SmartOrder LLC v. Hooters Of America LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SmartOrder LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Hooters of America, LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00839, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer ordering systems infringe a patent related to methods for managing customer pre-orders to improve efficiency and reduce wait times in service industries.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to digital pre-ordering systems for industries like restaurants, which aim to coordinate customer orders with on-site operations to minimize delays and improve service flow.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424 Priority Date
2016-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 9,390,424 Issues
2025-08-21	Complaint Filed

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

• 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to enhance the customer experience in service industries by reducing wait times, which can lead to increased customer turnover, higher profits, and fewer customers abandoning a queue during peak hours (’424 Patent, col. 1:10-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a pre-ordering system where customers can create profiles and place orders online or via an on-site kiosk before their arrival ('424 Patent, Abstract). The system then interfaces with a venue's "vendor management system" to optimally time the submission of the pre-order for preparation, based on a comparison of the customer's wait time in a queue against the time needed to prepare the order, ensuring the service is ready shortly after the customer is ('424 Patent, col. 3:17-24; col. 15:24-33).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move beyond simple online reservations by actively managing the timing of order fulfillment to align with on-site operational capacities, such as kitchen or seating availability ('424 Patent, col. 2:34-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A computer receiving a reservation with a preorder from a customer prior to arrival.
  • A customer payment account for the preorder.
  • The computer validating the reservation upon an indication of the customer's arrival.
  • 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 for preparation at or before the time the customer is available to receive it.
  • 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" of the patent (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific product, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not publicly filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '424 Patent" but provides no specific description of how those products operate (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within "charts incorporated into this Count below" and in an exhibit (Exhibit 2), neither of which were included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶11, ¶16-17). The pleading states that these charts compare the "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements" of the claims (Compl. ¶16). Without this referenced evidence, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of independent claim 1 of the '424 Patent, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions:

• Scope Questions: How will the term "vendor management system" be defined, and does the accused system, which may be a combination of point-of-sale, online ordering, and kitchen display systems, meet that definition? The patent suggests this system can interface with separate "seating management and/or kitchen management systems," which raises the question of whether it must be a distinct, overarching controller ('424 Patent, col. 2:36-38).
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system performs the specific logical step of "determining when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time" before forwarding the order ('424 Patent, col. 15:24-28)? The analysis will question whether the accused system performs this precise, conditional timing function or uses a more generalized trigger for order submission.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed method, as it is the component that receives the validated reservation, manages the "preparation queue," and performs the critical timing determination. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether Defendant's potentially multi-part system (e.g., online ordering portal, in-store POS, kitchen display) constitutes the single, integrated system required by the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as interfacing with "conventional seating management and/or kitchen management systems," suggesting the "vendor management system" could be a coordinating layer of software rather than a complete, monolithic hardware/software platform ('424 Patent, col. 2:36-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the "vendor management system" itself to perform multiple, specific functions: entering the customer in a queue, determining the wait time versus preparation time, and forwarding the preorder. An argument could be made that this requires a single, cohesive system that performs all these steps, not a loose collection of separate components that collectively achieve the outcome.

The Term: "preparation queue" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The claim requires entering the customer into a "preparation queue" upon arrival and validation. This is distinct from a conventional seating queue. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system maintains such a specific queue for pre-orders or simply holds orders in a general buffer before sending them to the kitchen.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of the process flow is functional, focusing on the timing of order submission relative to customer readiness ('424 Patent, col. 3:17-24). This may support an argument that any digital queue that holds an order for timed release to the kitchen qualifies as a "preparation queue."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly distinguishes between seating queues and kitchen queues, suggesting the "preparation queue" is a specific construct for managing the timing of pre-orders ('424 Patent, col. 3:19-21). This could support a narrower definition requiring a queue that is actively managed based on the claimed time-comparison logic.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" ('424 Patent, Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued activities thereafter support a claim for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶13-¶15). The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 5, ¶E.i).

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

• A central evidentiary issue will be one of technical operation: As the complaint lacks factual detail, the case will depend on evidence demonstrating whether the accused Hooters system performs the specific, multi-step timing logic of Claim 1—namely, actively comparing a customer's "wait time" to a "preparation time" to trigger order fulfillment—or if it employs a more rudimentary order-ahead process.
• The case will also involve a significant question of definitional scope: Can the term "vendor management system," as claimed, be construed to read on a distributed architecture of potentially separate online ordering, point-of-sale, and kitchen management components, or does the claim require a more integrated, singular system that performs all the recited functions?