DCT
2:25-cv-00581
S3G Technology LLC v. Smoothie King Franchises Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: S3G Technology LLC (California)
- Defendant: Smoothie King Franchises, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00581, E.D. Tex., 05/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, identifying a specific franchise location in Tyler, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications and associated backend server systems infringe four patents related to efficiently updating software applications on remote devices.
- Technical Context: The asserted patents concern systems and methods for modifying software on networked client-server systems without transmitting a complete new version of the application, a technique intended to conserve network bandwidth and improve update efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior litigation involving the asserted patents, S3G Tech. LLC v. Unikey Techs., Inc., which resulted in court-adopted constructions for key claim terms such as "code" and "dialogue module." The complaint also notes that during prosecution of a related patent, the U.S. Patent Examiner found the claimed inventions distinguishable from the prior art of record.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’124, ’140, ’758, and ’995 Patents |
| 2016-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 Issues |
| 2018-04-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 Issues |
| 2019-08-20 | U.S. Patent No. 10,387,140 Issues |
| 2023-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 Issues |
| 2025-01-27 | Accused Android App Last Updated |
| 2025-01-28 | Accused iOS App Last Updated |
| 2025-05-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,940,124 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
- Issued: April 10, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of distributing newly compiled software updates to a large number of geographically dispersed devices. It notes that transmitting entire updated applications consumes significant time and network bandwidth, particularly over wireless networks (’124 Patent, col. 2:35-64; Compl. ¶¶15-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-entity computer system comprising a "terminal machine" (e.g., a mobile device), a "service provider machine" (e.g., a backend server), and an "update server machine" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides a system diagram from the patent illustrating this three-entity structure (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 1). Instead of sending a full application, the update server sends a small "dialogue module" containing "code" to the terminal machine. This module modifies the existing terminal application to alter its functionality, such as changing a sequence of user prompts. The solution is premised on a specific software architecture where an application consists of both "computer-executable instructions" (which run directly on a processor and are not modified) and "code" (which must be translated before execution and is the target of the modification) (’124 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-40; Compl. ¶¶18-19). A second diagram from the patent illustrates the specific structure of the applications, which comprise both computer-executable instructions (214, 224) and translatable code (212, 222) (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach is designed to reduce network bandwidth utilization and improve the efficiency of modifying applications on remote devices by transmitting only small, targeted update modules instead of entire application packages (’124 Patent, col. 6:61-63; Compl. ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- Claim 1 essential elements:
- A method of conducting a dialogue between a terminal machine and a service provider machine.
- Displaying a first prompt by running a terminal application that comprises first computer-executable instructions and first code.
- Accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine.
- Communicating information from the terminal machine to a service provider machine running a provider application (comprising second computer-executable instructions and second code).
- Storing at least a portion of the information in memory.
- Receiving, at the terminal machine, a terminal dialogue module that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code.
- The first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt for a modified dialogue sequence.
- At least one of the first code, second code, and first updated code comprise "intermediate code."
U.S. Patent No. 10,387,140 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
- Issued: August 20, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’124 Patent: the inefficiency of distributing large, fully recompiled software application updates over networks, particularly wireless ones (’140 Patent, col. 2:35-64; Compl. ¶¶15-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for conducting a dialogue where a terminal machine receives "third code" that modifies the "first code" of its terminal application, thereby adapting the application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence with a service provider machine. This patent adds further specificity, claiming that the receipt of the modifying code is performed in response to a "trigger condition" being satisfied and that the update code comes from an "update server machine" that is separate and distinct from both the terminal and service provider machines (’140 Patent, Abstract, col. 4:30-40; Compl. Second Claim for Relief, ¶¶10-12).
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution aims to enable efficient, targeted software modifications that can be triggered by specific events, such as user actions or location changes, without requiring a full application download (’140 Patent, col. 6:55-63; Compl. ¶¶24, 26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. Second Claim for Relief, ¶4).
- Claim 1 essential elements:
- A method of conducting a dialogue sequence between a terminal machine and a service provider machine.
- The method involves steps of displaying prompts, receiving data, communicating information, storing information, and receiving "third code" that modifies "first code" to produce "first updated code" for a modified dialogue.
- Receiving the third code is performed in response to the terminal machine satisfying a "trigger condition."
