DCT
2:24-cv-00090
Analytical Tech LLC v. Little Caesar Enterprises Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00090, E.D. Tex., 02/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically multiple Little Caesar's restaurant locations, and having 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 the integration of mobile devices with restaurant point-of-sale systems to automate the customer ordering and payment process, reducing the need for staff interaction.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a 2002 provisional application. Plaintiff is an assignee of the patent and states its business is licensing patented technology. The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual notice of the patent and its alleged infringement since at least March 23, 2023, a fact which may be material to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | ’083 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-27 | ’083 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-08-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 Issues |
| 2023-03-23 | Alleged Date of Defendant's Actual Notice of Patent |
| 2024-02-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 asserts that at the time of invention, traditional restaurant systems were "antiquated" and "cumbersome," failing to meet the needs of a new generation of tech-savvy and impatient customers. These systems were overly dependent on restaurant staff for ordering and payment processing (Compl. ¶18; ’083 Patent, col. 1:37-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system that allows a customer to manage their dining transaction using a mobile device. As described, a customer can use a mobile phone to order from a menu, and the restaurant system then uploads a bill to the phone, allowing the customer to "self-checkout" and submit payment electronically without direct interaction with staff (’083 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:27-41; Claim 1). This process is intended to give the customer more control and improve efficiency (’083 Patent, col. 10:26-32).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes integrating disparate technologies into a "single comprehensive solution" to create a "customer-managed dining experience" and put "a portion of the technology solution into the customer's hands" (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
- 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 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 states that the accused products are covered by "one or more claims," potentially reserving the right to assert other independent or dependent claims (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the mobile application ("mobile app") offered by Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶38-40).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that the accused mobile app allows customers to use their mobile phones to view a menu, select food items or beverages, and place and pay for orders (Compl. ¶38). The app allegedly "uploads a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone, which the customer pays via his/her mobile phone" (Compl. ¶39).
- The complaint positions the Defendant as the owner of the "world's most prominent and iconic quick service restaurant brand" (Compl. ¶37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’083 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving at least one request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone; | Defendant's mobile app provides a menu from which a customer can select one or more food items, constituting a request for a service from the mobile phone. | ¶39 | col. 24:36-38 |
| uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and | The mobile app allegedly uploads a bill for the selected food items to the customer's mobile phone for review and payment. | ¶39 | col. 24:39-41 |
| 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 customer pays for the order via the mobile app. The complaint alleges the patented invention enables payment without involvement of restaurant staff. | ¶¶29, 39 | col. 24:41-47 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the term "bill." A question for the court will be whether the display of an order summary or a checkout screen within the accused mobile app constitutes "uploading ... a bill" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the negative limitation "without interaction with staff." The inquiry will focus on whether the accused system's complete payment process, including any backend or point-of-sale operations, requires any action or confirmation by a restaurant employee, or if the process is fully automated from the customer's payment submission.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bill"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of the second element of Claim 1 hinges on whether the order summary or checkout interface in the accused app meets the definition of a "bill." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern app interfaces may differ from the "bill" concept envisioned in the 2002-era priority document.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses an "itemized bill" being "presented to the customer unit" for review, which could support an interpretation that any summary of items and charges, such as a checkout screen, qualifies (’083 Patent, col. 4:56-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the bill being retrieved from the "restaurant Point of Sale (POS) terminal," which could suggest a more formal, finalized document generated by a specific system, rather than a dynamic order summary in an app (’083 Patent, col. 4:50-51).
The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the patent's asserted technological improvement over the prior art. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused payment process, from end-to-end, is free of any required staff action.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that after payment, "the customer is free to leave at will, without having to wait for wait staff to close down the account" (’083 Patent, col. 20:19-22). This could support a customer-centric view, where the limitation is met if the customer's actions do not require interfacing with staff, regardless of automated backend processes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art where a server must "manually" complete steps at the POS system (’083 Patent, col. 22:1-3). This could support an argument that if any manual staff action is required on a POS terminal to accept or finalize the mobile payment, the limitation is not met.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides its mobile app to end-users with the knowledge and specific intent that their use of the app in its "normal and customary way" will constitute direct infringement of the patent's method claims (Compl. ¶¶50-52).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving "actual notice" of the ’083 patent on or before March 23, 2023. The complaint alleges Defendant made "no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" (Compl. ¶¶46-47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "bill," which originates in the context of a physical or POS-generated receipt, be construed to cover the display of an order summary within a modern quick-service restaurant mobile application?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational independence: does the accused payment system function entirely "without interaction with staff" as required by the claim, or is there a dependent backend action required by a restaurant employee that places the system's operation outside the literal scope of the patent?
- A threshold legal question will be patent eligibility: are the claims directed to a specific, technological improvement in restaurant management systems, or do they claim an abstract idea of automating a business process, raising a potential challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which the complaint preemptively addresses (Compl. ¶¶29-36)?