729, col. 1:40-2:5). Conventional kiosk or staff-centric point-of-sale systems did not adequately solve these problems. (’729 Patent, col. 2:21-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where patrons use portable wireless units to place orders directly. A central server receives the order, communicates with a fulfillment center (e.g., a kitchen), and, critically, determines the current location of the patron's unit to facilitate delivery. The system also provides status updates back to the patron's unit. (’729 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-16).
• Technical Importance: The technology proposed a patron-centric wireless ordering system integrated with real-time location tracking to solve the "last mile" problem of service delivery in a mobile environment. (Compl. ¶38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶58).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method of using a wireless patron unit within a venue
  • providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit
  • connecting the wireless patron unit to a server
  • entering a patron order for at least one item or service provided by the venue 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 dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’729 Patent, the technology addresses the logistical challenges of servicing mobile patrons in a large venue, including order placement and locating the patron for fulfillment. (U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414, col. 1:23-2:62).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-implemented method performed by a server system. The server provides a "venue-specific application" to a mobile device, authenticates the user, receives initial location information, maps that location to a region associated with the venue, and receives an order. The method then involves receiving updated location information from the device and determining the device's new location at a second, later time. (’414 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:7-50).
• Technical Importance: This patent appears to focus on the server-side architecture and data processing for a modern, app-based mobile ordering system that actively tracks a user after an order is placed. (Compl. ¶¶48-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8. (Compl. ¶77).
• Essential elements of claim 8 include:
  • A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors
  • providing... a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device
  • communicating... to authenticate... a user of the venue-specific application
  • receiving... location information from the mobile computing device
  • determining... a location of the mobile computing device at a first time
  • mapping the location to a region that is associated with a venue
  • receiving... order information for the venue
  • receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device
  • determining... an updated location of the mobile computing 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," issued December 7, 2021

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for locating multiple electronic devices. A central computing system provides a venue-specific application to the devices, receives location signals to determine their initial and updated locations, receives an order from a particular device, and in response, sends data indicating the updated location of that specific device to a computing system associated with the venue for display. (’224 Patent, Abstract). This claims a system architecture that links a specific ordering device's dynamic location to a venue's operational display.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶97).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's back-end system, in conjunction with its mobile application, infringes by providing the app, receiving location data from multiple users' devices, determining their updated locations, and, in response to an order, communicating a user's location to the selected store to facilitate order fulfillment. (Compl. ¶¶104-115).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's mobile application for smartphones and tablets (the "Defendant application"). (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The application allows users to find McDonald's store locations, browse menus, customize and place orders, and submit payment. (Compl. ¶¶20, 53). The complaint alleges the application utilizes the mobile device's location services for functions such as finding local stores and for its "Ready on Arrival" feature, which tracks the user's proximity to the selected store to time order preparation. (Compl. ¶54). A screenshot in the complaint shows the user interface for selecting a store from a map and proceeding to order. (Compl. p. 15). The complaint alleges this app-based ordering system has generated significant revenue for the Defendant. (Compl. ¶56).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may revolve around whether a "venue," described in the patents' specifications with examples like resorts and pools, can be construed to read on a distributed network of individual quick-service restaurant locations. Similarly, the construction of "venue-specific application" will be critical, raising the question of whether a single nationwide application qualifies as specific to a venue.
• Technical Questions: For the ’729 Patent, a question is whether the accused system's location tracking for order pickup performs the claimed step of "updating...the current location...when the patron moves." The nature and frequency of this location updating will be a factual issue. For the ’414 Patent, the allegations place the "determining" and "mapping" functions at the server level; discovery may focus on whether these computations occur on Defendant's servers as claimed, or primarily on the client device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "venue-specific application" (from claim 8 of the ’414 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term was added during prosecution of the patent family to overcome a § 101 subject-matter eligibility rejection, making its interpretation pivotal to both infringement and validity. (Compl. ¶49-50). Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its single, nationwide app is not "specific" to any single "venue" (i.e., one restaurant), while Plaintiff may counter that it is specific to the McDonald's ecosystem and becomes configured for a specific store location upon user selection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to providing the application to a device "that can be used during the at least one patron's visit to the venue," suggesting the application's functionality is tied to the context of the venue, not necessarily that its code is exclusive to a single location. (’414 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges the app is "specifically configured for a venue... but may apply to more than one location." (Compl. ¶53).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "resort" as its primary example of a "venue," a term that typically implies a single, geographically contiguous property, which could support a narrower construction. (’414 Patent, col. 3:56-62).

The Term: "updating a status of the patron order, and the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves" (from claim 1 of the ’729 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires two distinct types of updates: order status and location. The dispute will likely center on the nature of the "location" update. Practitioners may focus on this term because the required functionality could be interpreted as anything from continuous real-time tracking to periodic location checks, which will impact the infringement analysis of the "Ready on Arrival" feature.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "when the patron moves" does not specify the frequency or continuity of the update, which could support an argument that periodic updates triggered by certain events (e.g., crossing a geofence) meet the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's goal of solving the problem of staff being unable to find a patron who "has moved" from where "the original order was taken" could suggest the update is meant to provide a specific, new location for delivery, potentially implying more than just a proximity check. (’729 Patent, col. 2:3-5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly encourages consumers to use the accused application in an infringing manner by distributing it through app stores and providing instructions on its use for mobile ordering. (Compl. ¶¶62, 81, 101).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having actual knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of the filing and service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶63, 82, 102).

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 patents' specification context of a singular resort, be construed to cover a nationwide chain of thousands of discrete restaurant locations? The interpretation of the related term "venue-specific application" will be equally critical, particularly as it was added to secure patentability.
• A second key issue will be patent eligibility. Despite the complaint's emphasis on a favorable prosecution history and a prior court ruling, Defendant may still challenge the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101, raising the question of whether the claims are directed to a patent-eligible technical improvement in computer functionality or an abstract idea of coordinating order fulfillment based on a customer's location.
• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the precise mechanism, frequency, and locus of the location tracking performed by the accused system? The case may turn on whether the evidence shows the "Ready on Arrival" feature performs the specific "updating" and "determining" of location as required by the claims, particularly whether key processing steps occur on Defendant's servers as alleged.