OrderMagic LLC v. Cafe Bakery Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Cafe and Bakery Group, LLC (UT)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00365, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified remote ordering products and systems infringe a patent related to electronic menu and ordering technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic, table-side ordering systems used in restaurants, a domain that has evolved from custom hardware to ubiquitous software on consumer-grade tablets and smartphones.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The willfulness allegation is based solely on knowledge derived from the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475 - “Remote ordering system,” issued November 9, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks in then-current restaurant ordering methods. Traditional waiter-based ordering is described as inefficient (’475 Patent, col. 1:26-34). Early electronic menu systems, typically based on general-purpose tablet PCs, are characterized as fragile, costly, complex, and vulnerable to damage from liquids common in a restaurant environment (’475 Patent, col. 1:35-col. 2:5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable remote ordering device that combines features of a traditional, physical menu with electronic functionality. The system uses an electronic menu apparatus that can comprise physical pages listing items, a set of corresponding input devices (e.g., membrane switches) aligned with the items on the page, a feedback display to confirm selections, and a wireless transmitter to send the order to a remote location like the kitchen (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-34). This design aims to be more robust and less complex than a full tablet PC by using sealed membrane switches and separating the static menu content (on printed pages) from the interactive selection hardware (’475 Patent, col. 3:9-14; col. 5:56-62).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a hybrid hardware approach intended to create a more cost-effective and environmentally resilient ordering device specifically for the hospitality industry, as an alternative to adapting fragile, general-purpose computers. (’475 Patent, col. 1:47-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims in its main body. It refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11) and "the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" that are purportedly identified in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16). Without access to this exhibit or more specific allegations, it is not possible to identify the asserted independent claims or their elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any of the accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers to them generically as "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" (Compl. p. 3, ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are not detailed in the body of the document. Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these charts demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Plaintiff incorporates these unprovided charts by reference to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶17). The complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of specificity in the complaint, any analysis is preliminary. However, based on the nature of the patent and the current state of restaurant technology, a central dispute may emerge over the scope of the claims.

• Scope Questions: A likely point of contention will be how the patent’s claim language, which appears directed to a hybrid physical/electronic device, applies to modern, purely software-based ordering systems. For instance, a court may need to determine if a graphical user interface on a standard tablet, which displays menu items and touch-sensitive buttons, meets limitations requiring a "series of pages listing menu items" and a "grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on a page" (’475 Patent, col. 2:21-24). The patent’s focus on physical pages and membrane switches may raise questions about whether the claims read on entirely digital systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, precluding an analysis of key terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the filing and service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement has continued "Despite such actual knowledge," which lays a foundation for a claim of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶14).

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint meets federal pleading standards. By failing to identify any specific accused products or asserted claims in its text and instead relying entirely on an incorporated-by-reference exhibit that was not filed with the complaint, the pleading may be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for failure to provide adequate notice of the infringement allegations.
2. Claim Scope and Technological Evolution: Should the case proceed, a core substantive question will be whether the claims of the ’475 patent, which describe a purpose-built device with physical pages and corresponding hardware inputs, can be construed to cover modern ordering systems that are typically software applications running on general-purpose hardware like iPads or customer smartphones.
3. Divided Infringement: Depending on the claims asserted and the nature of the accused system (e.g., a software platform used by both restaurants and patrons), a question of divided infringement may arise, focusing on whether a single actor performs all steps of any asserted method claim.