DCT

2:25-cv-00340

S3G Technology LLC v. Wendy's Intl LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00340, E.D. Tex., 04/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates a regular and established place of business in the district and distributes the accused mobile applications to customers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications and associated backend server systems infringe four patents related to methods for efficiently modifying software on remote devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns updating distributed software applications, such as mobile apps, by sending small packets of modifiable code rather than entirely new, large executable files.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case, S3G Tech. LLC v. Unikey Techs., Inc., in which the Eastern District of Texas construed several key claim terms from the asserted patent family, including "code" and "dialogue module." The complaint also notes that during prosecution, the asserted inventions were found to be distinguishable from prior art and were allowed over subject matter eligibility contentions.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-23 Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents
2018-04-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Issues
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,831,468 Issues
2021-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,210,082 Issues
2023-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 Issues
2025-03-12 Accused Android App Last Updated
2025-03-17 Accused iOS App Last Updated
2025-04-07 Complaint Filing Date

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”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124, titled “Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine,” issued on April 10, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of distributing large, newly compiled software application updates to a multitude of remote hardware devices, particularly over wireless networks with limited bandwidth and slow transfer rates (Compl. ¶¶14-16; ’124 Patent, col. 2:29-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-part system architecture: a terminal machine (e.g., a mobile device), a service provider machine (e.g., a server), and an update server machine (Compl. ¶17). As depicted in the patent's FIG. 1, instead of replacing an entire application, the update server sends a small "dialogue module" containing "code" to the terminal or service provider machine (Compl. ¶17; ’124 Patent, Fig. 1). This "code" is not directly executable but is information that "must be translated by the software application before it can be implemented on the machine processor," thereby modifying the application's behavior without replacing its core computer-executable instructions (Compl. ¶18; ’124 Patent, col. 4:30-40).
  • Technical Importance: This approach is designed to reduce network bandwidth utilization and improve the efficiency of modifying applications running on numerous remote devices (Compl. ¶¶26-27; ’124 Patent, col. 6:61-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1, as characterized by the complaint, include:
    • Displaying a first prompt by running a terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code.
    • Accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine.
    • Communicating information associated with the data entry to a service provider machine running a provider application (comprising second computer-executable instructions and second code).
    • Receiving, at the terminal machine, a terminal dialogue module that updates a portion of the first code to produce first updated code.
    • The first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt for a modified dialogue sequence.
    • At least one of the first code, second code, and first updated code comprise intermediate code.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶33).

U.S. Patent No. 10,831,468 - “Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,831,468, titled “Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine,” issued on November 10, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the ’468 Patent addresses the same technical problems of inefficiently updating distributed software applications over bandwidth-constrained networks (Compl. ¶¶14-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution remains a three-entity system that uses lightweight modules to modify application behavior without full replacement (Compl. ¶¶17-21). The complaint alleges the system architecture comprises a terminal machine, a service provider machine, and a distinct update server machine, as shown in the patent's FIG. 1, which illustrates the claimed computer system structure (Compl. ¶17; ’468 Patent, Fig. 1). Applications on the terminal and server machines are comprised of both directly executable instructions and "code" that requires translation, as depicted in the patent's FIG. 2 (Compl. ¶18; ’468 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The solution aims to improve computing resource and network utilization when modifying applications on remote devices (Compl. ¶21; ’468 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (’468 Patent, col. 41:26-42:43; Compl. ¶52).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • Displaying a first prompt via a terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code, where the first code comprises information to be translated.
    • Receiving a first data entry.
    • Communicating information to a provider application comprising second computer-executable instructions and second code, where the second code also comprises information to be translated.
    • Receiving third code that replaces or supplements a portion (but not all) of the first code to produce first updated code.
    • The first updated code adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 11,210,082 - “Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,210,082, titled “Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine,” issued on December 28, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, also describes the system for modifying distributed software. The claims asserted in the complaint appear to focus on the method as performed by the service provider machine, which receives information from a user, receives code that updates its own application, and sends new code back to facilitate a modified dialogue.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Wendy's backend server system, which allegedly runs a .NET application. This server receives user input (e.g., adding a "Favorites" item), which supplements the server-side application's code (allegedly the .NET program) and adapts the server's portion of the dialogue sequence. The server then sends updated information (allegedly "third code" in JSON format) back to the user's mobile app (Compl. ¶¶79, 82-83).

