OrderMagic LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00368, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote ordering systems infringe a patent related to an electronic menu apparatus for use in restaurants.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic, table-side ordering systems designed to streamline the customer ordering and payment process in a restaurant setting.
• 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.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475 - "Remote ordering system" (Issued Nov. 9, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional restaurant ordering as inefficient due to its reliance on waitstaff for taking orders and processing payments (U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, col. 1:21-34). It also identifies prior electronic solutions, such as those using tablet PCs, as being overly complex, fragile, costly, and power-intensive for a restaurant environment (’475 Patent, col. 1:35-43, 1:55-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable electronic menu apparatus. In a described embodiment, the device combines physical, printed menu pages with corresponding selection means (e.g., membrane switches) aligned with the items, a display for providing feedback on selections, and a wireless transmitter to send the completed order to a remote location like a kitchen (’475 Patent, col. 2:51-61; FIG. 4). The system is designed to be more robust and less complex than a general-purpose tablet computer running a standard operating system (’475 Patent, col. 7:56-65).
• Technical Importance: The invention aimed to provide a dedicated, hardened device for restaurant ordering that could withstand the rigors of that environment (e.g., spills) while simplifying the user interface compared to software running on general-purpose computers (’475 Patent, col. 2:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’475 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1, 4, and 13 are available for assertion. Claim 4 is representative of the system claims.
• Independent Claim 4 (System Claim) Elements:
  • a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus, each of the apparatuses 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 one of a first customer and a second customer regarding input from the input devices; and
  • wherein 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 "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that constitute Defendant's remote ordering systems (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the ’475 Patent, enabling customers to place orders remotely (Compl. ¶16). It alleges these products are made, used, sold, and offered for sale by Defendant (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused systems or their market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that its infringement theories are detailed in claim charts provided in "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. The complaint's narrative states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’475 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "customer menu apparatus," as described in the patent (e.g., a physical, book-like device with integrated electronics), can be construed to read on the accused systems, which may be software applications running on general-purpose hardware like kiosks, tablets, or customer smartphones. The patent's emphasis on a durable, purpose-built device may be contrasted with the nature of the accused products (’475 Patent, col. 2:13-18).
• Technical Questions: For a claim like Claim 4, which recites "a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen," a key technical question will be whether a modern integrated touchscreen, where the input and display are the same component, meets this limitation. The patent specification often depicts distinct "selection means" (440) alongside a display (480), which may support a narrower interpretation requiring separate components (’475 Patent, FIG. 4). Another question is whether the accused systems are "constructed and arranged" to allow for the inter-apparatus communication required by Claim 4.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen" (from Claim 4).

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical for determining whether a modern, integrated touchscreen falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification frequently illustrates embodiments with separate physical buttons adjacent to menu items, which may differ from the integrated nature of the accused technology.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument for a broader reading might cite the claim's use of "touch screen" and the specification's statement that "Selection means 440 can also be areas on a touch screen overlaid on the surface of the display" (’475 Patent, col. 6:1-4). This suggests the "input devices" can be virtual regions of the screen itself.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument for a narrower reading could point to embodiments like Figure 4, which explicitly shows separate physical "selection means" (440) alongside the display (480) and menu page (460). Language describing selection means as "membrane switches" which are "water resistant, durable, and are able to provide tactile feedback" could also support a construction requiring a physical, distinct input component (’475 Patent, col. 5:58-61).

• The Term: "customer menu apparatus" (from Claim 4).

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine whether the patent covers software-based ordering systems on general-purpose devices or is limited to the specific, self-contained hardware described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a "system" and a "method," and the term "apparatus" itself is broad. Parties arguing for a broad scope may contend that the term is not explicitly limited to a single physical form factor.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly characterizes the invention as a physical object, such as an "electronic food menu 100" that can be handed to a customer or taken from a docking station (’475 Patent, col. 2:62-64). The background distinguishes the invention from "tablet personal computer[s]" based on durability and simplicity, suggesting the "apparatus" is a distinct category of hardened, purpose-built hardware (’475 Patent, col. 1:37-43).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’475 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the filing of the complaint itself. The complaint asserts that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Defendant has had "actual knowledge" and has "knowingly, and intentionally continued to" infringe (Compl. ¶¶13, 15).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "customer menu apparatus," which is described in the patent's specification as a durable, self-contained hardware device, be construed to cover modern ordering systems that exist as software on general-purpose devices like smartphones, tablets, or web browsers?
2. A second central issue will be technical interpretation: does an integrated touchscreen, where a single surface serves as both display and input, satisfy the claim limitation of "a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen," particularly when the patent's embodiments frequently depict physically separate buttons?
3. A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the complaint's reliance on an un-provided exhibit for its infringement contentions, a primary focus in discovery will be on establishing the precise functionality of the accused systems and whether Plaintiff can map that functionality to the specific limitations of the asserted claims.