Tiare Technology Inc v. Starbucks Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Starbucks Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00253, E.D. Tex., 05/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the district, and operates multiple regular and established places of business (stores) within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile ordering application infringes patents related to systems and methods for providing services to patrons using portable wireless devices with location-tracking capabilities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the domain of mobile commerce and location-based services, which enable customers to order goods and services remotely and facilitate fulfillment based on their physical location.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously resolved patent disputes with numerous other companies. It also details an extensive prosecution history for the asserted patent family, highlighting that claims were allowed after examiners considered patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the Alice framework. The complaint further references a prior case in the same district where the court denied a motion to dismiss related to the eligibility of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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 servicing patrons in large venues like resorts. Conventional systems, such as centrally-located kiosks or staff-operated handheld terminals, created delays, required patrons to leave their seats, and made it difficult for staff to locate patrons for order delivery. (Compl. ¶¶33-35; ’729 Patent, col. 2:21-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where patrons use a "wireless patron unit" (e.g., a smartphone) with a venue-specific application to place orders directly. The system determines the location of the patron's device and updates the order status and location, enabling staff to fulfill the order efficiently without the patron needing to wait for a staff member or visit a fixed kiosk. (Compl. ¶36; ’729 Patent, Abstract, col. 3:1-17).
• Technical Importance: This patented approach provided a technical solution to the challenge of combining patron-initiated mobile ordering with real-time location tracking to improve service speed and efficiency in large, dynamic environments. (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶56).
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method of using a wireless patron unit within a venue.
  • Providing a patron with the wireless patron unit, either by providing a venue-owned unit or a venue-specific application for a patron-owned device.
  • 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 wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location, on the wireless patron unit.
  • Displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit.

---

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’729 Patent, focusing on the inconvenience and inefficiency of ordering systems in large venues that lack integrated, patron-controlled ordering and location tracking. (’414 Patent, col. 1:22-col. 2:57).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a computer-implemented method focusing on server-side operations. A server provides a venue-specific application to a mobile device, authenticates the user, receives location information, and maps that location to a region within the venue. After receiving an order, the system continues to receive updated location information from the device, allowing for continuous tracking to facilitate service. (’414 Patent, Abstract; col. 25:53-col. 26:52).
• Technical Importance: The invention's focus on a "venue-specific application" and the continuous receipt of updated location information provided a more refined technical framework for managing mobile users within a service area, a key feature allegedly relied upon to overcome patent eligibility challenges during prosecution. (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 8. (Compl. ¶75).
• Claim 8 Elements:
  • A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors.
  • 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 based on the location 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 location information.

---

U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 - "Patron Service System and Method"

• 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 a plurality of electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to the devices, receives initial and updated location signals from them, and determines their locations. In response to receiving order information from one particular device, the system sends data indicating its updated location to a separate computing system associated with the venue for display, for example, to service staff. (’224 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 10. (Compl. ¶95).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's system, which provides the mobile application to multiple users, receives location information from their devices, determines their locations, and tracks a user's updated location to facilitate order pickup. (Compl. ¶¶102-112).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s mobile application (the “Accused Products”). (Compl. ¶9, fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "venue-specific application" associated with Defendant's chain of stores. (Compl. ¶51). Its functionality allows a user to determine an initial location to find a local store, place a mobile order, and have their location tracked upon approach to the store for pickup. (Compl. ¶52). The complaint includes a screenshot of the application's interface showing a map-based store locator, a menu, and an order confirmation screen with pickup details, illustrating these features. (Compl. p. 15). The complaint asserts this "In-Store Pickup" functionality uses the device's precise location "to ensure that orders are fresh when you arrive." (Compl. ¶52).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’729 Patent Infringement Allegations

’414 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "venue." The infringement theory depends on construing Defendant's nationwide chain of individual stores as a "venue" for which its app is "venue-specific." A court will need to determine whether the patent's specification, which heavily features examples like a single resort or stadium, can support a construction broad enough to cover a distributed network of retail locations.
• Technical Questions: For the ’729 Patent, a key question may be whether the accused application performs the step of "updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit... on the wireless patron unit." The complaint alleges location tracking for pickup proximity (Compl. ¶72), which suggests server-side processing, raising the question of whether evidence will show the specific on-device update required by the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "venue" / "venue-specific application"
• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claims against a nationwide retail chain hinges on this definition. If "venue" is construed narrowly to mean a single, contiguous geographic area like a resort, the accused application for a distributed chain of stores may be found non-infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges overcoming Section 101 rejections was predicated on the addition of the "venue-specific application" limitation (Compl. ¶47).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the system may be used in "various other venues including, but not limited to, stadiums, arenas, retail locations..." (’414 Patent, col. 4:4-6). This explicit inclusion of "retail locations" may support Plaintiff's theory.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and problem-solution narrative consistently use examples of a single, cohesive environment (e.g., a "resort," "beach," "pool") where the primary technical problem is locating a mobile patron for immediate delivery of goods within that environment. (’414 Patent, col. 1:22-col. 2:57).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis is Defendant's distribution of the accused mobile application through app stores along with instructions encouraging consumers to use the application's mobile ordering and location-tracking features in their ordinary and intended manner. (Compl. ¶60, ¶79, ¶99).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint alleges Defendant "was willfully blind" to the patents' existence and has had "actual knowledge" of the patents since, at a minimum, the filing and service of the complaint. (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 "venue," rooted in the patent's description of a single, contiguous service area like a resort, be construed to cover a distributed national network of individual retail stores, thereby rendering an application for that network "venue-specific"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: does the accused application's functionality map to the precise elements of each asserted claim? In particular for the ’729 Patent, what evidence will show that the application performs an "updating" of the user's location "on the wireless patron unit," as distinguished from merely transmitting location data to a server for remote processing, a functionality that appears more aligned with the claims of the ’414 Patent?