OrderMagic LLC v. California Pizza Kitchen Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00366, 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 restaurant ordering systems infringe a patent related to electronic, table-side remote ordering technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic menu systems for use in environments like restaurants, aiming to streamline the process of ordering and payment.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority from a provisional patent application filed in 2006. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475 - "Remote ordering system"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, "Remote ordering system," issued November 9, 2010 (the “’475 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional restaurant ordering processes as inefficient, noting that reliance on waitstaff for order-taking and payment can "significantly slow the entire ordering and payment process." (’475 Patent, col. 1:29-32). It also characterizes then-existing electronic menus, such as those based on tablet PCs, as being complex, costly, fragile, and susceptible to damage from liquids common in a restaurant setting. (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-40, col. 2:1-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a remote ordering system centered on a dedicated electronic menu device. This device combines an "electronic menu" with "selection switches" and a "transmitter" to wirelessly send orders to a remote processing station. (’475 Patent, Abstract). The design emphasizes durability and simplicity, for instance by using membrane switches and a structure that is "durable and rugged" and "substantially fluid-resistant." (’475 Patent, col. 5:61; col. 6:61-62). One embodiment is described as running on a "low-level programming language...stored on a chip, as opposed to an application that requires an operating system," to improve reliability. (’475 Patent, col. 7:56-62).
• Technical Importance: The invention aimed to provide a purpose-built, durable, and streamlined electronic ordering solution that could overcome the perceived fragility and complexity of using general-purpose tablet computers in a restaurant environment. (’475 Patent, col. 2:10-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to the "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" identified in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Representative independent claims of the ’475 Patent include Claim 1 (a system claim), Claim 4 (a system claim), and Claim 13 (a method claim).
• Independent Claim 4 recites a system with the following essential elements:
  • A first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus comprising a listing of menu items on a touch screen.
  • A grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen.
  • A display device for displaying information to a customer regarding input from the input devices.
  • The system is constructed and arranged to allow the first and second customers to communicate with each other via the respective menu apparatuses.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service. It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')." (Compl. ¶11). Given the Defendant is California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., the accused instrumentalities are presumably its customer-facing ordering systems, which may include online ordering websites, mobile applications, or in-restaurant electronic ordering devices.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint lacks specific details about the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that the Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports these products, and that its employees also internally test and use them. (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint further alleges that the Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the products. (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’475 Patent, but it relies entirely on claim charts in "Exhibit 2" to provide the substance of these allegations. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’475 Patent. (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent’s text and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:

• Scope Questions: The patent repeatedly distinguishes its purpose-built, rugged device from general-purpose "tablet personal computer[s]" running standard operating systems. (’475 Patent, col. 1:39-52). A central question will be whether the claims can be construed to cover Defendant's systems, which likely utilize common hardware (e.g., commercial tablets, servers) and software (e.g., web applications, mobile apps).
• Technical Questions: For a claim like Claim 4, which recites both a "touch screen" and a separate "grouping of input devices," a key issue will be whether the interactive elements on a modern touch screen interface are merely part of the "touch screen" itself, or if they can be considered a separate "grouping of input devices" as required by the claim. The patent's figures frequently depict physical buttons separate from the main display, which may inform this analysis. (’475 Patent, Fig. 4-14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Assuming the dispute centers on claims similar to independent claim 4, the construction of the following terms may be critical.

• The Term: "a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen" (’475 Patent, col. 9:52-54).

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to determining whether a modern, fully integrated touch screen device infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will decide whether the claim requires physical buttons separate from the screen or can read on software-defined interactive areas on the screen itself.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Selection means 440 can also be areas on a touch screen overlaid on the surface of the display that correspond to words or symbols on the display." (’475 Patent, col. 6:1-4). This language may support an argument that software-defined buttons on a touch screen satisfy the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s preferred embodiments consistently depict physical input devices separate from the primary display screen, such as "membrane switches" and other buttons. (’475 Patent, Fig. 1, element 110; Fig. 4, element 440; col. 2:58-59). An argument could be made that the "grouping of input devices" must be structurally distinct from the "touch screen" on which items are listed.

• The Term: "constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other" (’475 Patent, col. 10:1-3).

• Context and Importance: The meaning of "communicate" is crucial for infringement. If it is construed broadly to include any data exchange, it may be easily met. If construed narrowly to require specific types of interaction (e.g., messaging), it may not be.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes functionality where one menu can be used to "pay for all or just selected items" ordered on another menu at the same table. (’475 Patent, col. 3:51-54; col. 9:7-14). This suggests "communicate" could encompass financial transactions or order-sharing between devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discusses the display showing "incoming or outgoing text-messages" and being used with "pre-existing messaging services." (’475 Patent, col. 5:4-8). This might support an argument that "communicate" implies a more direct, conversational exchange between users, rather than simply system-mediated interactions like shared payment.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, claiming that Defendant knowingly and intentionally encourages infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" which "direct end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '475 Patent." (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that any subsequent infringing activity is done despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶13-14). This forms a basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

This case will likely depend on the resolution of a few central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "customer menu apparatus", as described in a patent that distinguishes its invention from general-purpose computers, be construed to cover modern ordering systems that run as applications on standard hardware and operating systems?
2. A critical claim construction and factual question will be one of technical interpretation: Does a standard touch-screen interface, where users tap on menu items, contain "a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen," or does this claim language require structurally separate inputs as depicted in many of the patent's own figures?
3. An evidentiary question will be one of functionality: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to show that the accused systems are "constructed and arranged to allow" for "communication" between customers in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings, and is this functionality distinct from standard e-commerce features?