SmartOrder LLC v. Burger King Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SmartOrder LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Burger King Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00836, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for improving customer service and efficiency through pre-ordering and timed order fulfillment.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of customer pre-ordering systems (e.g., via web or kiosk) with on-site restaurant operations to reduce customer wait times and improve operational efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events.

Case Timeline

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to improve the customer experience in service industries by reducing wait times, which can lead to lost customers during peak hours, while also improving the accuracy of service requests and marketing efficiency through data collection (’424 Patent, col. 1:10-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a preordering system, accessible online or via an on-site kiosk, that allows customers to create profiles and place orders in advance. Upon the customer's arrival, the system accesses the preorder and forwards it to service providers (e.g., a kitchen) with timing optimized to the customer's readiness, for instance by interfacing with seating or kitchen management systems to coordinate food preparation with table availability (’424 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-39). The interaction between the hostess station, seating queues, and management software is a key aspect of this coordination (’424 Patent, Fig. 4A).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution aims to bridge the gap between remote digital ordering and the physical, real-time operational constraints of a service venue like a restaurant, synchronizing order preparation with customer presence and readiness (’424 Patent, col. 3:18-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, identified as the "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims," without specifying particular claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • A computer receiving a reservation from a customer prior to arrival, the reservation including a preorder of products/services.
  • Comprising a customer payment account for the preorder.
  • The computer validating the reservation upon an indication of the customer's arrival and entering the customer in a preparation queue of a vendor management system.
  • The vendor management system determining when a wait time for the customer is less than or equal to a preparation time for the preorder.
  • Forwarding the preorder to a preparation queue or other vendor system for preparation at or before the time the customer is available to receive delivery.
  • Storing a record of the customer's purchases in a customer profile.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '424 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Given the defendant and the patent's subject matter, the accused instrumentalities are presumably Defendant's mobile application, website, and/or in-store kiosks that facilitate digital ordering and payment for its restaurant services. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of these products or their market positioning.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’424 Patent but incorporates its detailed infringement contentions by reference to an external document, "Exhibit 2," which contains claim charts (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant’s unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative claim 1 and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: Does Defendant's likely quick-service restaurant (QSR) model, which may not have traditional seating "wait times" or hostess-managed "queues," fall within the scope of the claims? The patent specification describes embodiments involving hostess kiosks and coordination with seating management software, which may inform the interpretation of these terms (’424 Patent, col. 10:30-44).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's system performs the specific step of "determining when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time"? This comparison logic is a key functional element of the claim, and a central question will be whether the accused system performs this specific calculation or merely initiates preparation based on a different trigger, such as geo-location or manual check-in.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "vendor management system"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed invention, as it is the component that performs the critical timing determination. Its construction will be critical to determining whether Defendant's potentially distributed set of software systems (e.g., mobile app, point-of-sale system, kitchen display system) collectively meet a single claim limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the system can interface with external, "conventional seating management and/or kitchen management systems," which may support an interpretation that the "vendor management system" need not be a single, monolithic piece of software but can be a combination of interacting components (’424 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow charts, such as Figure 4A, depict a more integrated process flow centered around a "hostess station" and its associated software, which could be used to argue for a more limited scope that requires a centralized management component coordinating distinct seating and kitchen queues (’424 Patent, col. 9:30-45).

• The Term: "preparation queue"

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires entering the customer into a "preparation queue of a vendor management system." The nature of this queue is important, especially in the context of a QSR environment where formal, timed queues for seating are uncommon.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses various service industries beyond restaurants, including retail and travel, suggesting the term could be interpreted broadly to mean any logical ordering of tasks for fulfillment (’424 Patent, col. 1:17-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the process to a "seating wait queue" and a "kitchen wait queue," tying the concept to the operational flow of a dine-in restaurant (’424 Patent, col. 3:17-19). This may support a narrower construction requiring a formal, managed queue distinct from a simple list of incoming orders.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint references the unprovided Exhibit 2 for evidence supporting this allegation.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶13, 15). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge of the patent or the alleged infringement.

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

• A primary issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Burger King digital ordering system perform the specific, conditional logic required by the claims—namely, comparing a customer "wait time" to a food "preparation time" to trigger order fulfillment—or does it use a simpler, non-infringing trigger mechanism?
• A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "vendor management system" and "preparation queue," which are described in the patent in the context of dine-in restaurant operations with managed seating, be construed broadly enough to read on the distributed software architecture and operational flow of a modern quick-service restaurant?
• An initial evidentiary question will be what specific products and functionalities are identified in the claim charts cited but not included in the complaint, as this evidence forms the entire basis for the plaintiff's detailed infringement theory.