Smart Order LLC v. Applebee's Services Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Smart Order LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00280, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed the alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and ordering systems infringe a patent related to a system and method for improving customer wait times and service efficiency through pre-ordering.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrated systems for service industries, such as restaurants, that allow customers to create profiles and place orders in advance, with the system timing the order fulfillment based on the customer's on-site arrival and wait queue status.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff notes that the Original Complaint was served on March 10, 2025, an event it cites to establish Defendant's actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit for its willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-27	'424 Patent Priority Date
2011-04-15	'424 Patent Application Filing Date
2016-07-12	'424 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-10	Original Complaint Service Date
2025-07-09	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424 - System and method for improving customer wait time, customer service, and marketing efficiency in the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries, issued July 12, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need in service industries like restaurants to enhance the customer experience and increase profitability by reducing wait times and improving operational efficiency, noting that existing systems for reservations or data collection do not fully solve this problem ('424 Patent, col. 2:9-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a pre-ordering and customer management system, accessible via the web or an on-site kiosk, that allows a customer to create a profile and place a detailed order in advance of arriving at a venue. Upon arrival, the system verifies the customer and the pre-order, which is then forwarded to the service provider (e.g., a kitchen) at an "optimally timed" moment coordinated with the customer's readiness to receive the service, such as when their table is ready. This aims to minimize wait times for both seating and service ('424 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-68).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to bridge the gap between online pre-ordering and on-site guest management by creating a system that intelligently coordinates order preparation with real-time customer wait queues, thereby aiming to increase customer throughput and reduce the number of patrons lost during peak hours ('424 Patent, col. 2:13-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '424 Patent, referring to "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, method claim 1 and system claim 18.
• Independent claim 18 (as corrected) recites a system comprising:
  • A customer mobile device, vendor POS register/kiosk, vendor server, and/or vendor computer.
  • The vendor computer receives a reservation with a "preorder" prior to the customer's arrival.
  • The system includes a customer payment account for the preorder.
  • The system "validates the reservation upon receipt of an indication that the customer has approved of said preorder at or before arrival" and enters the customer into a "preparation queue of a vendor management system."
  • The vendor management system "determines when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time for preparing the preorder" and forwards the preorder for preparation accordingly.
  • The system stores a record of the customer's purchases in a customer profile.
• The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by a specific name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the '424 Patent (Compl. ¶16). No specific details about the functionality, operation, or market context of the accused instrumentalities are provided in the body of the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external Exhibit 2 to detail its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit itself (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory is that the Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports products that practice the technology of the '424 Patent, and that these products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused system performs the specific logical comparison required by the claims. What evidence will the plaintiff provide that the accused system actively "determines when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time" before forwarding an order? A system that simply forwards a pre-order upon customer check-in, without this specific timing logic, may not meet this limitation.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused product raises the question of what constitutes the "system." Is it a single, integrated software platform developed by the Defendant, or a combination of third-party applications (e.g., for reservations) and in-house POS systems? The answer will be critical for assessing infringement of the system claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "vendor management system"

  • Context and Importance: This term, recited in the independent claims, appears to describe the component that executes the core timing and queuing logic of the invention. Its construction will be critical to defining the boundaries of the claimed system and determining whether the accused combination of hardware and software meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes interfacing with "conventional seating management and/or kitchen management systems" ('424 Patent, col. 2:35-38), which may support an interpretation that the "vendor management system" can be a collection of distinct, conventional software components.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts and descriptions often depict a highly integrated process, for example where a "seating management system" directly tells a "kitchen management system" when to begin cooking ('424 Patent, Fig. 4C, element 452). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific level of direct communication and integration between system components.

• The Term: "determines when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language defines the central intelligent action of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused system performs this specific, conditional logic.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the timing of the service delivery as "optimally timed," and the summary notes the order is forwarded at an "appropriate time prior to seating" ('424 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-19). This language may suggest that any form of intelligent delay based on the customer's queue status could meet the limitation, not just a literal mathematical comparison.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language uses the precise logical operator "less than or equal to." Furthermore, the detailed flowcharts depict this as a distinct decision point, such as "When kitchen preparation time is less than or equal to seating wait time, the seating management system will tell the kitchen management system to begin cooking" ('424 Patent, col. 10:21-26; Fig. 4C). This evidence may support a narrower construction requiring a direct, algorithmic comparison of two values.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '424 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's continued infringement after gaining "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" from the service of the Original Complaint on March 10, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What proof will be offered to show that The Cheesecake Factory's system performs the specific, conditional logic of comparing a "wait time" to a "preparation time" to trigger an order, as claimed in the patent? The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this specific intelligence exists or if the accused system uses a simpler "order-on-arrival" process.
• A central issue of claim construction will be defining the scope of the "vendor management system." The court's interpretation will determine whether the claim requires a single, highly integrated platform or can be read on a more loosely connected combination of in-store and potentially third-party software, which is common in the restaurant industry.
• An initial procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Given that the complaint omits the specific identity of the accused products and relies on an unattached exhibit for its infringement theory, the case may face early challenges regarding whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard required to proceed to discovery.