Smart Order LLC v. Panera Bread Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Smart Order LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Panera Bread Company (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00282, E.D. Tex., 03/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and allegedly committing acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s restaurant ordering systems infringe a patent related to systems and methods for improving customer wait time and service efficiency through pre-ordering.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrated online and kiosk-based pre-ordering systems for service industries, designed to coordinate advance orders with on-site operations to reduce wait times and improve operational efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424, is a continuation of an application filed in 2007, establishing an early priority date. The patent has been subject to two Certificates of Correction, one of which altered the language of the sole independent claim, Claim 1. This correction broadens the claim by allowing the validation of a preorder to occur "at or before arrival" of the customer, rather than only upon arrival. No other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424 (“the ’424 Patent”), titled “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. (Compl. ¶9; ’424 Patent, p. 1).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need to enhance the customer experience in service industries by reducing wait times, which in turn could increase profits and prevent customers from abandoning service queues. (’424 Patent, col. 2:9-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system allowing customers to place orders in advance via the internet or an on-site kiosk. The system then coordinates the preordered items with the establishment's on-site operations (e.g., kitchen and seating management). A core feature is the timing of order fulfillment to coincide with the customer's readiness, such as when their table becomes available, thereby minimizing idle time for both the customer and the service provider. (’424 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-24).
• Technical Importance: The described technical approach seeks to bridge the gap between pre-ordering and on-site service delivery by creating a method that "ties the timing of the order fulfillment to the seating of the customer." (’424 Patent, col. 3:25-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least the exemplary claims identified in its charts. (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains one independent method claim, Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 (as corrected by the Certificate of Correction of Sep. 26, 2017):
  • A computer-implemented method comprising:
  • a computer receiving from the customer, prior to arrival, a reservation including a preorder of products/services;
  • further comprising a customer payment account for the preorder;
  • the computer validating the reservation upon receipt of an indication that the customer has approved of said preorder at or before arrival at the venue and entering the customer in a preparation queue of a vendor management system;
  • the vendor management system determining when a customer wait time is less than or equal to a preparation time and forwarding the preorder to a preparation queue or other vendor system for preparation; and
  • storing a record of the customer's purchases in a customer profile.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert infringement of other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not specifically name any accused product, service, or system. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. It alleges that the infringement occurs through Defendant's products (Compl. ¶11) and that infringement is induced through "product literature and website materials" (Compl. ¶14), but provides no specific descriptions of how these products or systems function. All infringement allegations are supported by reference to "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶16-17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which is not publicly available. (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be provided. The narrative theory suggests that Defendant's restaurant ordering systems (e.g., mobile application, website, or in-store kiosks) perform the steps of the claimed method. (Compl. ¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the Defendant's ordering platform constitutes the "vendor management system" recited in the claims. The dispute may center on whether the accused system performs the specific logic of comparing customer wait times to food preparation times, or if it functions as a more generic order queue.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether the accused system performs the claimed step of "determining when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time for preparing the preorder." (’424 Patent, col. 15:24-28). The complaint does not allege any specific facts regarding how the accused system makes this determination. Another technical question is what action within the accused system constitutes "an indication that the customer has approved of said preorder," which triggers the validation step. (’424 Patent, Certificate of Correction, Sep. 26, 2017).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"vendor management system"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed method, as it performs the critical logic of timing the order preparation. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the Defendant's system includes a component that meets the definition of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification suggests the system can work with various existing software, stating it accommodates use in hostess stations connected to "kitchen management software, seating management software, neither software package, or both." (’424 Patent, col. 9:35-38). This could support an argument that the term encompasses a range of existing restaurant management tools.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself assigns a specific function to this system: "determining when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time." (’424 Patent, col. 15:24-28). This specific recited function could support a narrower construction that requires more than a simple order queueing system.

"an indication that the customer has approved of said preorder at or before arrival"

• Context and Importance: This language, introduced via a Certificate of Correction, defines the trigger for validating the reservation. Its construction is critical because it dictates the point at which the infringing method is put into practice for a given transaction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the "at or before arrival" phrasing is significantly broader than the original claim language, which required the customer to have "arrived."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification describes a customer "simply select[ing] a confirmation option on the kiosk interface." (’424 Patent, col. 9:7-8). This could be interpreted as any act of finalizing an order, which would constitute an "approval" that happens "before arrival."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes an embodiment where "when the customer arrives at the hostess kiosk..., he/she/they may approve and pay for the order." (’424 Patent, col. 10:41-43). This language, tying approval to arrival at a physical location, could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a distinct check-in or confirmation step upon or immediately preceding arrival.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users to operate the accused systems in a manner that directly infringes the ’424 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint provided Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of operational reality: does discovery show that the accused Panera ordering system performs the specific, intelligent timing calculation required by Claim 1—comparing customer wait time against kitchen preparation time—or does it utilize a technically distinct, and potentially non-infringing, order management process?
• The case will also involve a core issue of definitional scope: can the term "vendor management system" be construed broadly to read on a conventional restaurant order queue, or is it limited by the claim language to a system that executes the specific comparative timing logic described in the patent?
• Finally, a key legal and factual question will be the infringement trigger: what specific user action within the accused system constitutes "an indication that the customer has approved" the preorder, and how does the "at or before arrival" claim language, added by correction, impact the timing and scope of the alleged infringement?