Smart Order LLC v. Target Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Smart Order LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Target Corporation (MN)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00283, E.D. Tex., 03/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to a system for improving customer service efficiency by allowing customers to preorder goods and services and timing the order's preparation to their arrival.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses systems for managing customer orders and wait times in service industries, such as retail and restaurants, through integrated preordering and fulfillment timing.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior, abandoned U.S. patent application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

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", issued July 12, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve inefficiencies in service industries where customer experience is diminished by long wait times, and businesses lose potential revenue from customers who abandon wait queues ('424 Patent, col. 2:9-19). Existing systems for reservations or basic online ordering were seen as insufficient to optimally manage the customer journey from order to fulfillment ('424 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an integrated system where a customer can create a profile and submit a preorder for goods or services, for example through a website or an on-site kiosk ('424 Patent, Abstract). The system then interfaces with a vendor's on-site management systems (e.g., kitchen or seating management) to time the order preparation. The explicit goal is for the order to be fulfilled and delivered shortly after the customer is ready to receive it (e.g., when a restaurant party is seated), thereby minimizing "undesirable delay time" ('424 Patent, col. 2:35-39; col. 3:15-24).
• Technical Importance: The system's contribution is described as the integration of preordering with on-site fulfillment logistics, using wait time and preparation time data to optimize the moment of service delivery ('424 Patent, col. 3:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify claims but reserves the right to assert any claims from the '424 Patent, referring to "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims" in an incorporated exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1, as corrected by a Certificate of Correction dated September 26, 2017, is a representative method claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A computer receiving a reservation with a preorder of products/services from a customer before their arrival at a venue.
  • The method further comprising a customer payment account for the preorder.
  • The computer validating the reservation upon an indication that the customer has approved the preorder at or before arrival, and entering the customer into a preparation queue of a vendor management system.
  • The vendor management system determining when the customer's wait time is less than or equal to the time needed to prepare the preorder, and in response, forwarding the preorder to a preparation system.
  • Storing a record of the customer's purchases in a customer profile database.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an "Exhibit 2" incorporated by reference into the complaint (Compl. ¶11, 16). This exhibit was not attached to the filed pleading.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant Target Corporation makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products, and has its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). Given the nature of the patent, the accused instrumentalities may relate to Target's retail services that involve preordering through an application or website for in-store or curbside pickup. The complaint itself, however, provides no specific details on the technical operation or market position of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference, but does not attach, claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that purportedly compare the "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims" to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16, 17). The complaint alleges these charts demonstrate that the accused products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). Without access to Exhibit 2, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports products and services that practice the patented method for preordering and coordinating service delivery (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The '424 Patent specification heavily emphasizes restaurant, travel, and entertainment applications, with detailed examples involving "kitchen management systems" and "seating wait queue[s]" ('424 Patent, col. 3:17-19). A central question for the court will be whether claim terms like "vendor management system" and "preparation queue," when interpreted in light of the specification, are broad enough to read on the systems used in a general retail context, such as a "buy online, pick up in store" service.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the "vendor management system determining when a wait time for the customer...is less than or equal to a preparation time" before forwarding the order for fulfillment. A key factual dispute may arise over whether the accused system performs this specific dynamic timing calculation. The question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused system actively coordinates order fulfillment based on a customer's real-time wait or arrival status, rather than simply preparing an order upon receipt and notifying the customer when it is ready.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "vendor management system" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed method. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the software and logistical systems used by the Defendant fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will either confine the patent to the specific restaurant-centric examples in the specification or allow it to cover a broader range of modern e-commerce fulfillment systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and the patent claims its applicability to the "restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries" broadly in its title and summary, which may support an interpretation not limited to a specific industry's systems ('424 Patent, Title; col. 2:10-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed embodiments that describe the system interfacing with "conventional seating management and/or kitchen management systems" ('424 Patent, col. 2:36-37). This repeated, specific context could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires comparable integrated queue-management functionalities.

• The Term: "preparation queue" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed timing and coordination steps. The infringement analysis may turn on whether a simple list of pending orders in a retail system constitutes a "preparation queue" or if the term requires a more dynamic function as described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term, which could allow it to be read on any system that queues orders for fulfillment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where an order is forwarded to the kitchen for preparation based on a comparison of a "seating wait queue" to a "kitchen wait queue" ('424 Patent, col. 3:17-19). This may support an argument that a "preparation queue" is not merely a static list, but an actively managed queue whose inputs are timed based on other system variables.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). Knowledge is alleged to exist at least from the date the complaint was served (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint lays a foundation for willfulness based on post-suit conduct, alleging that Defendant has "continued to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products despite having "actual knowledge" of the '424 Patent from the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶14). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

This case will likely depend on the resolution of two primary questions:

1. A core issue will be one of contextual scope: can claim terms like "vendor management system," rooted in detailed patent descriptions of integrated restaurant kitchen and seating logistics, be construed to cover the order fulfillment systems of a general merchandise retailer?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence can be produced to show that the accused retail system performs the specific, active timing calculation recited in the claims—comparing a customer's wait time to an order's preparation time to trigger fulfillment—or does it operate in a technically distinct, more passive manner?