DCT
2:23-cv-00416
Tiare Technology Inc v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda Express, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00416, E.D. Tex., 09/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple regular and established places of business (Panda Express stores) within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Panda Express mobile ordering application infringes patents related to mobile ordering systems that incorporate location-tracking technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using patron-owned mobile devices with venue-specific software to place orders and track the user's location to facilitate order fulfillment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents have undergone extensive examination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including express consideration of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of Alice v. CLS Bank. The complaint also references prior litigation involving the same patent family (Tiare Technology Inc v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC), in which the court reportedly denied a motion to dismiss challenging the patents' eligibility.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’729, ’414, and ’224 Patents |
| 2014-03-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 Issues |
| 2018-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 Issues |
| 2021-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 Issues |
| 2023-09-14 | Complaint Filed |
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 family describes drawbacks of conventional ordering systems in venues like resorts or restaurants, such as fixed, centrally-located kiosks or staff-operated handheld terminals. These systems are described as inconvenient for patrons, who could not place orders from their own location, and inefficient for staff, who had difficulty locating mobile patrons for order delivery (Compl. ¶¶ 34-36; ’414 Patent, col. 2:21-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a patron uses a "wireless patron unit" (such as a smartphone) to place an order within a venue. The system connects the unit to a server, accepts a patron's order, and determines the unit's current location. The system is also capable of updating the order status and the patron's location on the unit as the patron moves, thereby facilitating service and delivery (’729 Patent, Abstract; ’414 Patent, col. 4:18-34).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve service efficiency by shifting order entry to the patron's mobile device while integrating location awareness to solve the "last mile" problem of delivering goods or services to a non-stationary customer within a defined venue (Compl. ¶37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Providing a patron with a wireless patron unit (either venue-owned or a patron-owned device with a downloaded application).
- Connecting the wireless patron unit to a server.
- Entering a patron order for an item or service into the 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.
- 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: As a continuation of the same family, this patent addresses the same technical problems of inconvenience and inefficiency in venue-based ordering systems as the ’729 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 34-36; ’414 Patent, col. 2:21-57).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a computer-implemented method, executed by one or more processors (e.g., on a server), that manages the location-aware ordering process. The method includes providing a "venue-specific application," authenticating the user, receiving initial and updated location information from the mobile device, mapping the location to a venue-associated region, and receiving order information from the device (’414 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:7-50).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention focuses on the server-side logic required to manage and integrate location data from mobile clients with order processing for a specific venue or set of venues (Compl. ¶39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶77).
- The essential elements of Claim 8 include:
- Providing a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device over a wireless channel.
- 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.
- 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.
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 mobile electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to each device, receives location signals from them, and determines their locations. In response to an order from one particular device, the system sends data indicating that device's updated location to a computing system associated with the venue for display in a graphical user interface (’224 Patent, Claim 10).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶97).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's mobile ordering system, which provides its app to a plurality of users, tracks their locations, and uses that location information to coordinate order fulfillment at its store venues (Compl. ¶¶ 104-115).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's Panda Express mobile application and the associated mobile-ordering system and infrastructure ("Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 51).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products constitute a "venue-specific application" for the Panda Express chain of stores (Compl. ¶52). Users download the application to a smartphone or tablet to find nearby stores, build an order from the menu, and submit it for pickup (Compl. ¶¶ 51-53).
- The system allegedly uses the mobile device's location services to identify nearby stores and to track the device's location to help "ensure that Defendant has a customer's order ready when the customer arrives" (Compl. ¶53). A screenshot in the complaint shows a system pop-up requesting permission to use the device's location for this purpose (Compl., p. 16). The complaint further provides screenshots illustrating the user interface for selecting a location, building an order, and confirming pickup (Compl., p. 15).
- The complaint alleges that the mobile application has been used to complete a significant number of mobile orders, generating substantial revenue for the Defendant (Compl. ¶56).
