OrderMagic LLC v. Inspire Brands Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Inspire Brands, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00370, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• 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 relates to electronic table-side ordering systems designed to streamline the customer ordering and payment process in a restaurant environment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review 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: November 9, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional restaurant ordering as inefficiently reliant on waitstaff. (’475 Patent, col. 1:21-34). It also identifies prior art electronic menus, such as those using tablet PCs, as being undesirably complex, fragile, costly, and susceptible to damage from liquids due to the need for cooling vents. (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-col. 2:6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a remote ordering system centered on a dedicated, durable electronic menu apparatus designed to overcome the vulnerabilities of general-purpose tablets. (’475 Patent, col. 2:13-18). The apparatus combines a physical menu (e.g., printed pages in a binder) with corresponding input devices (e.g., membrane switches aligned with menu items), 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. 2:21-25). This design aims for a more robust and streamlined user experience compared to software running on a standard operating system. (’475 Patent, col. 7:51-64).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide a purpose-built, rugged, and potentially more cost-effective hardware solution for digital ordering in the demanding physical environment of a restaurant. (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-39, col. 5:57-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to the "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" identified in an un-provided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent claims 1 and 4 are representative of the patented system.

• Independent Claim 1: A system comprising a first and a second customer menu apparatus, each of which includes:
  • at least one display listing a plurality of items;
  • an input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items;
  • a feedback means for confirming selection of the item, wherein the feedback means includes a feedback display and the input means includes a touch screen overlaying the feedback display; and
  • the system is constructed and arranged to allow the first and second customer to communicate with each other via the apparatuses.
• Independent Claim 4: A system comprising a first and a second customer menu apparatus, each of which includes:
  • 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 regarding input from the input devices; and
  • the system is constructed and arranged to allow the first and second customers to communicate with each other via the apparatuses.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products or services. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count," but these charts (Exhibit 2) were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include Exhibit 2, which purportedly contains claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’475 Patent by making, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products. (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that Defendant’s employees directly infringe by internally testing and using the products. (Compl. ¶12). The core of the infringement allegation is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" and "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 will be whether the term "customer menu apparatus" as claimed in the ’475 patent, which the specification describes as a purpose-built, ruggedized device, can be construed to read on the accused products, which may be software applications running on general-purpose consumer devices (e.g., smartphones) or web-based ordering platforms.
  • Technical Questions: Independent claims 1 and 4 require a system where two "customer menu apparatuses" are "constructed and arranged to allow" customers to "communicate with each other." A key factual question will be whether the architecture of the accused system supports this type of interaction between two end-user devices, or if communication is mediated exclusively through a central server in a way that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "customer menu apparatus"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the claimed invention. Its construction will likely determine whether the patent can cover modern software-based ordering systems or is limited to the specific hardware embodiments described. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s background section distinguishes the invention from prior art tablet PCs based on their fragility and complexity. (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-col. 2:6).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "apparatus" itself is broad. The claims do not explicitly limit the apparatus to a specific physical form factor, instead defining it by its functional components (display, input means, etc.). (’475 Patent, col. 9:22-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily emphasizes a physical, book-like device with features such as binder rings, printed pages, page indexing means, and membrane switches. (’475 Patent, FIG. 4; col. 4:58-col. 5:14). This repeated focus on a durable, specialized hardware unit, in contrast to general-purpose computers, could support a narrower definition that excludes software on a standard smartphone or computer.

• The Term: "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in independent claims 1 and 4 and defines the interactive capability of the system. Its interpretation is critical to determining if a standard client-server architecture, where user devices communicate with a server but not directly with each other, infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that indirect communication through a central server still constitutes communication "with each other" for the purpose of the system (e.g., coordinating a group order).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "the menu's can communicate with other menus, providing an ability to send messages, pay for all or just selected items, play games, or otherwise interact." (’475 Patent, col. 3:49-54). This language, along with the plain meaning of the claim, suggests a system enabling more direct, peer-to-peer or device-to-device interaction, which may not be present in the accused systems.

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 end users on how to use them in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" from the date of service of the complaint and its attached (but un-provided) claim charts. (Compl. ¶13). It requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which forms a basis for seeking enhanced damages and attorneys' fees based on post-suit conduct. (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "customer menu apparatus", which is described in the patent specification as a specialized and ruggedized hardware device intended to solve the problems of fragile tablet PCs, be construed broadly enough to encompass a software application running on a modern, general-purpose device like a customer's smartphone?
• A key technical and legal question will be one of system architecture: does the accused ordering system, which likely operates on a client-server model, meet the claim limitation requiring a system where two separate "customer menu apparatuses" are "constructed and arranged" to allow the customers to "communicate with each other", or does that language require a form of direct, peer-to-peer functionality that is absent in the accused technology?
• An initial evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to substantiate its allegations by providing the specific identity of the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and the claim charts that form the basis of its infringement contentions, which were referenced but not included with the initial complaint.