Analytical Tech LLC v. Inspire Brands Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Inspire Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00402, E.D. Tex., 09/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple quick service restaurant locations, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the mobile applications offered by Defendant’s restaurant brands for customer ordering and payment infringe a patent related to customer-managed restaurant transaction systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile e-commerce platforms for the quick-service restaurant industry, enabling customers to order and pay for food and beverages using a personal mobile device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual notice of the asserted patent and its infringing activities since at least March 23, 2023. The asserted patent is a continuation of an earlier application and is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional restaurant systems as "antiquated" and "cumbersome," noting they are overly dependent on restaurant staff and fail to meet the needs of a new generation of tech-savvy, impatient customers who value interactive entertainment and efficiency (’083 Patent, col. 1:41-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that allows a customer to use their own mobile device to manage the entire dining transaction, from ordering to payment, without requiring direct involvement from restaurant staff for the checkout process (’083 Patent, col. 21:26-33). The patent describes a "Customer Self-Checkout" procedure where a customer receives a bill on a portable device, selects gratuity, swipes their own credit card, and provides a digital signature, thereby closing the transaction independently (’083 Patent, col. 22:42-65; FIG. 8).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve restaurant efficiency by increasing the speed of table turnover and to enhance customer satisfaction by giving patrons control over the pace of their dining experience, particularly the payment and departure phases (’083 Patent, col. 24:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the mobile applications offered by Defendant's quick service restaurant brands, including ARBY’S™, BASKIN-ROBBINS™, BUFFALO WILD WINGS™, DUNKIN’™, JIMMY JOHN’S™, and SONIC™ (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these mobile apps provide a menu from which customers can select food or beverage items using their mobile phones (Compl. ¶39). After selection, the apps allegedly upload a bill to the customer's mobile phone, which the customer then pays via the phone (Compl. ¶39). The complaint asserts these apps incorporate the patented technology and are offered by some of the "world's most prominent and iconic quick service restaurant brands" (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 40). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶44). The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for the lead asserted claim based on the narrative in the complaint.

'083 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant." The dispute may turn on whether the accused transaction process, from order placement through payment and to order pickup, is performed entirely without staff interaction as required by the claim, or if some level of staff interaction (e.g., at the pickup counter) negates infringement of this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the apps "upload a bill," a specific step in the claim. A technical question will be whether the accused apps perform this distinct step, or if they present a running total in a "shopping cart" that does not constitute "uploading a bill" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes this as a discrete event following order completion (’083 Patent, col. 6:58-65).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the central point of novelty, distinguishing the claimed method from prior art checkout procedures that involved a server. Its construction is critical because the degree of "interaction" permitted will define the boundary of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because nearly all quick-service transactions involve some staff interaction (e.g., handing the food to the customer), raising the question of which specific interactions the claim language excludes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is directed at the "submission" of "payment." This could support an interpretation where only the financial transaction step must be free of staff interaction, allowing for staff involvement in other parts of the service like order fulfillment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts the invention with the prior art where a server physically takes a credit card and processes the payment (’083 Patent, FIG. 7; col. 21:46-51). The description of the customer being "free to leave at will, without having to wait for wait staff to close down the account" (’083 Patent, col. 20:18-20) could support a narrower interpretation that any process requiring the customer to wait for or interact with staff before departure falls outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using those apps in practicing the method claimed" (Compl. ¶51). The basis is that Defendant provides the mobile apps and encourages their "normal and customary" use, which allegedly constitutes direct infringement by the customer (Compl. ¶51).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’083 Patent since "at least March 23, 2023" and its subsequent continued infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 46). The complaint further alleges that Defendant has made "no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" after becoming aware of the patent (Compl. ¶47).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the limitation "without interaction with staff," when applied to the submission of payment, exclude only the financial processing step, or does it require the entire checkout and departure process to be free from any necessary interaction with or reliance on restaurant employees?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the workflow in the accused mobile apps—specifically how an order total is presented and how payment is processed—contain the distinct steps of "uploading... a bill" and "performing a self-checkout" as described in the patent's specification, or is there a material difference in the technical operation?