SmartOrder LLC v. BJ's Restaurants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SmartOrder LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: BJ's Restaurants, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00835, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s restaurant operations infringe a patent related to a system for preordering food and managing customer service to improve efficiency and reduce wait times.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the operational challenge in high-volume service industries, such as restaurants, of coordinating customer orders with on-site service delivery to minimize delays and improve resource management.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a prior application filed in 2007, which may be relevant for determining the effective filing date for prior art purposes. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-27	’424 Patent Priority Date
2016-07-12	’424 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-21	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424 - "System and method for improving customer wait time, customer service, and marketing efficiency in the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424, “System and method for improving customer wait time, customer service, and marketing efficiency in the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries,” issued July 12, 2016 (’424 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the need for service industries like restaurants to reduce customer wait times, increase customer turnover, and improve marketing efficiency, noting that existing technology solutions for reservations or kitchen management are often limited in scope (’424 Patent, col. 1:52-col. 2:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a preordering system, accessible via the internet or an on-site kiosk, that allows customers to create a profile and place a detailed order in advance of arriving at a venue (’424 Patent, Abstract). Upon the customer's arrival, the system verifies their identity, confirms the preorder, and forwards it to service staff (e.g., a kitchen) at an optimal time, which is determined by comparing the customer's wait time for service (e.g., seating) with the time needed to prepare the order, thereby ensuring the order is ready shortly after the customer is (’424 Patent, col. 3:12-24). This process is illustrated in flowcharts, such as FIG. 4, which show the coordination between a hostess station, seating management, and kitchen systems (’424 Patent, FIG. 4A-4D).
• Technical Importance: The system aims to integrate the distinct processes of remote ordering, on-site check-in, seating management, and kitchen preparation into a single, timed workflow to minimize "undesirable delay time" for the customer (’424 Patent, col. 2:37-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’424 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims" detailed in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). That exhibit was not provided. The following analysis is based on independent claim 1, a representative method claim.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A computer receiving a reservation with a preorder of products/services from a customer prior to arrival.
  • Establishing a customer payment account for the preorder.
  • The computer validating the reservation upon an indication that the customer has arrived.
  • Entering the customer in a preparation queue of a vendor management system.
  • The vendor management system determining when the customer's wait time is less than or equal to a preparation time for the preorder.
  • Forwarding the preorder for preparation at or before the customer is available to receive it.
  • Storing a record of the customer's purchases in a customer profile.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not name or describe any specific products, services, or systems used by BJ's Restaurants, Inc. It alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’424 Patent (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe the ’424 Patent but relies on charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶16-17). Because this exhibit is not available, the complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping any feature of a BJ's Restaurants system to any element of a patent claim. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: The lack of factual detail in the complaint raises threshold questions about the basis for the infringement allegations. Assuming the Plaintiff proceeds, key disputes may involve:
  • Scope Questions: How the claims apply to a modern restaurant environment. For example, does a standard online ordering system for takeout, which lacks an on-site seating and wait-time coordination component, meet the limitations requiring a "preparation queue of a vendor management system" that compares wait time to preparation time?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s systems perform the specific timing and coordination functions required by the claims? A central question may be whether Defendant's system "determin[es] when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time" before "forwarding the preorder" for fulfillment, as this coordination is a core element of the patented solution.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "vendor management system" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method, as it is the system that manages the "preparation queue" and determines the optimal time to forward the order. The scope of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as it will define what type of software or operational process at BJ's Restaurants can satisfy this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined in the patent. A party might argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any combination of software and human processes used to manage service delivery in a commercial venue.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses the system interfacing with "conventional seating management and/or kitchen management systems" (’424 Patent, col. 2:36-38). A party may argue that this context limits the "vendor management system" to require specialized restaurant software for seating or kitchen workflow, not just a generic order queue.

• The Term: "validating the reservation upon receipt of an indication that the customer has arrived" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This step acts as the trigger for placing the customer into the preparation queue. The definition of "validating" will determine what action at the restaurant constitutes infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simple pre-ordering for pickup, where arrival is not necessarily "validated" to initiate a separate, timed workflow.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "validating" simply means confirming the customer's presence, which could be accomplished by a customer checking in with a hostess.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes more technical methods for verification, such as a "biometric scan, access card, retinal scan, password, key fob, or the like at the kiosk or terminal" (’424 Patent, col. 3:3-5). A party may argue these embodiments suggest "validating" requires a more formal, system-integrated check-in process than a simple verbal confirmation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end-users on how to use the infringing products (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element for inducement is alleged to have been met "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Defendant gained "actual knowledge" of the ’424 Patent upon service of the complaint and continued to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13-14). Plaintiff's prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given that the complaint's infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to an unprovided exhibit, a key question is what specific facts and evidence Plaintiff will produce to connect the functionality of any system used by BJ's Restaurants to the detailed, multi-step process required by the asserted claims.
• The case may also turn on a question of technical congruence: Does the accused system perform the specific, intelligent coordination at the heart of the patent—namely, dynamically timing the submission of a preorder to a kitchen based on a comparison of the customer's real-time seating wait to a calculated food preparation time—or does it operate as a more conventional online ordering system where such coordination is absent?
• A central claim construction dispute will likely address the definitional scope of "vendor management system". The resolution of whether this term requires specialized, integrated restaurant software, as suggested by the specification, or can read on more generalized ordering processes will be critical to the infringement analysis.