DCT
2:24-cv-00307
Analytical Tech LLC v. Five Guys Properties LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Five Guys Properties, LLC (Jurisdiction not specified)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00307, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas, with specific restaurant locations cited.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for ordering and payment infringes a patent related to systems and methods for managing restaurant customer transactions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of mobile devices into the restaurant dining experience, specifically for customer-managed ordering and payment to increase efficiency and autonomy.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of an earlier patent and claims priority to a 2002 provisional application, potentially providing a very early priority date against subsequent developments in mobile commerce technology. The complaint includes pre-emptive arguments that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter and are not abstract.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 |
| 2012-06-27 | Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 |
| 2014-08-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 Issued |
| 2024-05-01 | Complaint Filed |
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, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the traditional restaurant service model as "antiquated" and "cumbersome," particularly for a new generation of tech-savvy customers who value time and interactive experiences (’083 Patent, col. 1:40-54). The conventional, staff-mediated checkout process is identified as a specific point of friction, being labor-intensive, slow, and creating security concerns for customers who must surrender their credit cards ('083 Patent, col. 21:7-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a customer-managed system where a patron uses a mobile device to perform tasks traditionally handled by restaurant staff. A core aspect is enabling a customer to review a menu, place an order, receive a bill on their device, and perform a "self-checkout" to pay the bill electronically, all "without interaction with staff" ('083 Patent, col. 27:40-28:4). This process is designed to integrate with the restaurant's Point of Sale (POS) and kitchen management systems to create a more seamless and autonomous dining experience ('083 Patent, col. 6:61-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve operational efficiency for restaurants through faster table turnover and reduced labor costs, while enhancing customer satisfaction by giving patrons more control, reducing wait times, and improving payment security ('083 Patent, col. 24:1-11; Compl. ¶¶ 30-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 44, Exhibit 2).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- 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 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 references infringement of "one or more claims" ('083 Patent, Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Five Guys application" or "mobile app" offered by Defendant (Compl. ¶37, 40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused mobile app allows customers to use their mobile phones to "place and pay for orders for items and/or beverages" (Compl. ¶37). The alleged functionality includes providing a menu, allowing a customer to select items, and then uploading a bill for those items to the customer's mobile phone, which the customer then pays using the phone (Compl. ¶39). Figure 2 presents three screenshots of the accused "Five Guys App," showing a welcome screen, a menu screen with burger options, and an order summary screen with an "ADD TO CART" button (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'083 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method, comprising: receiving at least one request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone; | Defendant's app allows users to view menus and select items to order, which constitutes receiving a request related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone. | ¶39, p. 11 | col. 6:22-26 |
| 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 those selected items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone." | ¶39 | col. 6:61-65 |
| 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 | The customer pays for the order via their mobile phone. | ¶39 | col. 21:30-31 |
| wherein the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant. | The payment is allegedly submitted through the mobile phone without the involvement of any restaurant staff. | ¶33 | col. 27:43-28:4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the meaning of "uploading... a bill... to the mobile phone." The litigation could focus on whether displaying an order summary and total within an application's user interface is equivalent to the patent's description of a restaurant's POS system formally "uploading the bill" to a customer's device ('083 Patent, col. 6:61-65).
- Technical Questions: The case raises the question of what constitutes "interaction with staff." While a customer may submit payment information through the app, the analysis may depend on whether any backend processes related to completing the transaction require manual staff intervention, which might remove the accused method from the scope of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "uploading... a bill"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because it defines the trigger for the self-checkout process. The defendant may argue for a narrow construction requiring the transmission of a static, finalized invoice, distinct from a dynamic in-app order summary, which could create a non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between displaying data in an app and formally "uploading a bill" is a potential point of technical and legal dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's general description focuses on providing the customer with checkout information on their device, which could support interpreting "uploading a bill" as any electronic presentation of charges for payment ('083 Patent, col. 4:46-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this step to the restaurant's Point of Sale system: "The RCMS then informs the point of sale (POS) system to upload the bill to the customer terminal device" ('083 Patent, col. 6:63-65). This could support a narrower definition tied to a specific action by a POS system, rather than just an app interface display.
The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the degree of automation required for infringement. It is a core feature of the claimed invention, distinguishing it from prior art methods where staff were involved in payment collection and processing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself, focusing on the submission of payment, could suggest that as long as the customer's act of paying does not involve staff, the limitation is met, regardless of other system processes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes a "Customer Self-Checkout" process that "eliminates the need for restaurant staff to be involved in payment processing and/or collection" ('083 Patent, col. 8:28-31) and automates the closing of the transaction in the POS system ('083 Patent, col. 7:28-31). This suggests the entire payment and closing loop must be automated to meet the limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by providing the mobile app to customers along with instructions on its use, thereby causing them to directly infringe the patent's method claims (Compl. ¶51). It is alleged Defendant acted with knowledge and specific intent (Compl. ¶52).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the '083 Patent and its infringement but continued its infringing activities without attempting to design around the claims, characterizing the conduct as reckless, deliberate, and intentional (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47, 54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "uploading... a bill," which the patent links to a specific action by a restaurant's POS system, be construed to cover the dynamic display of an order summary within the accused mobile application's user interface?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational fidelity: What evidence will show whether the accused system’s entire payment process, from customer submission to transaction finalization, operates "without interaction with staff" as contemplated by the patent, or if there are staff-dependent steps in the backend workflow that fall outside the claim's scope?
- A third question, prompted by the complaint's own structure, will concern patent eligibility: While the complaint makes a case for the claims being a specific technological improvement, the court will likely need to address whether the claims, rooted in automating a long-standing commercial practice, are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.