DCT
2:24-cv-00444
Analytical Tech LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Tennessee)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00444, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple restaurant locations, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for ordering and payment infringes patents related to customer-managed restaurant service systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated systems that allow restaurant patrons to use personal mobile devices to order, manage, and pay for their dining experience with minimal or no interaction from restaurant staff.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents form a family, with U.S. Patent 8,799,083 being a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent 8,224,700, and U.S. Patent 9,911,164 being a continuation of the application that led to the ’083 patent. This shared specification suggests that claim terms may be interpreted consistently across the patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | Priority Date for ’700, ’083, and ’164 Patents |
| 2003-08-18 | Filing Date for U.S. Patent Application No. 10/642,841 |
| 2012-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,224,700 Issued |
| 2012-06-27 | Filing Date for U.S. Patent Application No. 13/534,195 |
| 2015-08-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 Issued |
| 2018-03-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,911,164 Issued |
| 2024-06-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,911,164 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS," Issued March 6, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem in the restaurant industry where "antiquated systems" are cumbersome, overly dependent on staff, and fail to meet the needs of a new generation of tech-savvy, impatient customers who value self-service and efficiency (’164 Patent, col. 1:41-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a comprehensive system allowing a customer to manage their entire dining experience—from pre-dining queue management to post-dining payment—using their mobile device (’164 Patent, col. 4:1-13). It integrates functions like reservations, ordering from an interactive menu, and self-checkout into a unified process, explicitly aiming to reduce the need for staff interaction, particularly during payment (’164 Patent, FIG. 8; col. 21:26-31).
- Technical Importance: The invention proposed unifying disparate restaurant technologies (e.g., POS, table management, kitchen systems) into a single customer-facing platform, aiming to improve both customer satisfaction and operational efficiency (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- Logging a customer unit into a restaurant dining system with a mobile device.
- When no table is available, placing the customer on a waiting list and informing them via the mobile device when the table is ready.
- Receiving and storing customer data (e.g., menu selections) in a database.
- Uploading a bill for at least one item to the mobile device.
- Performing a self-checkout where payment is submitted via the mobile device "without interaction with a restaurant worker."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
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: As a parent to the ’164 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: traditional restaurant service models are inefficient and ill-suited for "Generation X" customers who are competent with technology and consider time a valuable commodity (’083 Patent, col. 1:36-45; Compl. ¶22-23).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for processing a restaurant order where a customer uses a mobile phone to request a menu, receives a bill on the phone, and performs a "self-checkout" to submit payment electronically "without interaction with staff" (’083 Patent, col. 28:35-44). This customer-managed process is intended to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and minimize errors associated with staff-led payment collection (’083 Patent, col. 21:5-14; Compl. pg. 9).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to empower customers to handle their own ordering and payment, a significant departure from the staff-centric model prevalent at the time (Compl. pg. 6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- Receiving a request related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone.
- A restaurant system uploading a bill for the service to the mobile phone.
- A customer performing a self-checkout, submitting payment via the mobile phone to the system "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,224,700 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS," Issued July 17, 2012
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,224,700, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS," Issued July 17, 2012 (Compl. ¶14).
- Technology Synopsis: As the parent patent in the asserted family, the '700 patent discloses the foundational system for a customer-managed restaurant experience. It describes methods for a customer to use a mobile phone to log into a pre-dining system, be placed on a waiting list, receive an interactive menu, and perform a self-checkout and payment via their mobile device, thereby minimizing staff involvement (’700 Patent, col. 12:50-65).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶58).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's mobile app, which allows customers to place and pay for orders, practices the claimed method (Compl. ¶25-27, ¶58).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the mobile application ("mobile app") offered by Defendant Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the mobile app allows customers to use their mobile phones to "place and pay for orders for food items and/or beverages" (Compl. ¶25). The app is alleged to provide a menu for item selection and then upload a bill to the customer's mobile phone, which the customer then pays using the phone (Compl. ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,911,164 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| logging a customer unit into a restaurant dining system with a mobile device | Defendant's mobile app allows customers to access its restaurant system using their mobile phones. | ¶25 | col. 4:9-13 |
| when no table at the restaurant is available: placing the customer unit on a waiting list for a table; and informing the customer unit via the mobile device that the table is ready... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 6:26-59 | |
| receiving and storing at least one customer data element from the customer unit in a database, wherein the at least one customer data element comprises... at least one of a menu item selection... | Defendant's mobile app provides a menu from which a customer selects food items. | ¶26 | col. 6:20-28 |
| uploading, by the restaurant dining system, a bill for the at least one item to the mobile device | The mobile app "uploads a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone." | ¶26 | col. 21:32-35 |
| performing a self-checkout whereby payment... is submitted by the customer unit via the mobile device... without interaction with a restaurant worker. | The customer "pays via his/her mobile phone." This allegedly incorporates the patented technology of autonomous payment. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 21:55-66 |
U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 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 | The mobile app provides a menu from which a customer can select one or more food items. | ¶26 | col. 17:4-9 |
| uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone | The mobile app "uploads a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone." | ¶26 | col. 21:32-35 |
| performing a self-checkout... wherein the payment is submitted... via the mobile phone... without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant. | The customer "pays via his/her mobile phone," which is alleged to enable payment completely autonomously. | ¶26, ¶27; pg. 9 | col. 28:40-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: For the ’164 Patent, a primary question will be whether the accused mobile app performs the "waiting list" and "table ready" notification functions as required by claim 1. The complaint's general infringement allegation does not specify facts to support this particular limitation.
- Scope Questions: A central dispute for all asserted patents may concern the scope of the phrase "without interaction with staff." The question is whether the accused app, which may be used for takeout orders requiring pickup from staff, meets this limitation as defined in the patent, which emphasizes a "customer-managed dining experience" (’083 Patent, col. 15:30-31).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant" (’083 Patent, Claim 1) / "without interaction with a restaurant worker" (’164 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the technological core of the invention as framed by the Plaintiff, distinguishing it from prior art staff-dependent payment processes (Compl. pg. 9). Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the nature and degree of "interaction" in the accused system (e.g., for order pickup) will be scrutinized.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of a "self-checkout procedure" where a customer can "swipe their own credit card on the device" and the server is "released" could support a reading where the limitation applies specifically to the financial transaction steps, not the entire service from order to pickup (’083 Patent, col. 21:55-62; FIG. 8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s repeated emphasis on creating a fully "customer-managed dining experience" and eliminating inefficiencies of staff involvement could support a construction requiring near-total autonomy from ordering through fulfillment, potentially excluding scenarios like staff-assisted takeout handoffs (’083 Patent, col. 15:30-31; col. 21:26-31).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by supplying the mobile app and "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using that app" in a way that practices the patented methods (Compl. ¶38, ¶51, ¶63). Plaintiff alleges Defendant aids and abets infringement with knowledge and specific intent to cause the infringing acts by end-users (Compl. ¶39, ¶52, ¶64).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Even after becoming aware of its direct infringement," Defendant "has made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims," suggesting a basis for willful infringement based on post-notice conduct (Compl. ¶33, ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "without interaction with staff" be construed to read on a system where payment is autonomous but order fulfillment involves interaction with a restaurant employee, such as at a takeout counter?
- A key evidentiary question for the ’164 Patent will be one of factual proof: does the accused Cracker Barrel mobile app in fact perform the "waiting list" and "table ready" notification functions recited in claim 1, and what is the legal consequence if it does not?