DCT
2:24-cv-00445
Analytical Tech LLC v. American Dairy Queen Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: American Dairy Queen Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00445, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, including multiple Dairy Queen restaurants, and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online food ordering platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for managing restaurant customer data, specifically enabling customers to order and pay remotely via a mobile device without staff interaction.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the restaurant industry's shift towards digital and mobile-first customer service models, aiming to increase efficiency and cater to tech-savvy consumers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement since at least March 23, 2023, a fact that may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | ’083 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/404,462) |
| 2014-08-05 | ’083 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-23 | Alleged date of Defendant’s actual notice of the ’083 Patent |
| 2024-06-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 traditional restaurant systems as "antiquated," "cumbersome," and ill-suited for a "current generation of restaurant customers" who are tech-savvy, value time, and expect interactive experiences (’083 Patent, col. 1:41-58; Compl. ¶18). These legacy systems were highly dependent on "management and control from restaurant staff" (’083 Patent, col. 1:57-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for a "customer-managed dining experience" where a customer can use a personal device to interact with the restaurant, place an order, and complete payment without needing to involve staff (’083 Patent, col. 10:29-32; Compl. ¶21). The system is designed to receive service requests from a mobile phone, send a bill to that phone, and facilitate a "Self-Checkout" process where payment is submitted electronically, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing staff workload (Compl. ¶27-28, ¶31).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to automate key parts of the customer service cycle, particularly ordering and payment, to reduce restaurant operational costs and improve the speed and convenience of the customer experience (’083 Patent, col. 8:30-33; Compl. ¶31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "at least claim 1" of the ’083 Patent (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief is broad, seeking judgment on "each and every Claim in this Complaint" (Compl. p. 13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s "online food ordering platform" and the associated mobile application and services (Compl. ¶38-40).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant offers an online platform through which customers use their mobile phones to place and pay for food and beverage orders (Compl. ¶38). This platform allegedly provides a menu, allows item selection, "uploads a bill for those selected food items," and enables the customer to pay via their mobile phone (Compl. ¶39). The complaint characterizes Dairy Queen as a "prominent and iconic restaurant" brand, suggesting the accused platform operates at a significant commercial scale (Compl. ¶37).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an Exhibit B, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶44). The following analysis is based on the narrative 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 online platform receives requests from customers using their mobile phones to place orders for food and beverages from a menu. | ¶38, ¶39 | col. 6:22-30 |
| uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; | Defendant's platform "uploads a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone." | ¶39 | col. 6:60-65 |
| performing a self-checkout ... 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 his/her mobile phone" in a process described as completely autonomous and eliminating the need for staff involvement in payment processing. | ¶31, ¶36, ¶39 | col. 8:21-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant" will be a central issue. The dispute may turn on whether this limitation applies only to the moment of payment submission or to the entire ordering and fulfillment process. For example, a court may have to decide if a customer picking up an order from a staff member constitutes "interaction with staff" that would avoid infringement.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused platform’s display of a checkout summary in a mobile web browser or app constitutes "uploading... a bill... to the mobile phone" as taught in the patent. The parties may dispute whether this is a distinct step of sending a data file or merely rendering a webpage.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mobile phone"
Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical for determining whether the patent, with a 2002 priority date, reads on modern smartphone applications and web browsers. Defendant may argue for a narrow construction limited to the specific technologies described in the patent (e.g., WAP-enabled phones), while Plaintiff will likely argue for a broader meaning encompassing current mobile devices.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of "terminal devices," including "smart phones, mobile phones, wrist PDAs, thin clients, kiosks, tablet computers, desktops PCs, internet appliances, and other device know to those skilled in the art" (’083 Patent, col. 4:8-11). This language suggests the inventor did not intend to limit the invention to the specific mobile technology of the time.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that references to specific, now-dated protocols like "WAP (Wireless Application Protocol), XHTML, CHTML, SMS" suggest the intended scope was limited to the capabilities of mobile devices of that era, not modern app-based ecosystems (’083 Patent, col. 12:24-26).
The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim hinges on this negative limitation. Its construction will define the boundary between an infringing automated process and a non-infringing process that still involves restaurant employees. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity creates a clear point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the goal of creating a "customer-managed dining experience" and eliminating staff from payment collection to reduce costs and increase efficiency (Compl. ¶31). This thematic focus could support a broad reading where any required, non-optional interaction with staff during the ordering or payment process would fall outside the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "self-checkout" process where the customer reviews the bill and submits payment electronically, noting "The restaurant's staff is not involved in this process" (Compl. ¶27-28). A party might argue this language narrows the "no interaction" requirement specifically to the bill review and payment submission steps, not necessarily to order pickup or other ancillary activities.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using that online food ordering platform in practicing the method claimed" and by aiding and abetting their direct infringement (Compl. ¶51).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’083 Patent since "at least March 23, 2023," and Defendant’s alleged continuation of infringing activities and failure to "alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" after receiving notice (Compl. ¶16, ¶46-47, ¶54-55).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the limitation "without interaction with staff," which is central to the patent's claimed advance over the prior art, be met by the accused Dairy Queen mobile ordering system, which may still require staff involvement for order fulfillment and customer support?
- A second key issue will be claim construction: does the term "mobile phone," originating from a 2002 priority filing, broadly cover modern smartphones running sophisticated applications and web browsers, or is its scope limited by the specific mobile technologies described in the patent?
- An important evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what specific evidence will show that the accused platform’s functionality of displaying an order summary on a screen constitutes "uploading... a bill... to the mobile phone" in the manner required by the claim?