DCT
2:25-cv-00134
S3G Technology LLC v. Texas Roadhouse Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: S3G Technology LLC (California)
- Defendant: Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (Delaware, place of business in Kentucky)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-134, E.D. Tex., 02/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing a location in Texarkana, Texas, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications and associated backend server systems infringe patents related to a method and system for efficiently modifying software applications on remote devices without requiring a full application replacement.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses bandwidth and efficiency challenges in updating client-server applications by sending small "dialogue modules" that alter application behavior, rather than redistributing the entire compiled application.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior litigation involving the asserted patents (S3G Tech. LLC v. Unikey Techs., Inc.), citing claim construction rulings from that case for key terms such as “computer-executable instructions,” “code,” and “dialogue module.” The complaint also notes that during patent prosecution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allegedly found the claimed inventions distinguishable from prior art and allowed claims over subject matter eligibility contentions.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-23 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents |
| 2013-07-11 | ’571 Patent Family Notice of Allowability Issued |
| 2013-10-29 | U.S. Patent No. 8,572,571 Issued |
| 2015-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 Issued |
| 2017-07-07 | Claim Construction Order Issued in S3G v. Unikey |
| 2017-11-01 | Claim Construction Order Adopted in S3G v. Unikey |
| 2018-04-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Issued |
| 2019-04-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,572,571 Issue Date Alleged in Complaint (Note: Discrepancy with patent document) |
| 2023-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 Issued |
| 2024-10-25 | Accused Android App Last Updated |
| 2024-10-30 | Accused iOS App Last Updated |
| 2025-02-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty and inefficiency of updating software applications distributed across a large number of remote devices (Compl. ¶15; ’124 Patent, col. 2:29-38). Distributing a fully recompiled application can be slow and consume significant bandwidth, particularly over wireless networks (Compl. ¶16; ’124 Patent, col. 2:39-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-part system architecture comprising a terminal machine (e.g., a user device), a service provider machine (e.g., a backend server), and an update server machine (Compl. ¶17; ’124 Patent, FIG. 1). To update functionality, the update server sends a small “dialogue module” containing “code”—defined as information that must be translated before execution—to the terminal or service provider machine (Compl. ¶¶18, 20). This module modifies only the translatable “code” portion of an application, leaving the underlying, directly-executable “computer-executable instructions” unchanged, thereby avoiding the need to transmit a large, full application update (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 25; ’124 Patent, col. 4:30-40). The complaint presents Figure 1 as an exemplary system diagram illustrating the three-machine architecture and communication pathways (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach is designed to reduce network bandwidth utilization and improve the efficiency of modifying applications running on geographically distributed remote devices (Compl. ¶26; ’124 Patent, col. 6:61-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- Based on the complaint's allegations, the essential elements of this method claim include:
- Displaying a prompt by running a terminal application that comprises both first computer-executable instructions and first code.
- Accepting a data entry from a user.
- Communicating information from the terminal to a service provider machine running a provider application, which comprises second computer-executable instructions and second code.
- Storing at least some of that information in memory.
- Receiving a "terminal dialogue module" at the terminal machine that updates the first code to produce first updated code, which in turn adapts the terminal application to display a new prompt for a modified dialogue sequence.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the related ’124 Patent, the ’897 Patent addresses the technical problem of efficiently distributing software modifications to a network of remote devices where sending a full, newly compiled application is impractical due to network limitations or logistical challenges (Compl. ¶¶14-16).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a system embodying the three-machine architecture described in the ’124 Patent analysis: an update server, a terminal machine, and a service provider machine (Compl. ¶17; ’897 Patent, FIG. 1). The system is structured so that applications on the terminal and service provider machines are composed of two distinct parts: a set of computer-executable instructions (e.g., a runtime engine) and a set of code (e.g., bytecode) (Compl. ¶18; ’897 Patent, FIG. 2). Updates are achieved by having the update server send dialogue modules that modify only the "code" portion on each machine, thereby changing the application's behavior without altering the underlying executable instructions (Compl. ¶25). The complaint includes Figure 2, which visually distinguishes between the computer-executable instructions (214, 224) and the separate code (212, 222) within the service provider and terminal applications (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: The claimed system structure provides a method for achieving design efficiencies and conserving computing and network resources when updating software in a distributed environment (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
- Based on the complaint's allegations, the essential elements of this system claim include:
- An update server machine operable to send terminal and provider dialogue modules.
