Analytical Tech LLC v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Oblon, McLelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00054, 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 "DICKEY'S BARBECUE PIT™" restaurants, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for online ordering and payment infringes a patent related to customer-managed restaurant transaction systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated mobile systems that allow restaurant customers to place orders and submit payment electronically, a central feature of the modern quick-service and casual dining industries.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer and is a continuation of an earlier application that issued as a U.S. Patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the patent and its alleged infringement as of March 23, 2023, which forms the basis for a willfulness claim.

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, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional restaurant systems as "antiquated," "cumbersome," and overly dependent on restaurant staff for managing the customer experience, failing to meet the needs of a more tech-savvy customer base that values efficiency. ('083 Patent, col. 2:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that allows a customer to manage their dining experience—from ordering to payment—using a personal device. The system integrates various restaurant functions (e.g., ordering, billing, payment) and presents them to the customer through a mobile interface, reducing the need for direct staff involvement, particularly in the payment process. ('083 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:27-33). The goal is to provide a "customer-managed dining experience." (Compl. ¶19).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents an effort to consolidate fragmented restaurant operations into a unified, customer-facing digital platform, improving both operational efficiency for the restaurant and convenience for the customer. ('083 Patent, col. 10:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶44).
• Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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 other claims, but infringement is alleged for "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s mobile app for placing and paying for orders. (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused mobile app provides customers with a menu from which they can select food and beverage items. (Compl. ¶39). After selection, the app allegedly "uploads a bill" to the customer's mobile phone, which the customer then pays directly through the phone. (Compl. ¶39). The complaint characterizes the "DICKEY'S BARBECUE PIT™" brand as a "prominent and iconic quick service restaurant brand." (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 to demonstrate infringement of Claim 1 but does not include the exhibit itself. (Compl. ¶44). Based on the complaint's narrative, the infringement theory is that Defendant's mobile app constitutes a "system" that performs the three main steps of asserted Claim 1. The complaint alleges that when customers use the app, they send a "request" for a service (ordering food), the app provides a "bill" (the order total), and the customer submits payment via the app in a "self-checkout" process that occurs "without interaction with staff." (Compl. ¶29, 39).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the scope of the claim term "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant." A key question is whether this limitation refers only to the specific act of the customer submitting payment electronically, or if it requires the entire payment and check-closing process to be free of any staff involvement, even on the back end.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be how Defendant's system actually processes a mobile payment. What actions, if any, must a restaurant employee take to process, finalize, or close out a transaction that is initiated by a customer through the mobile app? The complaint provides no specific evidence on the operational details of Defendant's POS or back-end systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wherein the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
• Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears to be the primary feature distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art and is central to the infringement analysis. The definition will determine whether the accused app, which may still rely on staff for order fulfillment, infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely dictate the outcome of the infringement dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff-favored): The patent describes a "self-checkout procedure" where the customer can "swipe their own credit card on the device" which then communicates with the POS system. ('083 Patent, col. 22:52-56). This language focuses on the customer's actions, suggesting the "no interaction" requirement applies to the customer-facing payment submission step, even if staff are involved elsewhere.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant-favored): The patent contrasts its invention with prior art where a server must "return to the POS system to close the transaction." ('083 Patent, col. 21:65-67). A defendant could argue this implies the entire transaction-closing workflow must be automated and staff-free. The patent also states the invention provides a "beneficial solution for both the customer and the operator," which a defendant might argue requires the full efficiency gain of removing staff from the payment loop entirely. ('083 Patent, col. 21:31-33).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant induces infringement by providing its mobile app to customers and "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using that app in practicing the method claimed." (Compl. ¶51).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant had "actual notice of the '083 Patent and Defendant's infringing activities since at least March 23, 2023," and continued to offer the accused services without alteration. (Compl. ¶16, 46-47).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the limitation "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"? The case will likely turn on whether this phrase precludes only direct, customer-facing staff involvement in the payment submission step, or whether it requires a fully automated back-end process where no employee action is needed to finalize the transaction.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming a claim construction, what evidence will demonstrate how the accused Dickey's mobile app and its associated back-end systems actually function? The outcome will depend on factual discovery into whether a restaurant employee's actions are required to process and close a mobile order, thereby creating an "interaction with staff" that would fall outside the scope of the claim.