OrderMagic LLC v. Raising Cane's Restaurants LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC (LA)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00372, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s restaurant ordering systems infringe a patent related to a remote electronic ordering system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic, table-side ordering systems for restaurants, a field aimed at improving ordering efficiency and the customer experience.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2006. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff OrderMagic LLC is the assignee of the patent, while the patent’s front page lists "E-Meal, LLC" as the assignee at the time of issuance.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-11-29	Earliest Priority Date (’475 Patent)
2010-11-09	'475 Patent Issue Date
2025-04-09	Complaint Filing Date

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 (’475 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art electronic menus, such as those using tablet PCs, as being costly, fragile, susceptible to liquid damage, and unstable due to reliance on complex operating systems like WINDOWS (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-61). This reliance on general-purpose computing devices was seen as inefficient for the specific task of menu ordering (’475 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable remote ordering device that combines a physical, multi-page menu with an electronic ordering system. In a described embodiment, the device resembles a binder holding physical menu pages, with adjacent "selection means" (such as membrane switches) for choosing items, a display screen to provide feedback on selections, and a wireless transmitter to send the completed order to a remote location like the kitchen (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:14-25; Fig. 4). The system is designed to be more robust and less complex than a tablet PC (’475 Patent, col. 2:14-19).
• Technical Importance: The described technical approach sought to provide restaurants with a cost-effective and ruggedized electronic ordering solution that avoided the perceived fragility and complexity of using general-purpose consumer electronics in a demanding restaurant environment (’475 Patent, col. 1:54-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring only to "the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" contained in a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16). The patent contains three independent claims (1, 4, and 13). The two independent system claims are summarized below.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising a first and second "customer menu apparatus," each including:
  • 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 system allows the two apparatuses to communicate with each other.
• Independent Claim 4 recites a system comprising a first and second "customer menu apparatus," each including:
  • 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;
  • wherein the system allows the two apparatuses to communicate with each other.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name, referring only to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and/or imports infringing products, and that Defendant's employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12). No details are provided regarding the products' operation or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific infringement allegations or claim charts in its body. Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). This exhibit was not provided. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendant’s unspecified 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 primary question will be whether the accused products, which may be modern software-based ordering systems (e.g., a mobile application or web portal), fall within the scope of the claimed "customer menu apparatus." The patent specification heavily describes a purpose-built hardware device, raising the question of whether a software application running on a general-purpose device like a customer's smartphone can be construed as the claimed "apparatus" (’475 Patent, col. 4:14-25, Fig. 4).
• Technical Questions: Without any description of the accused instrumentality, it is not possible to identify specific technical disputes. The core of the dispute will depend on the actual architecture and user interface of Defendant's ordering system and how it compares to the structures disclosed and claimed in the patent. For example, a key question will be whether the accused system's input method constitutes an "input means" under the patent's claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "customer menu apparatus" (Claim 1, 4)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the claimed system. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the patent's scope can extend beyond the specific physical device described in the specification to encompass modern, software-centric ordering systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "apparatus" is general, and one party might argue it should cover any system or device that performs the recited functions of displaying items, taking input, and providing feedback.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "apparatus" as a physical, book-like menu with physical pages, page-turn detectors, and integrated hardware components, suggesting a narrower construction limited to such a self-contained device (’475 Patent, col. 4:14-25, 60-65; Fig. 4).

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

• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is therefore limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will hinge on whether the input mechanism of the accused product (e.g., a tap on a graphical user interface) is structurally equivalent to the hardware disclosed in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (within § 112(f) limits): The specification discloses several alternative structures for the "input means," including "membrane switches," "areas on a touch screen," a "joystick," and a "scroll-wheel" (’475 Patent, col. 3:8, col. 5:60-66, col. 6:1-3). A party could argue this disclosure of multiple alternatives supports a broader range of equivalents.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that all disclosed structures are physical hardware components integrated into the bespoke "apparatus," and that a purely software-based GUI element on a general-purpose smartphone is not a structural equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users and others to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’475 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its allegation of knowledge of infringement on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after receiving the complaint is willful and intentional (Compl. ¶14-15).

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

1. A central issue will be one of technological scope: Can the claims of the ’475 Patent, which appear rooted in the context of a purpose-built, durable hardware device from the mid-2000s, be construed to cover potentially modern, software-based ordering systems that run on general-purpose consumer devices?

2. The case will likely turn on a question of claim construction, specifically the scope of the means-plus-function term "input means." The court’s determination of what constitutes a structural equivalent to the "membrane switches" and other hardware disclosed in the patent will be critical to the infringement analysis.

3. A key evidentiary question will be what facts Plaintiff can develop to connect its bare-bones allegations to the actual functionality of Defendant's ordering systems. The outcome may depend on whether the technology used by Raising Cane's bears any structural resemblance to the specific embodiments described and claimed in the patent.