Analytical Tech LLC v. Zaxby's Franchising LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Zaxby's Franchising LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00056, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically multiple Zaxby's quick service restaurant locations, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for ordering and payment infringes a patent related to customer-managed restaurant service systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of mobile ordering, payment, and customer data management systems for the restaurant industry, aiming to automate the customer experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual notice of the patent and its alleged infringement since at least March 23, 2023. The complaint also contains a significant section preemptively arguing for the patent's subject matter eligibility, suggesting Plaintiff anticipates a challenge on that basis. The asserted patent 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

• Issued: August 5, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that at the time of invention, traditional restaurant systems were "antiquated," "cumbersome," and ill-suited for a new generation of tech-savvy customers who value time and "enjoy continuous and interactive entertainment" (’083 Patent, col. 1:41-49). These systems were described as being overly dependent on restaurant staff (’083 Patent, col. 1:52-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is described as a system that enables a customer to use a terminal device, such as a mobile phone, to manage their dining experience autonomously. This includes ordering food from an interactive menu, customizing the order, and performing a "self-checkout" process to pay the bill electronically, all without requiring direct involvement from restaurant staff (’083 Patent, col. 4:26-30, col. 4:46-61; Compl. ¶21). The system aims to integrate pre-dining, dining, and post-dining phases of the customer experience (’083 Patent, col. 3:20-25).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to integrate various disparate restaurant systems into a single, comprehensive solution that shifts control of the ordering and payment process to the customer, thereby aiming to increase efficiency and reduce costs (Compl. ¶20, ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44, ¶50).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • 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 allegations are for "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's Zaxby's mobile app (Compl. ¶38, ¶40).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Zaxby's mobile app allows customers to use their mobile phones to place and pay for orders of food and beverages (Compl. ¶38). Specifically, the app is alleged to provide a menu from which a customer selects items, after which a bill is uploaded to the customer's mobile phone for payment (Compl. ¶39). The complaint characterizes the Zaxby's 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 references "Claim charts attached as Exhibit 2" that "identify specifically how each element of at least claim 1 of the '083 patent is practiced by the mobile app" (Compl. ¶44). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document.

In prose, the complaint alleges that the Zaxby's mobile app infringes Claim 1 of the ’083 patent. The infringement theory appears to be that the app constitutes a system that practices the claimed method. The complaint alleges that by using the app, customers send a request for service from their mobile phone, the system uploads a bill to that phone, and the customer completes a self-checkout and payment process via the mobile phone (Compl. ¶39). A central allegation is that this process occurs "without the involvement of the staff of the restaurant," which mirrors the final limitation of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶30, ¶33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears to be a core inventive concept, distinguishing the claimed method from prior art ordering systems that required staff involvement in payment. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case could turn on whether the Zaxby's app and associated service can truly be said to operate "without interaction." The definition of "interaction" will be critical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., less interaction is infringing): The claim language itself is broad, not specifying the type or stage of interaction prohibited. A plaintiff may argue any staff involvement in the payment submission process itself is precluded. The patent describes a "self-checkout" where the customer can "close their account and leave the establishment when they wish, without having to wait" for staff (‛083 Patent, col. 21:26-30).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., more interaction is non-infringing): A defendant may argue that "interaction" is limited to the specific electronic act of payment submission, and that other interactions (e.g., a staff member handing the completed order to the customer) are irrelevant to the claim. The patent describes the invention as eliminating the need for staff in "payment processing and/or collection" (Compl. ¶31) and notes that a server can still be paged for "human intervention" (‛083 Patent, col. 18:28-30), which may suggest some level of staff interaction is contemplated by the patent.

The Term: "mobile phone"

• Context and Importance: While seemingly straightforward, the scope of this term may be disputed. The claim is limited to a "mobile phone," but the specification describes the invention in the context of a much wider array of "terminal devices." Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claim scope is limited to the plain meaning of "mobile phone" or if it can be interpreted more broadly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a wide genus of "terminal devices," including "handheld computers, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)," "kiosks, tablet computers, desktops PCs," and other devices (‛083 Patent, col. 4:6-12). A plaintiff might argue that "mobile phone" should be read in light of this broader disclosure as representative of a category of portable, connected devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly uses the specific term "mobile phone" rather than the broader "terminal device" used throughout the specification. A defendant may argue this represents a deliberate choice by the patentee to claim a narrower invention, and that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, excluding devices like tablets or kiosks that are not primarily phones.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides its mobile app to end-users and provides instructions, aiding and abetting them to practice the patented method in the app's "normal and customary way" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint alleges Defendant acts with knowledge and specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶52).

Willful Infringement

• The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’083 Patent since "at least March 23, 2023" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant "has made no effort to alter its services" and has continued its allegedly infringing activities, demonstrating "blatant and egregious disregard for AT's patent rights" (Compl. ¶46-47, ¶55).

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

1. A central issue will be one of patent eligibility: Plaintiff has dedicated significant portions of the complaint to arguing that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific technological improvement over prior art restaurant systems. The case may hinge on whether the court views Claim 1 as a patent-eligible application of an idea or an abstract process of customer self-service merely implemented on a generic mobile device.

2. A key infringement question will be the definitional scope of the claim limitation "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant." The viability of the infringement claim will depend on what level and type of human interaction is permissible under this limitation and what evidence is presented regarding the actual customer experience when using the Zaxby's mobile app service.

3. A third key question will be one of claim construction: The dispute may turn on whether the term "mobile phone" is limited to its plain meaning or can be interpreted more broadly to encompass the full range of "terminal devices" described in the patent specification, which could impact the scope of accused instrumentalities.