DCT
2:24-cv-00446
Analytical Tech LLC v. Dennys Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Denny's Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00446, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, including a specific restaurant location in Tyler, Texas, and having committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online food ordering platform infringes a patent related to customer-managed restaurant ordering and payment via a mobile device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated systems for restaurant management that allow customers to use personal devices to order and pay for meals, aiming to increase efficiency and adapt to modern consumer behavior.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual notice of the patent and its infringement since at least March 23, 2023. The patent itself claims priority through a chain of applications dating back to a 2002 provisional application. The complaint includes a section arguing that the claims are directed to patentable subject matter, anticipating a potential defense under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | Earliest Priority Date ('’083 Patent) |
| 2012-06-27 | '083 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-08-05 | '083 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-23 | Alleged Date of Defendant's Actual Notice of '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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that at the time of invention, the restaurant industry was using "antiquated systems" that were "cumbersome" and failed to meet the needs of a new generation of tech-savvy, impatient customers who value interactive experiences ('083 Patent, col. 1:47-54). Traditional dining models were overly dependent on staff for ordering and payment, leading to inefficiencies ('083 Patent, col. 21:26-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system where a customer can use a "mobile phone" to interact with a restaurant's system to order food and perform a "self-checkout" process to pay the bill electronically, all "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant" ('083 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). This customer-managed process integrates ordering, payment, and other services (e.g., loyalty rewards) into a cohesive digital experience, shifting control from the restaurant staff to the customer ('083 Patent, col. 3:1-12).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to integrate disparate restaurant functions (ordering, payment, kitchen management) into a single, comprehensive digital solution that could reduce operational costs and improve the customer experience ('083 Patent, col. 10:36-44; Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- 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 references infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "online food ordering platform" accessible through the Denny's® brand (Compl. ¶37-38).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the platform allows customers to use their mobile phones to access a menu, select food and beverage items, and subsequently receive and pay a bill via their mobile phone (Compl. ¶39). This service is part of the offerings of a "prominent and iconic restaurant" brand (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges this platform "incorporates the technology covered by the claims of the '083 patent" (Compl. ¶40).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit B" which was not publicly available with the initial filing (Compl. ¶44). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'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 platform allows customers to "use their mobile phones to place...orders for food items and/or beverages" from a provided menu. | ¶38-39 | col. 5:21-26 |
| uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and | The platform "uploads a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone." | ¶39 | col. 6:62-65 |
| 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 via his/her mobile phone" for the bill that was uploaded to the phone. | ¶39 | col. 7:22-32 |
| wherein the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant. | The complaint alleges the claimed method enables a customer to "purchase food items and/or beverages from a restaurant completely autonomously." | ¶31 | col. 7:27-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "mobile phone", as defined in a patent with a 2002 priority date, can be construed to read on modern smartphones operating via dedicated applications or web browsers, as opposed to the more limited WAP-based devices contemplated in the specification.
- Technical Questions: The infringement read will depend on the factual operation of the accused platform. A key question will be whether payment is truly submitted "without interaction with staff." Evidence may be required to determine if the system allows for, or in some cases requires, staff involvement to complete or resolve payment issues, which could create a non-infringement argument for the defendant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mobile phone"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. The patent's priority date (2002) predates the modern smartphone era. Defendant may argue for a narrow construction limited to the types of devices and protocols explicitly disclosed, while Plaintiff will likely advocate for a broader definition that encompasses current technology.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "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" as examples of "terminal devices," suggesting the term was not meant to be narrowly limited ('083 Patent, col. 4:8-11).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of contemporaneous wireless protocols like "WAP (Wireless Application Protocol), XHTML, CHTML, SMS, or other protocols" ('083 Patent, col. 12:22-26). A party could argue these examples cabin the meaning of "mobile phone" to devices operating with such now-dated technologies.
The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a potential lynchpin of the non-infringement defense. Its scope will determine what level of human involvement vitiates infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because even a highly automated system may have corner cases or help functions that involve staff.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., less staff interaction allowed): The patent repeatedly emphasizes that a key benefit is automating processes so "restaurant staffs need not to be involved" in payment and checkout ('083 Patent, col. 7:30-32) and that the "Self-Checkout System can be an attracting element for customers" because it avoids waiting for staff ('083 Patent, col. 24:10-13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., more staff interaction allowed): The specification also describes a role for "wait staff educators" called "Animators" who "aid and educate the customer" and can "handle the complete transaction on behalf of the customer in their presence" ('083 Patent, col. 25:12-18). This could be used to argue that the invention accommodates, and does not wholly forbid, staff interaction, raising questions about what the claim term precisely prohibits.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating Defendant provides the online platform and "instructions to consumer end-users" on how to use it, thereby causing them to directly infringe the method claims (Compl. ¶51). The complaint asserts Defendant does so with knowledge and specific intent (Compl. ¶52).
Willful Infringement
- The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit notice of the '083 Patent as of March 23, 2023 (Compl. ¶16). The complaint further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant made "no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" (Compl. ¶47), which it characterizes as "blatant and egregious disregard for AT's patent rights."
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of patent eligibility: does Claim 1 recite a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101? The complaint’s preemptive defense of patentability (Compl. ¶29-36), arguing the claims are a specific, technological solution to a problem in restaurant systems and not abstract, signals that this will likely be a primary battleground in the case.
A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mobile phone", as understood in light of a specification with a 2002 priority date, be construed to cover the accused modern online ordering platform, which likely operates on current-generation smartphones and web technologies?
A key evidentiary question will be one of operational reality: does the accused Denny's platform, in practice, allow a customer to complete the entire payment process "without interaction with staff"? The case may turn on factual evidence regarding the system's design and whether it includes necessary or optional points of staff intervention that fall outside the claim's negative limitation.