OrderMagic LLC v. MTY Food Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: MTY Food Group Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00802, E.D. Tex., 08/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote ordering systems for the restaurant industry infringe a patent related to an electronic menu and ordering apparatus.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic, table-top devices that allow restaurant patrons to browse menus, place orders, and make payments without direct assistance from waitstaff.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that its service, along with accompanying claim charts, provides Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement, forming the basis for post-suit claims of induced and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, "Remote ordering system," issued November 9, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies inefficiencies in traditional restaurant ordering, which relies on waitstaff for taking orders and processing payments, and notes the shortcomings of prior art electronic menus, such as tablet PCs, which are described as fragile, complex, costly, and power-intensive (’475 Patent, col. 1:21-65). These devices are also susceptible to damage from spilled liquids common in a restaurant environment (id., col. 2:3-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a durable, purpose-built remote ordering device that combines an electronic menu with physical input devices (e.g., membrane switches) aligned next to listed menu items. An integrated display provides feedback on selections, and a wireless transmitter sends the completed order to a remote location, such as the kitchen, for processing (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-61). Figure 1 illustrates a basic embodiment with selection means (110), a display (120), and a remote transmitter (130) (’475 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described system aimed to provide a more robust and cost-effective solution for remote ordering compared to general-purpose computing devices like tablet PCs, which were not designed for the physical demands of a restaurant environment (’475 Patent, col. 2:14-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, referring to "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A system comprising a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus comprises: at least one display listing a plurality of items; an input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items; and 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.
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, 16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an attached "Exhibit 2" that allegedly compare the asserted claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16-17). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). Without the specific claim charts or a more detailed description of the accused products, a tabular analysis is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The final limitation of claim 1 requires that the system be "constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other." A central question may be whether the accused systems, which presumably transmit orders to a central server, facilitate the kind of inter-customer communication required by the claim. The nature of this "communication"—whether it implies direct messaging, game-playing, or merely sharing a common order—will likely be a focus of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "feedback means" that includes a "feedback display" and an "input means" that includes a "touch screen overlaying said feedback display" (’475 Patent, col. 10:29-33). The complaint provides no information on how Defendant's products allegedly meet this structurally defined relationship between the input and feedback components.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "communicate with each other" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a key functional limitation distinguishing the claimed system. The viability of the infringement allegation for claim 1 will depend heavily on whether the functionality of the accused products falls within the scope of this phrase.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests various forms of interaction beyond just ordering, stating 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. 3:52-55). This language may support a construction that includes a range of interactive features.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term requires direct, peer-to-peer communication between the menu devices, rather than communication mediated through a central server which is common in restaurant ordering systems. The claim language "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses" could be argued to support this more restrictive reading (’475 Patent, col. 10:37-39).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that since being served with the complaint, Defendant has continued to sell its products and "distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶14-15). Evidence for these materials is purportedly in the unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's theory of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. It alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities thereafter are willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "communicate with each other," as claimed in the patent, be construed to cover the functionality of Defendant’s ordering systems, which may only communicate with a central kitchen or payment server rather than with each other directly?
• A key evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can substantiate its bare-bones allegations. The complaint's reliance on an unfiled exhibit for the identity of the accused products, the basis for infringement, and the facts supporting inducement raises the immediate question of whether the allegations can withstand a motion to dismiss or will be supported by evidence in discovery.
• A third question concerns willfulness: does pleading knowledge based solely on the service of the complaint itself state a plausible claim for post-suit willful infringement and inducement, or will the court require allegations of pre-suit knowledge or other egregious conduct?