- A terminal machine running a terminal application, which comprises a first set of computer-executable instructions and a first set of code.
- A service provider machine running a provider application, which comprises a second set of computer-executable instructions and a second set of code.
- The terminal dialogue module modifies the first code, and the provider dialogue module modifies the second code, to adapt both applications for a modified dialogue sequence, without modifying the computer-executable instructions.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,572,571 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the ’124 and ’897 patents and addresses the same technical problem of inefficient software updates (Compl. ¶¶14-16). The asserted claims describe a system with the three-machine architecture (update server, terminal, service provider) designed to modify application behavior by updating a translatable "code" component separately from the underlying "computer-executable instructions" (Compl. ¶¶89-94).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 2 (Compl. ¶89).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the same Texas Roadhouse mobile app and server system, alleging the system's architecture for handling features like "Favorite Locations" maps onto the claimed three-machine structure and its method of updating application data and prompts (Compl. ¶¶91-94).
U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - "Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to conducting a dialogue sequence between at least two user devices, facilitated by one or more provider applications (Compl. ¶108). The method involves receiving "second code" from a first user device that supplements "first code" on a provider application, adapting it to facilitate the dialogue between the first and a second user device (Compl. ¶111). This allows for dynamic, on-the-fly updates to a multi-device interaction without redeploying the core provider application.
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶107).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the system where a user on a first device (e.g., accessing the Texas Roadhouse website) can create a new "Favorite Location," which is then sent as "second code" to the Defendant's server to update a provider application. This updated application then sends "third code" to a second user device (e.g., the mobile app) to facilitate the modified dialogue, all allegedly without the server or second device requesting the code (Compl. ¶¶109-115).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "Texas Roadhouse" mobile applications for Android and iOS, along with the associated backend computing systems, servers, software, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media that support their operation (collectively, the "Accused System") (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused System provides users with functionalities such as reviewing and managing "Favorite Locations," placing orders, making payments, and joining a waitlist (Compl. ¶¶35, 37). The complaint alleges that these features are implemented through a dialogue between the user's mobile device (the "terminal machine") and Defendant's servers (the "service provider machine") (Compl. ¶34). The complaint alleges that the Android application consists of the Android Runtime (ART) as "computer executable instructions" and the application's bytecode as "code" (Compl. ¶35). Similarly, the server-side application is alleged to be a .Net application, with the Common Language Runtime (CLR) as "computer-executable instructions" and the .Net program as "code" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges that updates to features, such as adding a new Favorite Location, are communicated from the server to the mobile application in JSON format, which functions as a "terminal dialogue module" (Compl. ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| displaying a first prompt on a terminal display ... by running a terminal application, the terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code that conduct the terminal machine's portion of the dialogue | The Texas Roadhouse app on a smartphone displays a list of "Favorite Locations" to the user. The app allegedly comprises the Android Runtime (instructions) and the app's bytecode (code). | ¶35 | col. 7:56-61 |
| accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine, wherein the first data entry is associated with the first prompt | The user selects or otherwise interacts with the displayed list of Favorite Locations. | ¶36 | col. 8:1-3 |
| communicating information associated with the first data entry from the terminal machine to the service provider machine, wherein the service provider machine ... uses a provider application comprising second computer-executable instructions and second code | The user's interaction data is sent from the mobile app to the Defendant's server. The server allegedly runs a .Net application, comprising the Common Language Runtime (instructions) and a .Net program (code). | ¶37 | col. 8:4-10 |
| storing at least a portion of the information associated with the first data entry in memory for analysis | The Defendant's server stores the "Favorite Locations" information to be analyzed and displayed back to the user. | ¶38 | col. 8:11-13 |
| receiving, at the terminal machine, a terminal dialogue module that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code, wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt for the terminal machine's portion of a modified dialogue sequence | When a user places an order or adds a favorite, information is sent from the server to the app in JSON format. This JSON data is alleged to be the "terminal dialogue module" that updates the app's bytecode to produce updated code, which adapts the app to display new information. | ¶39 | col. 8:63-9:3 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,081,897 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an update server machine ... operable for sending a terminal dialogue module ... and a provider dialogue module | A user's device accessing the Defendant's website, or alternatively the Defendant's server itself, functions as the update server, sending "Favorite Location" data (the alleged dialogue modules) to the mobile app and the server. | ¶54 | col. 6:49-54 |
