OrderMagic LLC v. Chick Fil A Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Chick-fil-A, Inc. (GA)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00367, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote ordering systems infringe a patent related to an electronic menu system that allows customers to place orders and pay without direct assistance from waitstaff.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic ordering systems for the restaurant industry, a market where digital and mobile ordering platforms have become central to customer service and operational efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff asserts it is the assignee of all rights to the patent-in-suit, including the right to enforce it and collect damages for infringement. No other prior litigation, licensing, or prosecution history is mentioned in the 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’s background section identifies inefficiencies in traditional restaurant ordering, which relies on waitstaff to take and process orders, and notes that prior art electronic menus (such as tablet PCs) were often complex, fragile, costly, and susceptible to damage from liquids common in a restaurant environment (’475 Patent, col. 1:21-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a durable, simplified remote ordering device. In one embodiment, it combines a physical book-like menu containing printed pages with simple, water-resistant input devices (e.g., membrane switches) aligned with the printed items. A small display provides feedback on selected items, and a wireless transmitter sends the completed order to a remote station, such as the kitchen (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65; Fig. 1). This design aims to offer the familiarity of a traditional menu with the efficiency of electronic ordering, while avoiding the complexity and fragility of general-purpose computing devices (’475 Patent, col. 2:11-20).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to create a purpose-built, rugged, and lower-cost alternative to using consumer-grade tablets for restaurant ordering at a time when such dedicated hardware was seen as a path to greater reliability and simpler user interaction (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 4 is representative of the system claims.

• Independent Claim 4:
  • A system comprising a first and second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus comprising a listing of menu items on a touch screen.
  • Each apparatus comprising a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen.
  • Each apparatus comprising a display device for displaying information 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 first and second menu apparatuses.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims of the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶11, Prayer for Relief ¶B).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports products that "practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on the nature of Defendant’s business, these are likely mobile applications, web-based ordering platforms, or in-store kiosks that allow customers to select, customize, and pay for food orders. The complaint provides no specific details on the technical operation or market position of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement theories; however, this exhibit was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory asserts that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by practicing the patented technology and satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Without the claim charts, the specific features of the accused products that allegedly meet each claim limitation are unknown.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: Given the patent's focus on a physical apparatus with distinct input switches (’475 Patent, Fig. 5), a central question will be how Plaintiff alleges that a modern software-based graphical user interface (GUI), likely used by Defendant, contains the "grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items" as claimed.
  • Scope Questions: The requirement in claim 4 that the system allows two customer apparatuses to "communicate with each other" raises a significant scope question. The court will need to determine what level of "communication" is required by the patent and what evidence shows the accused systems facilitate such communication between distinct users, beyond merely co-existing on a network.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen" (from claim 4)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining the scope of the claimed system. Defendant will likely argue the term is limited to the physical, spatially-aligned buttons shown in the specification, while Plaintiff may argue it reads on virtual buttons within a GUI. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent covers modern software-based ordering apps or is limited to the specific hardware embodiments described.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "input devices" without limiting them to a specific physical type like "membrane switches," which are only described as a "preferred embodiment" (’475 Patent, col. 5:57-58). The patent also contemplates a touch screen overlay as an input means, which could support a less physical, more logical definition of "correspond" (’475 Patent, col. 6:1-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes and illustrates embodiments where physical selection means are located adjacent to a separate menu page or display (’475 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 5:48-56). The abstract describes "input devices corresponding to various menu items aligned with the input devices," suggesting a physical alignment. This could support an interpretation requiring a distinct spatial relationship not present in a typical integrated GUI.

"communicate with each other" (from claim 4)

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for claim 4 hinges on whether the accused systems enable the required "communication." The meaning of this term is not explicitly defined and could range from simple data exchange (e.g., paying for another's order) to active messaging.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses an embodiment where a "master menu" can receive order information from other menus at the same table and pay for them, which could be construed as a form of "communication" (’475 Patent, col. 9:8-14). This suggests the term might cover administrative or transactional interactions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also mentions the ability to "send messages" as a feature, which could imply that "communicate" requires more than just transactional data sharing (’475 Patent, col. 3:51-54). A court could find that the term requires a capability for user-to-user messaging that may not be present in a standard ordering application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after gaining "actual knowledge" of the ’475 patent through the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). The allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct only.

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

1. A key question will be one of claim scope and technology evolution: Can the claim term "grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items," which is described in the context of 2006-era physical hardware, be construed to cover modern, purely software-based graphical user interfaces on general-purpose devices like smartphones? The outcome may depend on whether the court views the invention as a specific hardware solution or a more abstract ordering process.
2. An evidentiary question will be central to proving infringement of system claims: What factual evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Defendant’s accused systems are "constructed and arranged to allow" for "communication" between two separate customer apparatuses, as required by claim 4? The case may turn on whether routine transactional capabilities of modern apps meet this disputed claim limitation.