Analytical Tech LLC v. Restaurant Brands Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00288, E.D. Tex., 06/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for its quick-service restaurant brands infringe a patent related to customer-managed remote ordering and payment systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of mobile ordering, billing, and payment functionalities to allow restaurant customers to complete transactions without direct involvement from restaurant staff.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term. The complaint alleges Defendant has had actual notice of the patent and its infringement since at least March 23, 2023, forming the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS

(Issued August 5, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional restaurant systems as "antiquated" and "cumbersome," noting they are dependent on staff and fail to meet the needs of a technologically competent and impatient generation of customers (Compl. ¶18-19; ’083 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an integrated system allowing a customer to use a personal device, such as a mobile phone, to manage their dining experience. This includes receiving a menu, placing an order, receiving a bill on the device, and executing a "self-checkout" to submit payment electronically without requiring the involvement of restaurant staff (Compl. ¶21, 29; ’083 Patent, col. 6:22-30). The system is described as integrating previously "disparate technologies" into a single comprehensive solution (Compl. ¶20; ’083 Patent, col. 10:38-44).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention sought to increase efficiency and improve the customer experience by shifting control of the ordering and payment process from restaurant staff to the customer's own device (Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’083 patent and provides a specific infringement theory for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44, 50).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A method, comprising:
  • receiving at least one request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone;
  • uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and
  • performing a self-checkout by at least one customer whereby payment for the at least one service is submitted by the at least one customer via the mobile phone to the system, wherein the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant. (’083 Patent, col. 27:35-49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the mobile applications offered by Defendant’s quick-service restaurant brands: TIM HORTONS®, BURGER KING®, POPEYES®, and FIREHOUSE SUBS® (Compl. ¶37-38).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these mobile apps provide users with a menu, allow them to select food and beverage items, present a bill for the selected items on the user's mobile phone, and enable the user to pay for the order via the phone (Compl. ¶39). The complaint asserts these are "four of the world's most prominent and iconic quick service restaurant brands," suggesting significant commercial activity (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶44). The infringement theory must therefore be drawn from the narrative allegations in the complaint.

Plaintiff’s infringement theory centers on the functionality of Defendant’s mobile apps. The complaint alleges that a customer using one of the accused apps practices the patented method by using their mobile phone to select items from a menu (the "request") (Compl. ¶39). It further alleges the app then "uploads a bill" to the customer’s phone and allows the customer to pay, constituting a "self-checkout" process where payment is submitted "without interaction with staff" as required by claim 1 (Compl. ¶29, 39). The complaint alleges that the end-users of the apps are direct infringers (Compl. ¶50) and that Defendant is a direct and indirect infringer for providing the system (Compl. ¶44, 51).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on the scope of the phrase "without interaction with staff." A question for the court will be whether this limitation applies only to the moment of electronic payment submission, or whether necessary interactions in a quick-service context, such as picking up the order from a staff member, fall within the scope of the "service" and thus constitute "interaction with staff."
• Technical Questions: A potential issue is whether the functionality of the accused quick-service apps, where a user typically pays before receiving their food, aligns with the patent's description of a "self-checkout" process. The patent specification appears to describe a process more akin to a sit-down restaurant, where a "post-dining method" is initiated after consumption and a bill is reviewed before payment (’083 Patent, col. 6:59-65, Fig. 4). The court may need to resolve whether "uploading... a bill" and "self-checkout" read on the shopping cart and payment flow of a typical e-commerce transaction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "self-checkout"

• Context and Importance: This term is not explicitly defined in the patent. Its construction is critical because Defendant may argue its app’s payment functionality is a standard e-commerce transaction, whereas Plaintiff will argue it is the claimed "self-checkout." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification links it to a "post-dining method" which may not map directly onto the pre-payment model of the accused quick-service apps (Compl. ¶27; ’083 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning, could arguably encompass any customer-driven electronic payment process that finalizes a transaction on a personal device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "self-checkout procedure" where a server first brings a physical "Checkout Device" to the customer's table after a meal, upon which the customer reviews the bill and completes the transaction (’083 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 22:7-12). This could support a narrower construction tied to a tableside, post-consumption context.

The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears to be a primary point of novelty. The dispute will likely focus on what stage of the overall transaction this limitation applies to.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language directly ties this limitation to the step of submitting payment: "payment for the at least one service is submitted... without interaction with staff" (’083 Patent, col. 27:45-49). This syntax may support an interpretation that only the payment act itself must be free of staff interaction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contemplates staff involvement in other parts of the service, such as "runners" who deliver orders (’083 Patent, col. 25:21-25). A defendant could argue that if the overall "service" necessarily involves staff interaction (e.g., order hand-off), the process as a whole is not "without interaction," suggesting a narrower reading of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides the mobile apps and "provid[es] instructions to consumer end-users" on how to use them to perform the claimed method, with the specific intent to cause infringement by those users (Compl. ¶51-52).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported actual notice of the ’083 Patent since at least March 23, 2023, and its alleged continued offering of the accused services without modification after that date (Compl. ¶16, 46, 54).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "self-checkout", which the patent specification describes in the context of a post-consumption, tableside payment process, be construed to cover the pre-payment, e-commerce-style transaction flow of the accused quick-service mobile applications?
• A second central issue will be the interpretation of a negative limitation: does the claim requirement of payment "without interaction with staff" apply only to the discrete act of electronic payment submission, or can it be defeated by the inherent and necessary staff interaction involved in fulfilling an order in the accused quick-service restaurant environment?