Fall Line Patents LLC v. Burger King Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Burger King Company, LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-00111, E.D. Tex., 10/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s transaction of business within the district, including the sale and use of the accused Burger King Mobile App, and its operation of regular and established places of business (restaurants) within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Burger King Mobile App and associated server infrastructure infringe a patent related to methods for creating and executing location-specific questionnaires on remote computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for cross-platform data collection on mobile devices, particularly for creating dynamic, location-aware interactions that can function despite intermittent network connectivity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, was previously the subject of litigation against a different defendant, where it survived a motion to dismiss and was the subject of a summary judgment order finding its claims valid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, post-grant proceedings at the USPTO resulted in the cancellation of several claims, but confirmed the patentability of Claim 7, the sole claim explicitly asserted in this complaint.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, "System and Method for Data Management," issued September 27, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenges of developing data collection applications for early-2000s handheld computers, which suffered from platform incompatibility, limited resources, and unreliable network connections (Compl. ¶22; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). These issues made it costly and difficult to create a single application that could gather data efficiently across different devices and in field locations with intermittent connectivity (Compl. ¶24; ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a central server creates a "questionnaire" using device-independent tokens and transmits it to a remote device, such as a handheld computer with a GPS unit (’748 Patent, col. 8:12-16). This tokenized approach allows the questionnaire to run on different platforms without custom recompilation and enables incremental updates rather than reloading the entire program (’748 Patent, col. 5:26-32). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, storing data locally if the network is unavailable and transmitting it when a connection is restored (’748 Patent, col. 5:5-12).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to streamline the development and deployment of mobile data collection applications, particularly for enterprise uses like field surveys or inventory management, by abstracting away hardware and network differences (Compl. ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint specifically asserts independent Claim 7 (’748 Patent, col. 15:47-16:6).
• The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
  • Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location, which includes branching logic and requests location information.
  • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has an integrated GPS.
  • Executing the questionnaire on the computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
  • While executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response.
  • Automatically transferring collected responses in real time to a central computer via the loose network.
  • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief requests a judgment of infringement on "one or more claims" of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶a, p. 11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Burger King mobile app" operating in conjunction with "Burger King servers" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused instrumentality is a system that can "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶10). The functionality appears related to the mobile app's features for location-based ordering, where a user's location determines the available store, menu, and promotions. The complaint does not provide further technical details on how the app and servers operate.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a high-level theory of infringement but does not include a claim chart or detailed mapping of the accused product's features to the specific limitations of Claim 7. The infringement theory appears to be that the Burger King mobile ordering system, as a whole, practices the patented method.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full claim-chart analysis. The following summarizes the likely points of contention based on the claim language and the general nature of the accused product.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the Burger King app's mobile ordering interface constitutes a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are used in the patent. The patent describes questionnaires in the context of field data gathering and surveys (e.g., a "mystery shopper" scenario) (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-41), which may raise questions about whether a commercial food menu and ordering flow falls within the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's theory may hinge on whether the accused system meets the specific technical requirements of the claim. For instance, Claim 7(d) requires "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire." A key question will be whether the Burger King app performs this specific step, or if it uses location information in a different manner, such as merely to select a store before the "questionnaire" (i.e., the menu) is presented. Another technical question is whether the app functions as a "loosely networked computer," which the patent defines as being capable of storing data offline for later transmission (’748 Patent, col. 5:5-12). Evidence on how the app behaves during network loss will be relevant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire customized for a particular location"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central, as it determines whether a standard, location-filtered mobile ordering menu can be considered a "questionnaire" under the patent. Practitioners may focus on whether "customized for a particular location" means more than simply presenting a pre-set menu for a selected store.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a questionnaire as a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response," which could be argued to cover interactive menu items (’748 Patent, col. 8:26-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s detailed "mystery shopper" example describes a questionnaire with explicit questions about service quality, cleanliness, and employee friendliness, suggesting a more traditional survey-style format (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:26).

• The Term: "branching logic"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff must prove that the accused app's functionality incorporates "branching logic." The construction of this term will dictate what level of interactivity or conditionality is required to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests branching logic can be based on any user response, creating a different path through the questionnaire. This could arguably cover common e-commerce features like "Add/Remove Topping" or "Select Combo Option," which alter the subsequent user flow. (’748 Patent, col. 8:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary example of branching logic involves asking entirely different sets of questions based on a user's demographic answer (e.g., "Are you a man or woman?"), which implies a more structured, pre-defined logical fork than simple menu customization (’748 Patent, col. 8:61-67).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant took active steps to cause its customers to infringe Claim 7 by "advising or directing" them to use the app and distributing "instructions that guide users" to perform the claimed steps (Compl. ¶15-16).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶18).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire" with "branching logic," which is rooted in the patent's context of structured field surveys, be construed to cover the interactive menu and ordering process of the accused commercial mobile application?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the Burger King app function as a "loosely networked computer" by storing user data locally during network outages for later transmission, as the patent requires, or does it demand a persistent connection, suggesting a potential mismatch with the claimed method?
• A crucial point of contention will likely be the interpretation of a specific claim step: does the accused system use GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire," or does it use location data for a different, potentially non-infringing purpose, such as an initial one-time store selection?