DCT

2:25-cv-00840

SmartOrder LLC v. McAlister's Franchisor SPV LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00840, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a system and method for improving customer service efficiency in the restaurant industry through online or kiosk-based pre-ordering that is coordinated with on-site service delivery.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrating customer pre-ordering systems with on-site restaurant management systems to optimize order fulfillment, reduce customer wait times, and improve operational turnover.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application filed in 2007, which is now abandoned. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patent.

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’s background section describes a need in service industries, particularly restaurants, to improve the customer experience by reducing wait times and increasing efficiency, noting that existing internet-based reservation and ordering systems were not well-integrated with on-site operations (’424 Patent, col. 1:36-col. 2:33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where customers can create profiles and place detailed pre-orders via the internet or an on-site kiosk before their arrival. When the customer arrives, the system verifies their identity and accesses the pre-order. The order is then forwarded for preparation at an optimal time, for instance, by comparing the customer seating wait queue with the kitchen preparation queue, ensuring the service (e.g., a meal) is delivered shortly after the customer is ready. (’424 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-23; FIG. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to synchronize the customer's off-site ordering process with the restaurant's real-time, on-site seating and kitchen workflows to minimize idle time for both the customer and the establishment (’424 Patent, col. 3:24-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," referencing "Exemplary '424 Patent Claims" in an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A computer receiving a reservation with a preorder of products/services prior to the customer's arrival.
    • Associating a customer payment account with the preorder.
    • The computer validating the reservation upon the customer's arrival and entering the customer into 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 the preparation time for the preorder, and then forwarding the preorder for preparation.
    • Storing a record of the customer's purchases in a database.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The defendant is McAlister's Franchisor SPV LLC, suggesting the accused instrumentalities are related to the McAlister's Deli online ordering and restaurant management systems.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality. It makes only conclusory allegations that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '424 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2, which is not included in the provided documents (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Defendant makes, uses, and sells products and services that practice the patented technology (Compl. ¶11). The core of the allegation is that Defendant's systems allow for pre-ordering, and that the fulfillment of these orders upon a customer's arrival infringes one or more claims of the ’424 Patent. The complaint also alleges that Defendant's internal testing and use of these products constitute direct infringement (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the term "vendor management system." The question will arise whether Defendant's combination of potentially separate systems (e.g., a public-facing website, a point-of-sale system, and a kitchen display system) constitutes the integrated "system" required by the claims.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations detailing how the accused system operates. A primary technical question will be what evidence exists that Defendant's system performs the specific claimed 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 preorder." This suggests an automated comparison and timing function that may be a key point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to define the central coordinating intelligence of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical because it dictates whether a collection of standard, off-the-shelf restaurant software can be aggregated to meet the limitation, or if a more specialized, integrated platform is required. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if Defendant’s potentially disconnected systems fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the invention "interfaces with conventional seating management and/or kitchen management systems," which could support an argument that the "vendor management system" can be composed of such conventional parts (’424 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a system where information flows between seating and kitchen management to enable an automated timing decision, such as when "the seating management system will automatically tell the kitchen management system to begin cooking" (’424 Patent, col. 10:21-24; FIG. 4). This may support a narrower construction requiring this specific integrated and automated decision-making capability.

  • The Term: "determining when a wait time for the customer in the queue is less than or equal to a preparation time" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase recites the core logic that distinguishes the invention from simple pre-ordering. Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused system performs this specific, data-driven comparison or merely relies on manual timing by employees.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the functional word "determining," which Plaintiff may argue covers any method, including algorithmic or heuristic, that achieves the outcome of timing the order to the customer's readiness.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes this step as being based on "a comparison of the seating wait queue to the kitchen wait queue" (’424 Patent, col. 3:17-19). This language may be used to argue that the "determining" step requires a direct, quantitative comparison of data from two distinct queues, a more specific technical implementation.

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" (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent. It asserts that "service of this Complaint" constitutes actual knowledge and that Defendant's continued infringement "Despite such actual knowledge" forms the basis for potential post-suit enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate, through discovery, that Defendant’s systems perform the specific, automated timing logic recited in the claims, particularly the comparison of customer wait time to order preparation time? The absence of such a function in the accused systems would present a significant challenge to the infringement case.
  • The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: Will the term "vendor management system" be construed broadly enough to read on a collection of standard restaurant software components, or will it be limited to a single, integrated system that performs the automated timing functions described in the patent’s preferred embodiments?
  • A preliminary procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unfiled exhibit and its lack of specific factual allegations regarding the operation of the accused products, Defendant may question whether the complaint provides sufficient detail to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.