OrderMagic LLC v. Mr Yum Holdings Pty Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Mr Yum Holdings Pty Ltd (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00371, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote ordering systems infringe a patent related to an electronic menu apparatus for use in environments like restaurants.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of digital and electronic ordering systems for the hospitality industry, a market focused on streamlining customer ordering and payment.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: 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 inefficient, relying on wait staff for order transcription and payment processing, which can slow service (ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:21-34). It also identifies prior art electronic menus, such as those using tablet PCs, as being overly complex, fragile, costly, and susceptible to damage from liquids common in a restaurant environment (ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:36-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable electronic menu apparatus designed for the hospitality environment. The system combines physical, turnable menu pages with corresponding input devices (e.g., membrane switches) aligned with the listed items, a feedback display to confirm selections, and a wireless transmitter to send the completed order to a remote location like a kitchen for processing (ʼ475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-20; col. 2:50-65). The design, as depicted in figures like FIG. 4, aims to be more robust and user-friendly than a general-purpose computer.
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide the benefits of electronic ordering while avoiding the perceived technical and durability drawbacks of using standard consumer-grade tablet computers in a commercial food service setting (ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:52-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’475 Patent but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A system comprising: a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus, each apparatus comprising:
  • 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 said feedback means includes a feedback display, and said input means includes a touch screen overlaying said feedback display capable of selecting options appearing on said feedback display; and
  • wherein the system is constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other via the first and second customer 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 accused products, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). It incorporates by reference claim charts in an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are remote ordering systems used, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11). No specific technical details of the accused products' operation are provided in the body of the complaint. The complaint alleges these products are used by Defendant's employees and customers (Compl. ¶11, ¶12, ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges 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). It states that detailed infringement comparisons are provided in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As Exhibit 2 was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative Claim 1 and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Architectural Questions: Claim 1 requires a system with a "first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus" that are "constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other" via those apparatuses. A key question will be whether the accused system possesses two distinct "customer menu apparatuses" that meet this description and communication requirement, or if it operates on a different architecture (e.g., a client-server model where individual user devices do not directly communicate with each other).
  • Scope Questions: The patent describes a physical, book-like device with integrated electronics ('475 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 2:52-56). The analysis may question whether the term "customer menu apparatus" can be construed to read on what may be a purely software-based application running on a customer's general-purpose smartphone, which is a common architecture for modern ordering systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "customer menu apparatus" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central, as it defines the core component of the claimed system. Whether the accused product contains a "customer menu apparatus" will likely be a primary point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent's scope, seemingly centered on a specific type of hardware, can extend to modern, software-based ordering platforms.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the apparatus to a specific physical form factor, referring more generally to a display, an input means, and a feedback means ('475 Patent, col. 9:26-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the apparatus as a physical, menu-like object, for instance, an "electronic food menu 100" with turnable "menu pages 460" held by "rings 430" ('475 Patent, col. 2:52-53; col. 4:58-61). Figures 1, 3, and 4-16 all depict a self-contained, physical device.

• The Term: "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific mode of interaction between two distinct apparatuses. The viability of the infringement claim could depend on whether the accused system enables this type of peer-to-peer style communication or uses a different method, such as all devices communicating independently with a central server.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent mentions 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. 3:56-60). This suggests a broad concept of inter-menu communication.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires communication "via" the apparatuses. This may be interpreted to mean the communication path flows through the devices themselves, as opposed to each device simply sending and receiving data from a separate, common server. The patent does not provide a detailed technical schematic of this communication link, leaving its precise nature open to interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and "direct end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the '475 patent at least since the service of the complaint and that it "continued to sell" infringing products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13-14). This forms a basis for post-filing willful infringement. Plaintiff also requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

1. Definitional Scope: A central issue will be whether the term "customer menu apparatus", which the patent specification heavily implies is a purpose-built physical device, can be construed broadly enough to cover the potentially software-based, bring-your-own-device architecture of a modern restaurant QR code ordering system.

2. System Architecture Mismatch: The case may turn on a question of technical architecture. Does the accused system meet the specific requirement of Claim 1 for a "first" and "second" customer menu apparatus that "communicate with each other," or does its operational design fail to map onto this claimed system structure?

3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given that the complaint makes conclusory infringement allegations and relies on an unprovided exhibit for factual support, a key question will be what evidence Plaintiff will be able to marshal during discovery to demonstrate that the accused products meet each limitation of the asserted claims.