| a terminal machine ... configured to run a terminal application ... comprising a first set of computer executable instructions and a first set of code | A user's smartphone running the Texas Roadhouse app. The app allegedly comprises the Android Runtime (ART) as the instructions and the app's bytecode as the code. | ¶55 | col. 7:56-61 |
| a service provider machine ... configured to run a provider application ... comprising a second set of computer-executable instructions and a second set of code | Defendant's server running what is alleged to be a .Net application. The .Net execution environment (CLR) allegedly comprises the instructions, and the .Net program comprises the code. | ¶56 | col. 7:42-49 |
| wherein the terminal dialogue module modifies the first set of code to produce a first set of updated code ... and wherein the provider dialogue module modifies the second set of code to produce a second set of updated code | The "Favorite Location" data allegedly modifies the app's bytecode and the server's .Net program code to adapt the application dialogue (e.g., display a new location), without modifying the underlying ART or CLR executables. | ¶57 | col. 8:63-9:13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the Accused System's use of runtime environments (Android's ART, .Net's CLR) and interpreted code (bytecode, .Net programs) maps to the patent's distinction between "computer-executable instructions" and "code" that "must be translated." Further, it raises the question of whether receiving and processing JSON data constitutes "modifying" an application's "code," or if this is simply the normal operation of a data-driven application executing its existing, unmodified logic.
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’897 patent raises the question of whether a user's device accessing a website or the defendant's own backend server can be properly construed as the distinct "update server machine" required by the claim, or if this conflates the claimed system components.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "code"
- Context and Importance: The patents' core inventive concept rests on the distinction between this "code" and "computer-executable instructions." The infringement case depends on mapping the accused app's bytecode and the server's .Net program to this term. Practitioners may focus on whether this distinction holds up technically and legally for the accused technologies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "code" is generally broad in the field of computer science.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction defining "code" as "information that must be translated before it can be executed on a processor" (Compl. ¶18, n.6). The specification is quoted as stating, "[t]he code represents at least some information that must be translated by the software application before it can be implemented on the machine processor" (Compl. ¶18, citing ’124 Patent, col. 4:30-40).
The Term: "dialogue module"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory alleges that JSON data packets containing information like "Favorite Locations" are "dialogue modules." The viability of this theory will depend on the term's construction. Practitioners may focus on whether the term requires executable or structural properties beyond that of a simple data structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A "module" could be interpreted broadly as any self-contained unit of information.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction stating the term refers to "a particular type of structure rather than to any structure for performing a function" and means "code or instructions related to a dialogue sequence" (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). This suggests a structural or instructional nature, which may be argued as distinct from pure data.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement on the basis that Defendant provides instructions for customers to download and use the accused applications in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶43, 45, 61, 63). Contributory infringement is alleged on the grounds that the Accused System is not a staple article of commerce and is especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶¶46, 64).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "at least since the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶32, 51, 88, 106).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can data structures, such as JSON-formatted "Favorite Location" information, be construed as the claimed "dialogue modules" containing "code," particularly in light of prior judicial constructions that suggest these terms require specific structural and functional properties beyond that of mere application data?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's process of receiving and displaying new data from a server constitute "modifying" the application's code as required by the claims, or does this represent the normal operation of a data-driven application executing its pre-existing, unmodified instructions on new inputs?
- A central dispute for the system claims will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused client-server system, where updates originate from the server or potentially another user device, align with the patents’ three-machine architecture (terminal, service provider, and a distinct update server), or does the Plaintiff's infringement theory improperly conflate these claimed structural elements?