- The third code is received from an "update server machine" that is separate and distinct from the terminal and service provider machines.
- The terminal and service provider machines include different types of processors, making their respective computer-executable instructions non-interoperable.
- The computer-executable instructions are fully compiled.
U.S. Patent No. 9,304,758 - "Modification of Terminal and Service Provider Machines Using an Update Server Machine"
- Issued: April 5, 2016 (Compl. ¶12)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, addresses the technical problem of distributing large software updates to remote devices. The patented solution is a method where a terminal machine application, comprising executable instructions and translatable "first code," receives a "terminal dialogue module" that replaces at least a portion of the first code to produce updated code, thereby adapting the application for a modified dialogue with a server (’758 Patent, Abstract; Compl. Third Claim for Relief, ¶32).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. Third Claim for Relief, ¶27).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Smoothie King app receives data from its server (the "terminal dialogue module") representing user-specific information like a saved "Favorite Location," which replaces a portion of the app's bytecode ("first code") to modify its behavior without a full reinstallation (Compl. Third Claim for Relief, ¶¶29, 32).
U.S. Patent No. 11,662,995 - "Network Efficient Location-Based Dialogue Sequence Using Virtual Processor"
- Issued: May 30, 2023 (Compl. ¶13)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses efficient dialogue management between at least two user devices, facilitated by one or more provider applications. The solution involves a method where a provider application receives "second code" from a first user device which "supplements first code" on the provider application to produce "first updated code." This updated code then adapts the provider application to facilitate the dialogue between the first and second user devices, all while the application remains in continuous operation (’995 Patent, Abstract; Compl. Fourth Claim for Relief, ¶¶55, 58).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. Fourth Claim for Relief, ¶54).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Smoothie King server application of facilitating a dialogue between a user's web browser (first device) and mobile app (second device). For example, when a user saves a "Favorite Location" via the website, this information ("second code") is received by the server, updating the server application so it can then facilitate the display and use of that location on the mobile app (Compl. Fourth Claim for Relief, ¶¶56-58).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the Smoothie King mobile applications for Android and iOS (the "Defendant app") and the associated backend systems, methods, servers, and software (the "Accused System") (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Accused System provides a client-server platform for customers to manage their accounts, including saving "Favorite Locations," "Favorite Orders," payment methods, and loyalty points ("Blender Bucks") (Compl. ¶35, n.8). The app on a user's device (the "terminal machine") communicates with Smoothie King's backend servers (the "service provider machine") to send and receive data. The complaint alleges that when a user saves new information, the server sends data to the app that modifies the app’s local data or state, allowing the app to display updated information and options without requiring a full application update from an app store (Compl. ¶¶37, 39). The complaint characterizes this data exchange as the receipt of a "terminal dialogue module" that updates the application's "code" (Compl. ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’124 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method of conducting a dialogue between a terminal machine and a service provider machine | The Accused System performs a method of dialogue between a user's smartphone (terminal machine) and Defendant's server (service provider machine). | ¶34 | col. 4:40-42 |
| ...displaying a first prompt on a terminal display of a terminal machine...by running a terminal application, the terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code... | The Defendant app (terminal application) prompts the user to review or save a "Favorite Location." The app is alleged to comprise the Android Runtime (ART) as "computer-executable instructions" and the app's bytecode as "first code." | ¶35 | col. 7:41-52 |
| ...accepting a first data entry at the terminal machine... | The user saves a new Favorite Location in the app. | ¶36 | col. 4:13-15 |
| ...communicating information associated with the first data entry from the terminal machine to the service provider machine... | The information for the new Favorite Location is communicated from the user's device to the Defendant's server. | ¶37 | col. 4:51-54 |
| ...receiving, at the terminal machine, a terminal dialogue module that updates at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code... | The Defendant app receives information from the server (e.g., in JSON format) confirming the saved Favorite Location. This information is alleged to be a "terminal dialogue module" that updates the app's bytecode ("first code"). | ¶39 | col. 7:25-30 |
| ...wherein the first updated code adapts the terminal application to display a second prompt for the terminal machine's portion of a modified dialogue sequence... | The updated app is now able to display the newly saved Favorite Location as a selectable option (the "second prompt" in a "modified dialogue"). | ¶39 | col. 8:1-6 |
| ...wherein at least one of the first code, the second code, and the first updated code comprise intermediate code. | The app's bytecode is alleged to be "intermediate code." | ¶39 | col. 5:51-53 |
