Analytical Tech LLC v. Jack In Box Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Jack In The Box Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00052, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple restaurant locations, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for ordering and payment infringes a patent related to customer-managed restaurant transaction systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the use of customer-operated mobile devices to order and pay for services in a restaurant environment, a key feature of the modern quick-service restaurant (QSR) industry.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint alleges Defendant has had actual notice of the patent and its alleged infringement since at least March 23, 2023.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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," "cumbersome," and dependent on staff control, failing to meet the needs of a newer, tech-savvy generation of customers who are "often impatient and enjoy continuous and interactive entertainment" (’083 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system where a customer uses their own mobile device to manage the dining experience, including ordering from an interactive menu and performing a "self-checkout" process to pay the bill electronically without the direct involvement of restaurant staff (’083 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:60-col. 14:6). This is intended to improve efficiency and customer control by integrating various restaurant functions, such as ordering and payment, into a single customer-facing platform (’083 Patent, col. 10:36-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to shift key aspects of the transaction process from restaurant staff to the customer, using the customer's personal device as the primary interface for ordering and payment (Compl. ¶20, 31).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • 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 a 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 the infringement allegation is for "one or more claims" of the patent (’083 Patent, Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the mobile application offered by Defendant Jack In The Box (Compl. ¶38, 40).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the mobile app allows customers to use their mobile phones to place and pay for orders of food and beverages (Compl. ¶38). The accused functionality involves providing a menu for selection, uploading a bill for the selected items to the customer's mobile phone, and enabling the customer to pay for the order using their phone (Compl. ¶39). The complaint characterizes the Jack in the Box brand as a "prominent and iconic quick service restaurant brand" (Compl. ¶37). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's mobile app practices each element of at least claim 1 of the ’083 patent, referencing claim charts in an attached Exhibit 2 which was not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶44). The narrative allegations in the complaint support the following infringement theory.

’083 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "mobile phone," as understood from the patent's 2002 priority date and 2012 filing date, can be construed to read on a modern smartphone operating within a complex app-based ecosystem.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement reading of the negative limitation "without interaction with staff" may be contested. It raises the question of what evidence will show that the entire payment submission process in the accused quick-service system occurs without any required staff interaction, including at the point of order pickup where staff interaction is typical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mobile phone"

  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is fundamental to the infringement case. The definition will determine whether the accused system, which runs on modern smartphones, is covered by a claim term originating when "mobile phone" technology was substantially different. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous "terminal devices," including "smart phones, mobile phones, wrist PDAs, thin clients, kiosks, tablet computers, desktops PCs, internet appliances, and other device know to those skilled in the art," suggesting the inventors contemplated a wide range of devices beyond a simple cellular phone (’083 Patent, col. 4:8-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself uses the specific term "mobile phone," not a broader term like "terminal device" or "handheld computer" which are used elsewhere in the specification. A party could argue that this specific word choice was intended to limit the claim to devices primarily used for voice communication, as was common at the time of invention.

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

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a core element of the alleged novelty, distinguishing the claimed method from prior art. The case may turn on whether the accused system's process for submitting payment meets this "no interaction" requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., less interaction allowed): The patent repeatedly emphasizes that the invention "eliminates the need for restaurant staff to be involved in payment processing and/or collection" and enables a customer to pay "completely autonomously" (Compl. ¶31, 36). This suggests the limitation is meant to exclude any staff role in the financial transaction itself.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., more interaction allowed): The claim language specifies that the "payment is submitted without interaction." A party may argue this only applies to the literal electronic submission step and does not exclude staff interaction in other parts of the checkout or order fulfillment process, such as a customer asking a question or staff handing over the completed order.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing a mobile app and "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using that app in practicing the method claimed" (Compl. ¶51).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent and its infringing activities since "at least March 23, 2023" (Compl. ¶16, 46). It further alleges that after becoming aware of its infringement, Defendant "made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" (Compl. ¶47, 55).

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

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court's answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mobile phone", originating from a patent with a 2002 priority date, be construed to cover the sophisticated, app-driven computing devices that are modern smartphones?

2. A key question of fact and law will be the interpretation of the negative limitation: does the accused payment process, within the context of a quick-service restaurant where staff physically deliver the product, truly operate "without interaction with staff" as required by the asserted claim?