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 the Panda Express mobile application for download by patrons into their smartphones or tablets (Compl. ¶67). | ¶67 | col. 1:57-68 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server enabling communication between the wireless patron unit and the server | The patron's smartphone, running the app, connects to Defendant's server via a Wi-Fi or cellular connection (Compl. ¶68). | ¶68 | col. 18:7-14 |
| 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 enters an order through the application's user interface (Compl. ¶69). A screenshot shows the interface for building an order (Compl., p. 19). | ¶69 | col. 4:29-34 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The application determines the location of the user's smartphone or tablet, for example, to find local stores (Compl. ¶70). | ¶70 | col. 1:68-2:2 |
| 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 | Defendant updates the order status (e.g., placed, in progress) on the app and tracks the device's location as it approaches the store (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 74). | ¶¶72, 74 | col. 22:5-14 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The application displays the patron's order on the screen of the smartphone or tablet (Compl. ¶75). A screenshot shows an "ORDER PLACED" confirmation screen (Compl., p. 19). | ¶75 | col. 4:57-62 |
’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 over cellular or WiFi networks (Compl. ¶85). | ¶85 | col. 26:10-13 |
| communicating ... to authenticate, based on a security protocol, a user of the venue-specific application | Defendant authenticates users via login and password and secures financial information for purchases (Compl. ¶¶ 87-88). | ¶¶87-88 | col. 22:31-37 |
| receiving, by the one or more processors, location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's processors receive location information from the user's device via its location services (Compl. ¶89). A screenshot shows a location permission request (Compl., p. 16). | ¶89 | col. 26:22-24 |
| determining, by the one or more processors, a location of the mobile computing device at a first time based on the location information | Defendant's system determines the device's location based on the received information (Compl. ¶91). | ¶91 | col. 26:25-27 |
| 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 nearby store or group of stores (Compl. ¶92). | ¶92 | col. 26:28-30 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue | Defendant's processors receive order information selected by the user from the application's menu (Compl. ¶93). | ¶93 | col. 26:31-34 |
| receiving, by the one or more processors, updated location information from the mobile computing device | Defendant's system receives updated location information, for example, to determine when a user is in proximity to the store for pickup (Compl. ¶94). | ¶94 | col. 26:41-43 |
| determining, by the one or more processors, an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information | Defendant's system determines updated locations of the device as it approaches the store site (Compl. ¶95). | ¶95 | col. 26:44-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "venue-specific application." The complaint alleges the Panda Express app, which applies to a national chain of stores, satisfies this limitation (Compl. ¶52). The question for the court may be whether this term, described in the patent primarily in the context of a single resort, can be construed to cover an application for a multi-location brand.
- Technical Questions: For the ’729 patent element requiring "updating... the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location," a factual question may be whether the accused application performs the type of dynamic location tracking contemplated by the patent. The complaint alleges the app tracks a user approaching a store (Compl. ¶95), but the evidence may need to distinguish this from a single proximity check upon arrival, versus the patent's described context of tracking a patron moving between different areas within a venue (e.g., from a pool to a beach) (’414 Patent, col. 5:6-11).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "venue-specific application"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term, which appears in the asserted claims of both the ’414 and ’224 patents, is critical to the scope of the patents. If construed narrowly to mean an application designed for a single, unique physical venue (e.g., one specific hotel), proving infringement against a chain-wide application like Panda Express's may be more difficult. If construed broadly to mean an application tailored to a particular brand or chain of venues, the infringement case may be stronger.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to use in "a resort or other establishment" and lists various "hospitality venues" such as hotels, cruise ships, and restaurants, which could suggest applicability beyond a single, contiguous property (’414 Patent, col. 3:1-17). The complaint's theory is that an app for a specific store chain is "venue-specific" (Compl. ¶52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed examples and operational descriptions are consistently framed within the context of a single resort, describing patrons moving between distinct areas like a "pool, beach, spa, deck, lounge" (’414 Patent, col. 4:20-22). This frequent use of a single-resort exemplar could be argued to limit the term's scope to a geographically contiguous venue.
The Term: "updating ... the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location"
Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 of the ’729 patent is central to the technical operation of the claimed method. Its construction will determine whether infringement requires continuous, real-time tracking of a user's movements or if discrete, event-triggered location checks are sufficient. Defendant's system is for order pickup, whereas the patent often describes scenarios involving delivery to a mobile patron within a venue, a distinction that may be relevant.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language does not specify the frequency or method of the update. Any change to the system's stored location data in response to patron movement could be argued to meet the limitation. The complaint alleges the system tracks the device "as the device approaches the site" (Compl. ¶95).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using the location tracking feature so that a staff member can "deliver the patron's order or service the request directly to the patron" and "locate a patron that has placed an order" (’414 Patent, col. 5:32-39). This context may suggest a more dynamic tracking capability designed to find a mobile person, rather than simply timing an order for pickup at a fixed point.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides the Accused Products to consumers and provides instructions and encouragement (e.g., through app stores) for them to use the application in a manner that directly infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 81, 101).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having knowledge of the asserted patents and its infringement "at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 82, 102). This frames the willfulness claim based on alleged post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "venue-specific application," rooted in the patent’s illustrative context of a single resort, be construed to cover the accused Panda Express application that operates across a national chain of discrete restaurant locations?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused application's location functionality, allegedly used to time order readiness for pickup, perform the specific step of "updating... the current location... when the patron moves to a different location" as claimed, or is there a functional mismatch between the accused pickup-oriented system and the patent's described delivery-oriented system?
- A foundational legal question, noted as previously addressed in other litigation, may remain central: are the asserted claims directed to a patent-eligible technical improvement in computer functionality, or do they claim an abstract business practice of location-based ordering implemented using conventional mobile technology?