Fall Line Patents LLC v. Whatabrands LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Whatabrands LLC and Whataburger Restaurants, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-00121, E.D. Tex., 10/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district by offering the accused mobile application, and maintains a regular and established place of of business (a restaurant) in Texarkana, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Whataburger Mobile App and associated server infrastructure infringe a patent related to location-aware, cross-platform data collection and management systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating and deploying data-gathering applications, such as surveys or forms, on remote handheld devices, particularly in environments with diverse hardware and intermittent network connectivity.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, has been the subject of multiple post-grant proceedings and prior litigation. Two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, but confirmed the patentability of Claim 7, the sole claim asserted in this case. The complaint also references prior litigation against Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., in which the court allegedly denied a motion to dismiss and granted a motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggesting Plaintiff may leverage these prior rulings to argue for the patent's subject matter eligibility.

Case Timeline

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

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

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological environment in the early 2000s where creating data collection software for handheld computers was problematic. Key issues included application incompatibility across different device models, the need to recompile and reinstall entire programs for minor changes, and the unreliability of network connections for real-time data transfer (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25; ’974 Patent, col. 1:49-2:12, 3:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using device-independent "tokens" to represent a "questionnaire" (e.g., a data collection form or survey) (’748 Patent, col. 9:26-32). This tokenized questionnaire can be executed on any remote device equipped with a compatible operating system layer, avoiding device-specific programming (Compl. ¶ 26). The system is "loosely networked," meaning it can store collected data locally when a network connection is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). The patent also teaches using an integrated GPS unit to automatically capture location data as part of the questionnaire process (Compl. ¶ 28; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce development costs and improve data timeliness by creating a single, adaptable data collection framework that could function across a fragmented mobile device market and tolerate intermittent connectivity (’748 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (’748 Patent, col. 15:46-16:2).
  • Claim 7 Elements:
    • Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer platform, where at least one question requests location identifying information.
    • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with an integrated GPS.
    • When the computer is at the particular location, executing the questionnaire to collect user responses.
    • While executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response.
    • Automatically transferring collected responses in real time via the loose network to a central computer.
    • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Whataburger Mobile App, used in conjunction with Whataburger's back-end servers (Compl. ¶ 11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused system involves the Whataburger Mobile App and servers that "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶ 11). The app is allegedly used to "direct customers to, and receive orders from customers for, one or more Whataburger restaurants" (Compl. ¶ 6). The complaint frames this standard mobile ordering functionality as the operation of a patented data collection system. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Definitional Scope: A central dispute may be whether a standard mobile ordering interface constitutes a "questionnaire" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples like "mystery shopper" surveys (’748 Patent, col. 10:38-40).
• Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are general. A key question for the court will be whether the Whataburger app performs the specific functions required by the claim. For instance:
  • What evidence supports the allegation that the app is "customized for a particular location" beyond simply identifying nearby stores?
  • What evidence demonstrates the app contains "branching logic" as described in the patent?
  • Crucially, what evidence shows that the app automatically provides GPS information as a response to the questionnaire itself, as required by element 7(d), rather than simply using location services for a map or store locator function?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire"

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case depends on this term being construed broadly enough to read on a mobile food ordering interface. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of surveys, forms, and explicit data gathering tasks (e.g., for "mystery shoppers" or medical data), which may suggest a narrower meaning than any generic user interface that accepts input.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that for the purpose of the disclosure, the "series of questions/statements will collectively be referred to as a questionnaire" and that the terms "program" and "form" are used interchangeably with "questionnaire" (’748 Patent, col. 8:30-38). This language could support an argument that any structured data input "form" or "program" is a "questionnaire."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed "mystery shopper" example describes a sequence of explicit questions about service times, cleanliness, and food quality, which mirrors a traditional survey (’748 Patent, col. 10:38-11:27). This specific embodiment, along with other examples like medical forms, could be used to argue the term implies an instrument for investigation or information gathering, not merely a transactional interface for placing an order.

• The Term: "customized for a particular location"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for infringement, as the Plaintiff must show the accused "questionnaire" is more than a one-size-fits-all application. The dispute will be over the degree of location-based adaptation required to meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. An argument could be made that any functionality that changes based on location, such as presenting a location-specific menu or store information, meets the "customized" requirement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent teaches "creating a questionnaire comprising a series of questions customized for a location" (’748 Patent, col. 15:48-50). This suggests the questions themselves are tailored, not just ancillary data. An example is a mystery shopper being prompted with questions relevant only to a specific restaurant they are visiting. This may support a narrower construction requiring the core content of the "questionnaire" to change based on location.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant took active steps to cause infringement by "advising or directing customers and end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner" through advertising and instructions (Compl. ¶ 16). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products have "special features" designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶ 17).

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. ¶ 18). The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant maintains a policy of "willfully blind[ness]" by not reviewing the patents of others (Compl. ¶ 19).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's interpretation of the patent's scope and the factual evidence presented to map the accused product's functionality onto the claims. The central questions are:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire," which the patent illustrates with survey-like examples from the early 2000s, be construed to cover a modern mobile commerce application's ordering interface?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: can the Plaintiff provide evidence that the Whataburger app performs the specific, multi-step process of claim 7, particularly the requirement that the GPS automatically provides location information as a response to a query within the executing "questionnaire," rather than for a separate purpose like finding a nearby store?
3. A final question will concern patent validity in context: while Claim 7 survived IPR, a defense may still arise regarding how its limitations distinguish over prior art related to generic location-aware mobile applications, forcing a debate on whether the claim's specific combination of elements was truly non-obvious.