DCT
2:24-cv-01052
Tiare Technology Inc v. CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tiare Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc. (Delaware) and Carl's Jr. Restaurants LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm PC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01052, E.D. Tex., 12/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants operate multiple regular and established places of business (Carl's Jr. stores) in the District, distribute the accused mobile application to users in the District, and derive substantial revenue from these activities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Carl's Jr. mobile ordering application infringes three patents related to systems and methods for mobile ordering combined with user location tracking.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of mobile ordering platforms with location-tracking capabilities to streamline service fulfillment, a critical component of the modern quick-service restaurant and retail industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights that the asserted patent family underwent extensive examination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including overcoming rejections based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It also notes that in prior litigation against a different defendant, the same court denied a motion to dismiss challenging the eligibility of the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’729, ’414, and ’224 Patents |
| 2014-03-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 Issues |
| 2018-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 Issues |
| 2021-07-31 | Earliest Date of Accused Functionality Mentioned in Complaint |
| 2021-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 Issues |
| 2024-12-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,682,729 - "Patron Service System and Method"
- Issued: March 25, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in service environments like resorts, where patrons struggle to place orders and staff struggle to locate patrons for delivery, especially if the patron moves after ordering (Compl. ¶¶36-38; ’414 Patent, col. 1:39-2:9). Conventional solutions like centrally-located kiosks or staff-operated handheld terminals failed to adequately address the problem of tracking a mobile patron to ensure timely service (Compl. ¶¶37-38; ’414 Patent, col. 2:22-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a patron uses a "wireless patron unit" (e.g., a mobile device) running a venue-specific application to place an order. The system connects this unit to a central server and, crucially, determines the unit's location. As the patron moves within the venue, the system updates both the order status and the patron's location, allowing staff to efficiently find the patron and fulfill the order (Compl. ¶¶39, 63-74; ’414 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a claimed technical improvement over prior art by integrating real-time location tracking of a customer's personal device with the ordering process, solving a key logistical challenge in service delivery (Compl. ¶¶35, 39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- Providing a patron with a wireless patron unit.
- Connecting the wireless patron unit to a server.
- Entering a patron order for at least one item or service into the wireless patron unit.
- Determining a current location of the wireless patron unit.
- Updating a status of the patron order, and the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location.
- Displaying the patron order on the wireless patron unit.
U.S. Patent No. 10,157,414 - "Patron Service System and Method"
- Issued: December 18, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the parent ’729 Patent, this patent addresses the technical problem of delivering services efficiently to mobile patrons within a large venue, where locating the customer is a primary obstacle (’414 Patent, col. 1:39-2:9).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a server-side method where the system provides a "venue-specific application" to a user's mobile device. The server authenticates the user, receives initial location information from the device, and maps that location to a defined region within the venue. After an order is placed, the server receives updated location information, allowing it to track the device's new position at a second point in time for order fulfillment (’414 Patent, Abstract, Claim 8).
- Technical Importance: This server-centric approach represents a specific technical architecture for solving the mobile ordering and fulfillment problem, focusing on centralized tracking and management of user location data relative to venue-defined regions (Compl. ¶¶39, 41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶77).
- Essential elements of claim 8 include:
- A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors.
- Providing a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device over a wireless channel.
- Communicating with the device to authenticate a user.
- Receiving location information from the device.
- Determining a device location at a first time based on the location information.
- Mapping the location to a region associated with a venue.
- Receiving order information from the device.
- Receiving updated location information from the device.
- Determining an updated device location at a second time based on the updated information.
U.S. Patent No. 11,195,224 - "Patron Service System and Method"
Issued: December 7, 2021
Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for locating electronic devices. The system provides a venue-specific application to multiple mobile devices, receives location signals from each, and determines their locations. When one device places an order, the system sends data indicating that specific device's updated location to a separate computing system associated with the venue for display in a graphical user interface, thereby enabling staff to find the ordering customer (’224 Patent, Abstract, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (’224 Patent, col. 27:10-28:44; Compl. ¶94).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' system, comprising its mobile application and associated backend servers, infringes by providing the app to users, receiving initial and updated location information from their devices, and using this information to facilitate order fulfillment at its restaurant venues (Compl. ¶¶97-108).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendants’ "Carl's Jr." mobile application and the associated mobile-ordering system (Compl. ¶¶1, 53).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused application allows a user to locate nearby Carl's Jr. restaurants, browse the menu, customize and place an order, and submit payment (Compl. ¶¶53-54, 68). The complaint alleges that a key functionality is the use of the mobile device's location services to identify an initial location (e.g., to find a local store) and to track the user's arrival at the restaurant for order pickup (Compl. ¶55). The complaint provides screenshots from the application showing a user selecting a nearby store and a checkout screen that indicates "LOCATION SHARED" (Compl. p. 15). The complaint asserts that the mobile ordering market has grown exponentially and that Defendants have derived significant revenue and benefits from the accused application (Compl. ¶¶1, 58).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’729 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing at least one patron with a wireless patron unit... | Defendants provide a venue specific application program (the Carl's Jr. app) for patrons to download onto their own wireless communication devices (smartphones). | ¶66 | col. 25:20-30 |
| connecting the wireless patron unit to a server... | The application connects the patron's smartphone to a server over a Wi-Fi or cellular connection to enable communication. | ¶67 | col. 25:31-33 |
| entering a patron order for at least one item or service... | A user enters an order for food items from the store menu into the application on their smartphone. A screenshot shows a user's order in "YOUR BAG" (Compl. p. 18). | ¶68 | col. 25:34-37 |
| determining a current location of the wireless patron unit | The application and its backend system determine the current location of the smartphone, for example, to find local stores. | ¶69 | col. 25:38-39 |
| updating a status of the patron order, and the current location of the wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location... | The system tracks the smartphone's location to determine when the user is in proximity to the store for pickup, representing an updated location, and updates order status. | ¶¶71, 73 | col. 25:40-44 |
| displaying the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit | The application displays the patron's order details on the smartphone's screen. | ¶74 | col. 25:45-47 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent specification frequently uses a resort or cruise ship as an exemplary "venue." A question for the court may be whether the patent's scope, particularly the term "venue," can be construed to read on a geographically dispersed network of quick-service restaurants.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "updating... the current location... when the patron moves to a different location." Does the accused functionality—which allegedly tracks a user's arrival at a single restaurant from a remote starting point—constitute the type of movement "to a different location" contemplated by the patent, which describes patrons moving between different areas within a single service environment (e.g., from a beach chair to a pool area)?
