Fall Line Patents LLC v. Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-00117, E.D. Tex., 10/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in the district and maintains a "regular and established place of business," specifically a Popeye's restaurant, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Popeye's Mobile App infringes a patent related to methods for managing and collecting data, including location-specific information, from remote computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and deploying questionnaires on diverse mobile devices, particularly addressing challenges of software compatibility and intermittent network connectivity common in the early 2000s.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent family has been subject to prior litigation where it survived a patent eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, has also survived two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. While several claims were cancelled in those proceedings, the sole asserted claim in this case, Claim 7, was found patentable. This history may suggest a strengthened presumption of validity for the asserted claim.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - "System and Method for Data Management"

• Issued: September 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological environment where handheld computers suffered from significant limitations. These included software applications being incompatible across devices from different manufacturers, requiring separate, costly custom programs for each platform (’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2; Compl. ¶22). Further, making even a small change to a program required recompiling and reinstalling the entire software package on each device (’748 Patent, col. 3:7-10; Compl. ¶24). Data collection was also hampered by intermittent and low-bandwidth network connections, making real-time data transfer unreliable (’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:17; Compl. ¶22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to overcome these issues by using "device-independent tokens" to create a single, tokenized questionnaire that can be executed on different types of remote devices without recompilation (’748 Patent, col. 5:21-28; Compl. ¶25). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store data locally on the device when a network is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12; Compl. ¶26). The invention also integrates GPS functionality to automatically collect location data and use it to customize the questionnaire for a specific location (’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65; Compl. ¶27).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a scalable and flexible framework for mobile data collection applications at a time when the hardware and software market for handheld devices was highly fragmented (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (’748 Patent, col. 15:7-16:6; Compl. ¶11).
• Claim 7 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location, which includes branching logic and requests location identifying information.
  • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has a GPS "integral thereto."
  • Executing the questionnaire on the computer when it is at the particular location.
  • Using the GPS to automatically provide location identifying information as a response while the questionnaire is executing.
  • Automatically transferring responses via the "loose network" in "real time" to a central computer.
  • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Popeye's mobile app" operating "in conjunction with Popeye's servers" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused system is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶10). It further alleges that Popeye's uses the app to direct customers to its restaurants and receive orders from them (Compl. ¶5).
• The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the app's operation, such as its user interface, data handling protocols, or how it uses location information beyond directing customers.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart. The infringement allegations are based on a high-level description of the accused instrumentality.

'748 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a modern smartphone running a commercial application constitutes a "loosely networked computer" executing a "questionnaire" as those terms are used in the patent, which has a 2002 priority date. The interpretation of "questionnaire" will be critical—does it require a formal survey, or can it encompass any location-aware interactive functionality?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific evidence that the Popeye's app performs the claimed functions. Key questions for discovery will include: (1) Does the app's code or behavior incorporate "branching logic" based on user input or location? (2) Does the app use GPS coordinates as an automatic "response" to a query, or does it simply use location for other purposes like finding stores? (3) What is the precise mechanism and timing of data transfer from the app to the server, and does it meet the "real time" limitation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "loosely networked computer"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim's scope. Its construction will determine whether a modern smartphone, which typically has persistent and high-speed connectivity, falls within the scope of a term conceived in an era of intermittent dial-up and slow wireless connections. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that modern devices are not "loosely networked" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "loosely networked" as a system where devices "are tolerant of intermittent network connections" and where "if a network connection is unavailable at that moment, the information is temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored" (’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12). Plaintiff may argue this functionally describes any device that can operate offline and sync later, including a modern smartphone.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the problems of limited bandwidth and unreliable connections, such as 19.2 kbaud cellular modems and dial-up (’748 Patent, col. 3:54-57). Defendant may argue the term should be limited to the context of such primitive and unreliable networks, not today's "always-on" environment.

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

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on the Popeye's app being a "questionnaire." The definition of this term will be critical to determine if the app's location-aware features, such as showing nearby stores or offers, meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the questionnaire as a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response," which could be interpreted broadly to include any interactive, prompt-based user interface that varies with location (’748 Patent, col. 8:27-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed examples involving "mystery shoppers" answering specific questions about service quality, cleanliness, etc., in a formal, survey-like manner (’748 Patent, col. 10:40-11:24). Defendant may argue the term is limited to such structured data-gathering forms and does not cover general commercial app functionality.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides instructions and encourages customers to use the app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15). It alleges contributory infringement by claiming the app has special features with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit knowledge from the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The complaint also makes a more aggressive pre-suit allegation of willful blindness, asserting on information and belief that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶18).

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

This dispute appears to center on the application of patent claims, drafted for a prior generation of technology, to a modern mobile application. The key questions are:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms conceived in 2002, such as "loosely networked computer" and "questionnaire", be construed to read on a modern smartphone executing a commercial retail application, or are they limited to the more primitive technological context described in the patent?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Beyond being a location-aware app, does the Plaintiff have evidence that the Popeye's app performs the specific, ordered steps of Claim 7, particularly the requirements for "branching logic" and the use of a GPS coordinate as an automatic "response" to a query?
3. A third question relates to validity resilience: Although Claim 7 has survived an IPR challenge, which strengthens its legal standing, it remains to be seen whether Defendant will be able to present new invalidity arguments or prior art that were not considered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.