’140 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...receiving, at the terminal machine...third code that modifies at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code... | When a user saves a Favorite Location, information is sent from the server to the app. This information is alleged to be "third code" (e.g., JSON) that updates the app's bytecode ("first code"). | Second Claim, ¶10 | col. 4:16-19 |
| ...wherein receiving the third code is performed in response to the terminal machine satisfying a trigger condition. | The receipt of the code is alleged to be triggered by a user action, such as accessing the Defendant app or connecting to the network. | Second Claim, ¶11 | col. 4:21-23 |
| ...wherein the third code is received from an update server machine that is separate and distinct from the terminal machine...and the service provider machine. | The complaint alleges the "third code is received from an update server machine (e.g., an Android, iOS or other smart phone or other computing device accessing the Accused System)." | Second Claim, ¶12 | col. 4:24-28 |
| ...wherein the terminal machine and the service provider machine include different types of processors... | Mobile devices (e.g., using ARM-based processors) and server machines (e.g., using x86-based processors) are alleged to use different, non-interoperable processor architectures. | Second Claim, ¶13 | col. 4:29-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether data structures like JSON, as alleged in the complaint, meet the patents' definition of "code" and "dialogue module" (Compl. ¶¶39, Second Claim for Relief ¶10). A defendant could argue that JSON is merely structured data, not the "information that must be translated before it can be executed" or the "code or instructions related to a dialogue sequence" contemplated by the patents and their prior constructions (Compl. ¶¶18, 20).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the ’140 Patent raises a question of architectural correspondence. The complaint alleges that the claimed "update server machine" can be another user's smartphone (Compl. Second Claim for Relief, ¶12). This raises the question of whether the accused system, in practice, operates as the distinct three-entity system required by the claim, or if this allegation mischaracterizes the function of the central "service provider machine" (Defendant's server) that facilitates communications.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "code"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement allegations. Plaintiff’s theory requires that data payloads (e.g., bytecode, JSON) exchanged between the client and server qualify as "code" that is distinct from the application's underlying "computer-executable instructions." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether routine data exchanges in a modern mobile app can be characterized as the specific software modification method claimed by the patents.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction defining "code" as "information that must be translated before it can be executed on a processor" (Compl. ¶18, n.6). The patent specification states, "[t]he code represents at least some information that must be translated by the software application before it can be implemented on the machine processor" (’124 Patent, col. 4:30-33). This language focuses on the need for translation rather than the specific nature of the information itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification often discusses "code" in the context of defining a "dialogue sequence," including "prompts and user data entries" (’124 Patent, col. 7:35-40). A defendant may argue this context limits "code" to information that actively defines application flow and logic, not passive data like a new stored address.
The Term: "dialogue module"
Context and Importance: The infringement theory posits that data sent from Defendant's server to the mobile app, such as information about a new "Favorite Location," constitutes a "dialogue module" (Compl. ¶39). The viability of the case depends on this characterization.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification, as cited in a prior construction, discloses that a "dialogue module can contain code or other data and can be communicated" (Compl. ¶22, citing Unikey litigation exhibit). This suggests a "dialogue module" is a flexible data structure not strictly limited to instructions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same prior construction, also cited by Plaintiff, defined the term to mean "code or instructions related to a dialogue sequence" and noted it refers to a "particular type of structure" (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). A defendant may argue that a simple data update is not "related to a dialogue sequence" in the claimed sense of an interactive, multi-step process between a user and the machine.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by providing the Defendant app, along with instructions and promotion encouraging users to download and use it in a manner that allegedly practices the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶43, 45). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Instrumentalities are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted to infringe the patents (Compl. ¶46).
- Willful Infringement: The allegations are based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the asserted patents "[a]t least since the filing of this complaint" (Compl. ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "code," which the patent defines as "information that must be translated," be construed to cover standard data payloads like JSON objects used in modern mobile apps, or is it limited to information that more directly constitutes executable or quasi-executable instructions for defining a dialogue flow?
- A key factual and legal question will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused client-server system, a common architecture for mobile applications, practice the specific three-entity (terminal, service provider, and a separate update server) system claimed in patents like the ’140 Patent? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove that the accused system's components and their interactions map onto the distinct structural limitations of the claims.