DCT
2:25-cv-00457
Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. McDonald's USA LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: McDonald's USA, LLC (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00457, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Marshall, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, which allow customers to interact with its services via wireless devices, infringe a patent related to brokering data between wireless devices and data rendering devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that enable a user with a wireless device (like a smartphone) to locate and securely send data to a nearby output device (like a public printer or display) for rendering.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities for patents including the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff asserts these licenses did not involve the production of a patented article and thus do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Plaintiff is identified as a non-practicing entity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Priority Date |
| 2017-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 Issue Date |
| 2025-05-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,549,285 - Systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices
(Issued January 17, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, users of handheld wireless devices (like early PDAs) were constrained by small screens and limited options for outputting retrieved data. The patent identifies a need for better solutions for rendering documents and video from these devices, noting that existing methods were "severely limited, or practically nonexistent" (’285 Patent, col. 4:40-44).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for "data brokering" that connects a wireless device (WD) to a "data rendering device" (DRD), such as a networked printer or multimedia projector (’285 Patent, col. 1:40-45). A user can employ their WD to locate a nearby DRD, potentially using location-based services, and then securely transmit data to it for display or printing (’285 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:28-35). The system architecture includes a central server that can manage the interaction, store data, and handle security features like passcodes entered at the DRD to authorize data retrieval (’285 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This technology aimed to bridge the gap between increasingly capable mobile devices and fixed-location output hardware, addressing the public's growing "desire for 'portability' and 'information on the go'" (’285 Patent, col. 4:50-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-13 of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A system with a server communicating with at least one Data Rendering Device (DRD).
- The DRD has a user interface for receiving passcodes.
- The DRD is registered with the server to receive data from a network at the request of a Wireless Device (WD).
- The data rendering is responsive to a passcode associated with the WD being entered at the DRD's user interface.
- A memory in the server stores the data and the associated passcode.
- The server is configured to receive the data and passcode and to render the data at the DRD only after the correct passcode is entered at the DRD's user interface.
- The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "systems, products, and services," including its websites, such as the one for downloading the McDonald's mobile application (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems, which are used by its customers (Compl. ¶¶9, 11). The infringing functionality is described as performing the methods claimed in the ’285 patent, which involves providing data to data rendering devices (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not specify which particular components of Defendant's infrastructure constitute the "server," "data rendering device," or "user interface" recited in the claims, nor does it describe the specific data flow between a customer's device and Defendant's in-store or back-end systems.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B," which was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶10). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint. These allegations are framed at a high level and do not specify how each component of the accused McDonald's system maps to the elements of the claims.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’285 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for rendering data provided via a data communications network at the request of a wireless device, comprising: a server in communication with at least one data rendering device (DRD)... | Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems" that provide data to rendering devices. This suggests Defendant's back-end servers communicate with in-store hardware. | ¶¶8, 9 | col. 7:17-24 |
| said at least one DRD including a user interface for receiving passcodes... | The complaint does not specify the component alleged to be the "user interface" or how it receives passcodes. The allegation is that Defendant's systems as a whole practice the invention. | ¶9 | col. 7:25-27 |
| the DRD registered with said server to access and receive data over a data communications network at the request of a wireless device (WD) for rendering... | Defendant's systems are allegedly used by customers with wireless devices to perform infringing methods, implying a customer's device requests data to be rendered. | ¶¶8, 11 | col. 14:1-18 |
| in response to a passcode associated with said WD being entered at the user interface; | The complaint does not provide specific facts about how or where a "passcode" is entered in the accused system. | ¶9 | col. 14:1-18 |
| memory in said server accessible by said DRD, said memory for securely storing data received by or on behalf of said WD and said passcode associated with said WD; | Defendant's systems are alleged to perform the claimed methods, which would require memory for storing user and transaction data. | ¶¶8, 9 | col. 14:1-18 |
| wherein said server is configured to receive said data and said passcode... and to render said data after at least one passcode is entered on said user interface... | Defendant's systems allegedly perform the process of rendering data, which the patent claims is gated by passcode entry. | ¶¶8, 9 | col. 14:1-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: What specific hardware in the accused McDonald's ecosystem constitutes the "data rendering device (DRD)" as defined by the patent? The patent describes DRDs as devices like printers and projectors (’285 Patent, col. 1:40-45), raising the question of whether components like a point-of-sale terminal, kitchen display system, or digital menu board fall within the claim scope.
- Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations regarding the "passcode" element. A central technical question will be whether the accused systems require a passcode to be entered at the DRD's user interface, as claimed, or whether authentication occurs exclusively on the user's wireless device (e.g., logging into a mobile app). The evidence must show that the locus of passcode entry matches the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "data rendering device (DRD)"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. Plaintiff must prove that components of Defendant's system meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused infrastructure (e.g., in-store displays, kiosks, printers) is covered by the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a DRD "includes data rendering hardware (e.g., printers, copiers, displays, etc.)" (’285 Patent, col. 7:6-9). The use of "e.g." and "etc." suggests the list is exemplary, not exhaustive, potentially allowing for other types of output devices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly provides specific examples, such as "networked printers," "televisions, video monitors, and projectors," and "high definition flat panel television displays" (’285 Patent, col. 1:42-45; col. 4:63-64). A defendant could argue these examples limit the term to dedicated, general-purpose output devices rather than integrated components of a proprietary point-of-sale system.
The Term: "passcode associated with said WD being entered at the user interface" [of the DRD]
Context and Importance: This term dictates the specific security and interaction model required by the claim. Infringement hinges on whether passcode entry occurs at the DRD itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern systems often perform authentication on the user's personal device (the WD), creating a potential mismatch with the claim language.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is silent on what constitutes a "user interface" of the DRD, which could be argued to encompass any system portal for authentication that is logically associated with the DRD, even if not physically part of it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts and description explicitly depict this step as occurring at the DRD. For example, Figure 11 shows a step where a user must "Enter Passcode at DRD" (113) after the DRD has received a data transfer request, distinct from actions taken on the WD (’285 Patent, Fig. 11; col. 12:3-8). This strongly suggests a direct, physical interaction with the rendering device for authentication.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes allegations that could support a claim for induced infringement by stating that Defendant's systems are "used by Defendant's customers" and that Defendant's acts "caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" (Compl. ¶¶9, 11). This suggests Defendant provides the means (its system and app) and encourages customers to use them in an allegedly infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a declaration that infringement was willful and seeks treble damages (Compl. ¶VI.d). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any facts to support this, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a prior offer to license.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A primary issue will be whether the components of Defendant's commercial ecosystem, such as point-of-sale terminals or digital menu boards, can be construed to be the "data rendering device (DRD)" as envisioned and described in the ’285 Patent.
- Factual and Functional Locus: A critical evidentiary question will be the locus of user authentication. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant's system requires a "passcode" to be entered at the "user interface" of the alleged DRD, as the claim requires, or if authentication occurs exclusively on the customer's own wireless device, which may represent a fundamental operational mismatch with the patented method.
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint's infringement allegations are asserted at a high level. A key question will be whether discovery yields sufficient evidence to map the specific, step-by-step technical operations of Defendant's complex commercial systems onto the discrete limitations recited in the asserted claims.