OrderMagic LLC v. Deli Management Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Deli Management, Inc. (TX)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00369, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant having an established place of business in the district and having committed alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products, which appear to be related to restaurant ordering systems, infringe a patent directed to a remote ordering system.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to electronic, table-top devices for customers in a restaurant or similar setting to place orders and potentially make payments without direct, continuous assistance from wait staff.
• 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 allegations of knowledge and willfulness are based solely on 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, "Remote ordering system," issued November 9, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings with both traditional and then-current electronic restaurant ordering. Traditional ordering is described as inefficient due to its reliance on wait staff for taking orders and processing payments (’475 Patent, col. 1:21-34). Existing electronic menus, such as those using general-purpose tablet PCs, are characterized as being "fragile," "costly," and vulnerable to damage from liquids due to necessary cooling vents (’475 Patent, col. 1:53-col. 2:6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable remote ordering apparatus that combines elements of a physical menu with an electronic interface. The '475 patent's Figure 4 depicts a preferred embodiment of the invention as a binder-style menu containing both printed pages and an electronic interface with selection buttons and a display screen (’475 Patent, Fig. 4). The system is designed to be more robust and less complex than a tablet PC, featuring an electronic menu with input devices (e.g., membrane switches or a touch screen) aligned with menu items and a wireless transmitter to send the order to a remote processing location, such as a kitchen (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-61).
• Technical Importance: The described invention aimed to provide a more streamlined, durable, and cost-effective electronic ordering solution specifically for the restaurant environment, overcoming the perceived fragility and complexity of using off-the-shelf tablet computers for the same purpose (’475 Patent, col. 2:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 4 appear to be representative of the patented system.
• Independent Claim 1 (System):
  • A system comprising a first and second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus includes at least one display listing items, an "input means" for selection, and a "feedback means" for confirmation.
  • The "input means" is recited as including a "touch screen overlaying said feedback display."
  • The system is "constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other" via the two apparatuses.
• Independent Claim 4 (System):
  • A system comprising a first and second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus includes a listing of menu items on a "touch screen."
  • Each apparatus includes a "grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen" and a display device.
  • The system is "constructed and arranged to allow the first and second customers to communicate with each other" via the two apparatuses.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief requests judgment of infringement on "one or more claims" (Compl. Prayer ¶B).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers to them generally as "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details about the functionality or operation of the accused products. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not describe the products' market context or commercial importance. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach its "Exhibit 2," which it states contains claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶16-17). Without this exhibit, the complaint itself contains only conclusory allegations of infringement. It alleges that Defendant infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). A detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible from the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what evidence exists that the accused products contain the specific combination of elements required by any asserted independent claim? For example, what evidence shows that the accused products provide for "communication" between two separate menu apparatuses, as required by both independent claims 1 and 4?
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of specificity raises fundamental questions about the scope of its allegations. The identity and functionality of the "Exemplary Defendant Products" remain undefined, making it unclear how Plaintiff intends to prove that they meet limitations such as having a "touch screen overlaying said feedback display" (Claim 1) or a "grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items" (Claim 4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is critical because its scope will be limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the function of "allowing a customer to select one of the items," and their structural equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused product's input mechanism is the same as or equivalent to the structures disclosed in the '475 patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • The specification discloses several corresponding structures for this function, including "membrane switches" (’475 Patent, col. 2:58-59), a "touch screen" (’475 Patent, col. 6:1-3), a "joystick," a "scroll-wheel," and "verbal input through a microphone and in conjunction with speech recognition software" (’475 Patent, col. 6:58-65). The scope of this limitation will be defined by these specific examples.

• The Term: "communicate with each other" (from Claims 1 and 4)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires that the claimed system enable interaction between at least two separate menu devices. The definition of "communicate" is central to infringement, as it dictates the type of inter-device functionality an accused system must possess.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad range of interactions, stating the menus can provide "an ability to send messages, pay for all or just selected items, play games, or otherwise interact" (’475 Patent, col. 4:63-67). This language could support an interpretation covering various forms of data exchange.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 5 recites a specific form of communication: one apparatus being "configured to pay for items ordered from said second apparatus" (’475 Patent, col. 10:50-52). A party could argue this suggests the term "communicate" should be understood in the context of specific, concrete applications like payment or order sharing, rather than any abstract data link.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that "service of this Complaint... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement "Despite such actual knowledge" is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of demonstrable functionality: given the minimal factual allegations in the complaint, discovery will be required to establish whether the accused products, once identified, actually possess the features recited in the claims. A particular focus may be on whether the products support the "communicate with each other" limitation present in the independent claims.
• A core issue will be one of claim scope: the case will likely involve significant disputes over the meaning of key claim terms. The construction of the means-plus-function term "input means" will be a formal legal exercise, while the interpretation of the phrase "communicate with each other" will determine the type of inter-device capability Plaintiff must prove.
• A threshold question will be one of pleading sufficiency: the complaint's reliance on incorporating an unattached exhibit for its substantive infringement allegations may itself become a point of contention, raising the question of whether the pleading provides sufficient notice of the basis for the infringement claim.