DCT

5:24-cv-00089

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Wingstop Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00089, E.D. Tex., 11/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant's transaction of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including the sale and use of the accused mobile application and the operation of established places of business (restaurants) in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application and associated server system, used for customer ordering, infringes a patent directed to methods for collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses challenges in developing data-collection applications for diverse mobile devices, particularly those with intermittent network connectivity, by using a platform-independent, location-aware "questionnaire" system.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, has a significant post-issuance history. The complaint notes that the patent previously survived a Section 101 patent eligibility challenge in separate litigation. Furthermore, the single asserted claim, Claim 7, was found patentable in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00610), while numerous other claims of the patent were cancelled in that and another IPR proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 '748 Patent Priority Date (via U.S. Provisional App. 60/404,491)
2016-09-27 '748 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-06 IPR2018-00043 Filed (Resulted in cancellation of claims 16-18)
2019-01-22 IPR2019-00610 Filed (Resulted in patentability finding for Claim 7)
2021-05-25 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in prior case (Fall Line v. Zoe's)
2022-12-19 IPR Certificate Issued for IPR2019-00610
2023-06-29 Order Granting Summary Judgment of Validity in prior case
2023-08-22 IPR Certificate Issued for IPR2018-00043
2024-11-04 Complaint Filing Date

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's background describes the difficulty of developing data-collection applications for the heterogeneous landscape of early handheld computers, which had different processors and operating systems, making software incompatible across devices (Compl. ¶23; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-54). Prior art solutions required expensive, device-specific custom programming, and any change necessitated recompiling and reinstalling the entire application on every device (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 3:1-10). Furthermore, these devices often relied on intermittent and low-bandwidth network connections, complicating data transfer (Compl. ¶23; ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to overcome these problems by creating a "questionnaire" represented by device-independent "tokens." This allows a single application to be deployed on various devices and updated incrementally, reducing bandwidth and eliminating the need for full recompilation (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it stores collected data locally if a network is unavailable and transmits it when a connection is restored (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). A key feature is the use of a device's integrated GPS to automatically capture location information, which can be used to customize the questionnaire or serve as a response to a question (Compl. ¶28; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make field data collection more efficient and scalable by abstracting away hardware and software differences and automating the capture of location-based information, thereby improving data timeliness and accuracy (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 2:56-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential elements of Claim 7, a method claim, are:
    • Designing a questionnaire on a first computer platform that is customized for a particular location, has branching logic, and includes at least one question requesting location identifying information.
    • Automatically transferring this questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has an "integral" GPS.
    • Executing the questionnaire on the remote computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
    • While executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location identifying information "as a response" to the questionnaire.
    • Automatically transferring collected responses "in real time" over the "loose network" to a central computer.
    • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Jersey Mike's Mobile App" operating in conjunction with "Jersey Mike's servers" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused system creates and executes a "location-specific questionnaire" to collect user responses (Compl. ¶11). The system is used to direct customers to specific restaurant locations and to receive orders from those customers (Compl. ¶6). The complaint provides no further technical detail about the application's architecture or user interface.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’948 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) designing a questionnaire including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having branching logic... The complaint alleges that Defendant creates a "location-specific questionnaire" for its mobile app (Compl. ¶11). The customization and branching logic are implicitly alleged to be part of the app's ordering and store-selection features. ¶11 col. 13:46-52
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; This is alleged to occur when a customer downloads the Jersey Mike's Mobile App onto their smartphone, which functions as the "loosely networked computer" with integrated GPS (Compl. ¶15). ¶15 col. 15:50-54
(c) when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire...collecting responses... This is alleged to occur when a user operates the app to find a local store and place an order, with the order details and other inputs constituting the "responses" (Compl. ¶6, ¶11). ¶6, ¶11 col. 15:55-59
(d) while said...questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response... The complaint alleges the app is "location-specific," implying it uses the device's GPS (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not specify how the location information is provided "as a response." ¶11 col. 15:62-65
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and, This is alleged to occur when a user submits an order or provides other information through the app, which is transmitted from the user's mobile device (the "loose network" client) to Defendant's servers (the "central computer") (Compl. ¶11). ¶11 col. 16:1-4
(f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer... The complaint alleges the system receives orders from customers, which implies the data is made available to Defendant's internal systems (e.g., restaurant point-of-sale systems) via the Internet (Compl. ¶6). ¶6 col. 16:5-8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Question: Does a standard mobile food-ordering interface constitute a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are used in the patent? The interpretation of "questionnaire" will likely be a central point of dispute.
  • Technical Question: A critical issue may be whether the accused app uses GPS data "as a response" to the questionnaire, as required by claim 7(d). The analysis may turn on whether the app merely uses location data to present a customized interface (e.g., showing the nearest store) or whether it formally captures and transmits that location data as a discrete answer within the system's logic.
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not provide screenshots, architecture diagrams, or other specific evidence detailing how the accused app functions. This raises the question of what discovery will reveal about the app's internal workings and whether they map to the specific method steps of Claim 7. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "questionnaire"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claim's scope. Its construction will determine whether a commercial transaction interface, such as a food ordering menu, falls within the ambit of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples involve more traditional survey-like data collection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can be read broadly, stating that "the terms 'program' and 'form' are used interchangeably with questionnaire" ('748 Patent, col. 8:36-38) and defining it as a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response" ('748 Patent, col. 8:26-29).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed embodiments describe "mystery shopper" reports and medical data forms ('748 Patent, col. 10:37-56, col. 11:43-54). This context could support a narrower construction limited to explicit information-gathering surveys rather than transactional interfaces.

The Term: "as a response" (from the phrase "provide said location identifying information as a response")

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific role of the GPS data in the claimed method. Infringement may hinge on whether the location data is simply a background input used by the app or is formally treated as an answer to a question within the questionnaire's logic.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that whenever an application implicitly requests location to function and that data is captured and used, it is functioning "as a response" to that implicit request.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a scenario where automatically-entered GPS data can substitute for a manual entry, such as when a user is "prompted to enter a store number or location" ('748 Patent, col. 10:57-60). This suggests the GPS data must correspond to a specific, defined question in the questionnaire, potentially supporting a narrower interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant provides the mobile app and directs its customers to use it in a manner that allegedly infringes Claim 7 (Compl. ¶16). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the app has "special features" that are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶17).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit knowledge from the filing of the action (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also pleads pre-suit willfulness through willful blindness, alleging Defendant maintains a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶19).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire", which is described in the patent's context of structured surveys and data forms, be construed to cover the user interface and transactional workflow of a modern mobile food-ordering application?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused application's use of GPS data satisfy the specific limitation of providing location information "as a response" to the questionnaire, or does it merely use location as a background input to customize the user experience in a way that falls outside the claimed method?
  • Given that asserted Claim 7 has survived both an inter partes review and (as alleged in the complaint) a prior Section 101 validity challenge, a central focus of the litigation will likely be the infringement analysis, hinging on whether the detailed technical evidence of the accused system's operation meets the specific, and arguably narrow, limitations of the battle-tested claim.