’414 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing... a venue-specific application to a mobile computing device | Defendants provide the Carl's Jr. application over a wireless channel (e.g., the internet) to users' mobile devices. | ¶81 | col. 26:10-13 |
| communicating... with the mobile computing device... to authenticate... a user... | The system authenticates a user via login and password credentials and secures communications. | ¶¶82-84 | col. 26:14-18 |
| receiving... location information from the mobile computing device | The system receives precise geolocation information from the device's location services, as disclosed in Defendants' privacy policy (Compl. p. 16). | ¶85 | col. 26:19-20 |
| determining... a location of the mobile computing device at a first time... | Based on the received data, the system determines the device's location at a first time, for example, to find nearby stores. | ¶87 | col. 26:21-23 |
| mapping... the location to a region that is associated with a venue | The system maps the determined location to a region associated with a specific Carl's Jr. store or group of stores for mobile ordering. | ¶88 | col. 26:24-26 |
| receiving, from the mobile computing device, order information for the venue... | The system receives order information indicating a user's selection of menu items from the venue-specific application. | ¶89 | col. 26:27-29 |
| receiving... updated location information from the mobile computing device | The system receives updated location information as the user travels and approaches the selected store for pickup. | ¶90 | col. 26:30-32 |
| determining... an updated location of the mobile computing device at a second time... | Based on the updated information, the system determines the device's updated location at a later time, such as upon arrival at the store. | ¶91 | col. 26:33-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim requires "mapping... the location to a region that is associated with a venue." A central question may be the definition of "mapping" and "region." Does simply identifying the single closest restaurant based on GPS coordinates satisfy this limitation, or does the claim require a more complex process of associating predefined geographic zones with specific service areas, as might be necessary in a large resort with multiple service points?
- Technical Questions: How does the accused system technically "map" a location? The complaint alleges this occurs (Compl. ¶88), but the supporting evidence focuses on finding a nearby store and tracking proximity. The factual evidence needed to show that the system defines a "region" and performs a "mapping" operation, as opposed to a simple proximity calculation, may be a point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "venue"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the preambles and bodies of asserted claims in both the ’729 and ’414 Patents. Its construction is critical because the patent specifications heavily rely on examples like resorts, stadiums, and cruise ships (’414 Patent, col. 1:19-22). The accused instrumentality is a network of quick-service restaurants. The dispute may turn on whether a single restaurant location, or the entire brand network, constitutes a "venue" as contemplated by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a list of "hospitality venues" that includes "restaurants" and "retail locations" (’414 Patent, col. 3:57-4:7). This language may support an interpretation where each individual Carl's Jr. restaurant is a "venue."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the problem solved by the invention repeatedly refers to tracking patrons moving within a contiguous service area, such as "from the beach to the pool" (’414 Patent, col. 6:8-11). This context may support a narrower definition limited to a single, cohesive environment where patrons are expected to be mobile, rather than a system for managing arrival at a destination.
The Term: "venue-specific application"
Context and Importance: This limitation is present in asserted claim 8 of the ’414 Patent and was added during prosecution to overcome a patent eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Compl. ¶¶50-51). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will be influenced by this prosecution history. The dispute will likely concern whether a single, brand-wide application that functions identically at thousands of locations is "specific" to a "venue."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges the application is specific to the "store-chain (e.g., Defendant)" and can also be associated with a "single store" (Compl. ¶54). Plaintiff may argue that an application branded for and exclusively usable at Carl's Jr. restaurants is, by definition, specific to that venue (the restaurant chain).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The prosecution history may suggest a narrower meaning. A defendant could argue that to be "venue-specific" in a way that confers patent eligibility, the application must be tailored to the unique layout, features, or service zones of a particular physical location, rather than being a generic, one-size-fits-all program for a national chain.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "venue," rooted in the patent's context of tracking mobile patrons within a single, contiguous service environment like a resort, be construed to cover a user's travel to a single quick-service restaurant that is part of a geographically dispersed chain?
- A second key issue will arise from prosecution history: how narrowly will the term "venue-specific application," which was added to the claims of the ’414 and ’224 Patents to secure their allowance over patent-eligibility concerns, be interpreted? The case may turn on whether a standard, brand-wide mobile app is sufficiently "specific" to overcome the arguments that led to its addition.
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused application's feature of detecting a user's arrival at a store for pickup perform the technical function required by the claims—specifically, updating a location "when the patron moves to a different location"—or is there a fundamental mismatch between the simple arrival detection alleged and the intra-venue movement tracking described in the patents?