Analytical Tech LLC v. Deliverycom LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Delivery.com, LLC (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00306, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district through its partnerships with local businesses in North Dallas, Collin County, and Denton County, which use Defendant’s platform for delivery services.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application and online ordering platform infringe patents related to systems and methods for managing restaurant ordering and payment via a customer's mobile device.
• Technical Context: The technology lies in the domain of digital platforms for remote food ordering and payment, a critical component of the modern restaurant, hospitality, and food delivery industries.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a common specification and are part of a patent family with a priority date reaching back to 2002. The shared specification may be significant for claim construction, as interpretations of terms in one patent could influence the other.

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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS", issued August 5, 2014. (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional restaurant systems as "antiquated" and "cumbersome," creating inefficiencies and failing to meet the expectations of modern, tech-savvy customers who value time and interactive experiences. (Compl. ¶17-18; ’083 Patent, col. 1:45-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a customer uses a mobile phone to manage their entire dining transaction without direct staff involvement. (Compl. ¶21). The process involves the restaurant’s system sending a menu to the user's phone, the user placing an order, and the system then uploading a bill to the phone for a "Self-Checkout" process, where the customer submits payment electronically. ('083 Patent, FIG. 8; col. 22:5-9).
• Technical Importance: The invention sought to integrate various restaurant technologies into a unified, customer-managed platform to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and improve the customer experience. (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶44, ¶50).
• Claim 1 of the '083 Patent recites the following essential elements:
  • A method comprising:
  • 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 alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 10,783,596 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,783,596, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS", issued September 22, 2020. (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '083 Patent, the '596 Patent addresses the same general problems of inefficiency in traditional restaurant ordering and payment. ('596 Patent, col. 10:29-51).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a more specific method focused on personalized ordering and payment splitting. It describes accessing a customer profile, forwarding an item selection, and submitting payment that is split either "evenly between at least two separate data element lists" or "by separate items" among different lists. ('596 Patent, col. 27:32-47). The specification details this functionality in its description of the "split bill handling act," which allows users to divide a bill in various ways. ('596 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 7:35-8:65).
• Technical Importance: This technology automates the complex and often error-prone task of splitting a check among multiple diners, a common friction point in group dining experiences. (Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶60, ¶66).
• Claim 1 of the '596 Patent recites the following essential elements:
  • A method comprising:
  • accessing a customer profile via a mobile device;
  • responsive to accessing the customer profile, forwarding at least one item selection via the mobile device;
  • receiving at least one data element list comprising the at least one item selection at the mobile device;
  • submitting payment data for the at least one item via the mobile device;
  • wherein the payment is split, via the mobile device, in at least one of a following manner: evenly between at least two separate data element lists; and by separate items, among the at least one item selection, between the at least two separate data element lists.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the mobile application and associated online ordering systems and services offered by Defendant Delivery.com, LLC. (Compl. ¶37). The complaint also notes that Defendant offers a Developer API that enables third-party applications to use its ordering services. (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant's mobile app allows customers to use their phones to "place and pay for orders for items and/or beverages." (Compl. ¶37). The service allegedly provides menus, facilitates customer selections, and then "uploads a bill for those selected items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone, which the customer pays via his/her mobile phone." (Compl. ¶39). The complaint alleges these services power online ordering for numerous third-party apps, including Foursquare and WeWork. (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 2 and 4 that detail the infringement allegations for the '083 and '596 Patents, respectively; however, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document. (Compl. ¶44, ¶60). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• '083 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Defendant’s mobile app directly infringes at least claim 1 of the '083 Patent. (Compl. ¶44). The infringement theory is that when a customer uses the app, they initiate a request for a menu from their mobile phone, satisfying the "receiving... a request" limitation. (Compl. ¶37, ¶39). The app then provides a bill to the user's phone after items are selected, meeting the "uploading... a bill" limitation. (Compl. ¶39). Finally, the customer pays for the order through the app's interface, which constitutes a "self-checkout... without interaction with staff" as claimed. (Compl. ¶37, ¶39).

• '596 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Defendant’s services infringe at least claim 1 of the '596 Patent. (Compl. ¶60). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how the accused product performs the payment splitting functionality required by claim 1 of the '596 Patent, instead referring to the unprovided claim chart exhibit. The core allegation is a general one that the accused products are covered by the patent's claims. (Compl. ¶60).

• Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '083 Patent may be whether Defendant's third-party aggregator platform, which serves many unaffiliated restaurants, qualifies as "a system of a restaurant" as recited in the claim. The defense may argue the patent is limited to systems operated by a single restaurant entity or chain, not a technology intermediary.
  • Technical Questions: For the '596 Patent, a key factual question is whether the Delivery.com platform provides the specific payment-splitting functionality claimed—namely, splitting a bill "evenly" between different parties or "by separate items." The complaint does not provide factual support for this element, creating a potential point of dispute over whether the accused product actually performs the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "a system of a restaurant" ('083 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the Defendant is a third-party technology platform, not a restaurant. Whether an aggregator platform falls within the scope of this term will likely be a dispositive issue for infringement of the '083 Patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "restaurant" as potentially being part of a "group, family, franchise or chain," which a plaintiff might argue supports a broader, networked interpretation that could include an aggregation of restaurants on a single platform. ('083 Patent, col. 4:55-59).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed descriptions and figures consistently depict a system operating within a single, physical restaurant environment (e.g., paging a server, self-checkout at a table), which may support a narrower construction limited to systems controlled by the restaurant establishment itself. ('083 Patent, col. 5:1-12; FIG. 8).

• Term: "data element list" ('596 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the '596 Patent requires splitting a payment between at least two "data element lists." The definition of this term is fundamental to the payment-splitting limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it means a complete bill, a sub-order for one person, or something else—will dictate how the splitting functionality is analyzed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a very broad definition of a "data element" as a "single piece of data," such as a name or a beverage preference. ('596 Patent, col. 4:36-39). This could support an argument that a "data element list" is simply any list of items, such as an entire itemized bill.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires splitting payment between two such lists. The specification's description of splitting a bill involves a first customer selecting their items, followed by a second customer, effectively creating distinct lists for each person. ('596 Patent, col. 8:52-65). This context suggests a "data element list" may be construed more narrowly as a sub-order associated with a specific payer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users" on how to use the mobile app in an infringing manner and by aiding and abetting their direct infringement. (Compl. ¶51, ¶67). The basis for contributory infringement is supplying the mobile app itself. (Compl. ¶51).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported "knowledge of the '083 Patent and its infringing activities." (Compl. ¶46, ¶62). The complaint further alleges that after becoming aware of the infringement, Defendant made "no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims." (Compl. ¶47, ¶63). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a system of a restaurant," which is described in the patent in the context of a single dining establishment, be construed to cover a third-party aggregator platform like Delivery.com that acts as an intermediary for numerous, independent restaurants?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does the plaintiff possess sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused Delivery.com platform performs the specific payment-splitting methods required by the '596 Patent—namely, dividing a payment "evenly" or "by separate items"—a technical detail not factually asserted in the body of the complaint?