U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - “Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995, titled “Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor,” issued on May 30, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the same family, describes a method for conducting a dialogue sequence between at least two separate user devices, facilitated by a provider application. The method involves the provider application receiving code from a first user device "without requesting" it, which supplements the provider application's code, and then sending code to a second user device to facilitate its part of the dialogue.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶96).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses a scenario where a user on a first device (e.g., a computer using the Wendy's website) saves a "Favorites list item," which sends code to the Defendant's server. The server then sends corresponding code to the user's second device (e.g., a smartphone running the Wendy's app) without the app requesting it, thereby facilitating a dialogue between the two user devices (Compl. ¶¶98-100, 104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Wendy's mobile applications for Android and iOS (the "Defendant app"), along with the associated backend computing devices, servers, and software that support the app's functionality (the "Accused System") (Compl. ¶¶3, 8).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Defendant app provides customers with features such as managing a "Favorites list," where users can review, delete, or add items to their "bag" for purchase (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges that these user actions constitute a "dialogue" between the user's device (the "terminal machine") and Wendy's backend servers (the "service provider machine") (Compl. ¶34). The complaint alleges that when a user modifies their favorites, information is sent to the server, and the server in turn sends data, such as a JSON-formatted list item, back to the user's app (Compl. ¶¶37, 39). This process allegedly updates the app's internal data (the "first code") to produce "first updated code," which adapts the app to display a modified sequence of prompts, such as showing a newly added favorite item (Compl. ¶39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’124 Patent 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 comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code The Wendy's app (terminal application) displays a list of "Favorites list items" (first prompt). The app consists of the Android Runtime (ART) as "computer-executable instructions" and the app's bytecode as "first code." ¶35 col. 7:56-61
accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine The user interacts with the Favorites list, for example by selecting an item to delete or add to their bag. ¶36 col. 4:5-10
communicating information associated with the first data entry from the terminal machine to the service provider machine Information about the user's interaction (e.g., deleting a favorite) is sent from the mobile app to Wendy's server. ¶37 col. 6:7-14
receiving, at the terminal machine, a terminal dialogue module that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code The mobile app receives information from the server, allegedly a "terminal dialogue module" in JSON format, representing a new or updated Favorites list item. This updates the app's bytecode ("first code"). ¶39 col. 8:63-9:3
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 The updated code allows the app to display the new list of favorites and enables the user to access or interact with new items (a "second prompt" in a "modified dialogue sequence"). ¶39 col. 4:11-19
wherein at least one of the first code, the second code, and the first updated code comprise intermediate code The complaint alleges that the app's bytecode constitutes "intermediate code." ¶39 col. 2:1-2

’468 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
displaying a first prompt on a terminal display of the terminal machine by running a terminal application, the terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code... the first code comprising information to be translated The Wendy's app displays the user's "Favorites list items" (first prompt). The app's program comprises "code" (e.g., bytecode) which is information to be translated by the Android Runtime (ART) ("computer-executable instructions"). ¶54 col. 7:55-61
receiving entry of first data at the first prompt The user interacts with the Favorites list, such as by selecting an item to "Add to Bag." ¶55 col. 12:15-20
communicating information... to a provider application at the service provider machine... wherein (i) the second code comprises information to be translated, and (ii) the terminal application is capable of receiving an authorization signal from the service provider machine User interaction data is sent to the Wendy's server, which runs a .Net application. The .Net program is the "second code" that requires translation. The app is capable of receiving authorization by logging into the system. ¶56 col. 7:4-10
receiving, at the terminal machine, third code that replaces or supplements at least a portion but not all of the first code to produce first updated code The mobile app receives information from the server (e.g., in JSON format) representing a new Favorites item. This information supplements a portion of the app's existing code. ¶57 col. 8:63-9:3
wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence with the service provider machine The updated code allows the user to access new Favorites list items, evidencing a modified dialogue sequence. ¶57 col. 4:11-19
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a standard data object, such as a JSON payload describing a menu item, constitutes a "dialogue module" as contemplated by the patents. The defense may argue that the patents describe a more complex structure for modifying application logic, not merely transmitting user-specific data.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's assertion that parsing a data format like JSON constitutes "translating... code" as required by the claims raises a key technical question. The court may need to determine if this standard data handling process is technically equivalent to the patented method, which distinguishes between directly executable instructions and code that must first be translated by those instructions to be implemented.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dialogue module"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the asserted invention. Its construction will likely determine whether the data packets (e.g., JSON objects) exchanged by the accused system fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory hinges on equating a data structure with this claimed "module."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction from a related case defining the term as “code or instructions related to a dialogue sequence” (Compl. ¶20, Ex. E). The specification also notes that a dialogue module "can contain code or other data" (Compl. ¶22, Ex. E).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same prior construction states the claim uses the term "module" to refer to "a particular type of structure rather than to any structure for performing a function" (Compl. ¶22, Ex. E). The specification explains that a dialogue module can "replace existing terminal code" or "supplement other code," suggesting a function beyond simply conveying data (Compl. ¶21; ’124 Patent, col. 8:63-9:3).

  • The Term: "code"

  • Context and Importance: The distinction between "computer-executable instructions" and "code" is fundamental to the patents' claimed solution. Whether the accused system's bytecode or JSON data qualifies as "code" is critical to the infringement analysis.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader 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, fn. 6). The patent specification states, "[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; ’124 Patent, col. 4:30-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that in the context of the patent, which discusses recompiling source code and Java Byte Code, the term "code" implies instructions or script, not merely structured data like JSON (Compl. ¶14; ’468 Patent, col. 2:2-3). The act of parsing JSON data may be argued to be distinct from the "translation" of code for implementation on a processor.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement on the basis that Defendant provides instructions to customers and end users to download, install, and use the accused applications, thereby causing them to perform the steps of the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶43, 45, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit at least since the filing of the complaint, forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶32, 51, 76, 95).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "dialogue module," rooted in the patents' description of a structure for modifying application logic, be construed to cover standard data payloads, such as JSON objects containing user-specific data like a list of favorite menu items, exchanged between a modern mobile app and its server?
  • A key technical question will be one of operational equivalence: does the ordinary process of a mobile application parsing data (like JSON) received from a server constitute the specific act of "translating code" that is distinct from executing "computer-executable instructions," as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between modern app architecture and the patented method?