Analytical Tech LLC v. Starbucks Corp Pursuant To Court Order Docket In Lead Case As Directed

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Starbucks Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00448, 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, specifically multiple Starbucks coffee shops, and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for ordering and payment infringes a patent related to customer-managed restaurant service systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile commerce platforms for the restaurant industry, enabling customers to order and pay for services using personal electronic devices.
• 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 which may be used to support the claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-08-19	'083 Patent Priority Date
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
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's background section describes the "traditional restaurant experience" as "antiquated" and ill-suited for a new generation of customers who are "highly competent with technology" and consider time a "valuable commodity" ('083 Patent, col. 2:36-44). Existing systems are described as cumbersome and overly dependent on restaurant staff, leading to inefficiencies and customer impatience (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system where customers use a personal "terminal device," such as a mobile phone, to manage aspects of their dining experience ('083 Patent, col. 4:5-12). The system allows a customer to receive a menu, place an order, and, critically, perform a "self-checkout" to submit payment electronically for services without requiring "interaction with staff associated with the restaurant" for the payment transaction ('083 Patent, col. 27:35-44). This process is intended to streamline ordering and payment, putting "a portion of the technology solution into the customer's hands" (Compl. ¶20).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve operational efficiency for restaurants and enhance customer satisfaction by reducing common friction points, such as waiting for a server to process a bill and credit card ('083 Patent, col. 22:21-27; Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
• The essential elements of 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 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 alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Starbucks mobile application ("mobile app") (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the mobile app provides functionality for customers to use their mobile phones to "place and pay for orders for food items and/or beverages" (Compl. ¶38). The app allegedly "provides a menu," "uploads a bill for those selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone," and allows the customer to pay using their device (Compl. ¶39).
• The complaint positions the accused product in the market by identifying Defendant as the owner of the "world's most prominent and iconic coffee shops" (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit B" which was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶44). The infringement theory, based on the complaint's narrative, is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the Starbucks mobile app directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the '083 patent. The theory suggests that a customer using the app to select menu items constitutes "receiving at least one request...from a mobile phone." It further alleges that when the app presents the total cost for the selected items, this constitutes "uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone." Finally, the complaint alleges that the customer paying through the app is "performing a self-checkout" where payment is submitted "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant," thereby mapping the app's functionality to all elements of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶29, 39).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the common "mobile order and pay" model, which typically requires a customer to retrieve the completed order from a staff member (a barista), falls within the scope of the claim limitation "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant." The interpretation of "interaction" will be central.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the app "uploads a bill" (Compl. ¶39). A technical question for the court will be whether the display of a shopping cart total and a "checkout" button within the app's user interface constitutes "uploading a bill" as that term is used in the patent, which may require analysis of the system's architecture and data flow.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in the wherein clause of Claim 1 and is the primary differentiator from prior art methods involving staff-mediated payment. Its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis, as it addresses the degree of automation required by the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue for a broader scope (i.e., that less automation is required) by pointing to the patent's contrast with the highly interactive prior art, where a server physically takes a credit card, processes it at a terminal, and returns with a receipt ('083 Patent, FIG. 7). This could support a reading where "interaction" is limited to the specific acts of payment collection and processing, not order fulfillment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue for a narrower scope by highlighting the patent's description of a fully autonomous process where the "customer is then free to leave" immediately after the electronic transaction completes ('083 Patent, col. 22:65-67). This could support an interpretation that any required physical contact with staff, including order pickup, constitutes "interaction" that places the accused method outside the claim's scope.

• The Term: "mobile phone"

• Context and Importance: The infringement case is predicated on activities performed on a modern smartphone. Practitioners may focus on this term to ensure the accused technology platform is squarely covered by the patent's disclosure, which dates to 2002.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of "terminal devices" that explicitly includes "smart phones, mobile phones, wrist PDAs, thin clients, kiosks, tablet computers, [and] internet appliances," among others ('083 Patent, col. 4:8-11). This language provides strong support for construing the term to cover modern smartphones running the accused app.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential arguments for a narrower interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing its mobile app to customers and "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using that app in practicing the method claimed," with knowledge and specific intent (Compl. ¶¶51-52).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint claims Defendant had "actual notice of the '083 Patent and its infringing activities since at least March 23, 2023" but continued its conduct "without authority" and made "no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" (Compl. ¶¶16, 46-47).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant", which describes the payment step, be construed to read on a service model where payment is automated but order fulfillment requires a customer to interact with a staff member at a pickup counter?
• A second central question will be one of technical and factual mapping: does the presentation of an order summary and payment prompt within the accused mobile app constitute "uploading... a bill" by a "system of a restaurant" in the manner described and claimed by the '083 patent, an issue that will depend on evidence regarding the app's and backend systems' specific operation.