DCT

5:24-cv-00091

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Dominos Pizza

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00091, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Texarkana, Texas, where it uses the accused mobile app to direct customers and receive orders.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Domino's Mobile App, in conjunction with its servers, infringes a patent related to systems and methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses challenges in cross-platform software compatibility and data collection on mobile devices, particularly in environments with unreliable or intermittent network connectivity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was the subject of prior litigation, Fall Line Patents LLC v. Zoe's Kitchen Inc, in the same court. In that case, the court reportedly denied a motion to dismiss challenging the patent's eligibility and later granted a motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 '748 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-27 '748 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-25 Court denied motion to dismiss in related case
2023-07-11 Court granted summary judgment of validity in related case (based on public version date)
2024-07-11 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 section describes the difficulties of developing data-gathering applications for early handheld computers, which suffered from software incompatibilities across different hardware, the need to reinstall entire programs to make minor changes, and unreliable data transfer due to intermittent network connectivity ('748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:12, 3:7-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating and deploying "questionnaires" using device-independent "tokens." This allows a single questionnaire to run on various devices without custom compilation for each one ('748 Patent, col. 4:66-5:2). The system is designed to be "loosely networked," meaning it can store data locally when a network is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored ('748 Patent, col. 5:5-12). It also leverages an integrated GPS unit to automate the collection of location information and customize the questionnaire based on that location ('748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a more flexible and robust framework for field data collection, abstracting the application logic from the specific hardware and prevailing network conditions of the time ('748 Patent, col. 2:56-3:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s direct infringement count specifically asserts Independent Claim 7 ('Compl. ¶13).
  • The essential elements of Independent Claim 7 are:
    • A method for collecting survey data from a user and making responses available via the Internet, comprising:
    • (a) designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer, where the questionnaire requests location identifying information;
    • (b) automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with an integrated GPS;
    • (c) executing the questionnaire on the loosely networked computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses;
    • (d) while executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location identifying information as a response;
    • (e) automatically transferring collected responses in real time over the loose network to a central computer; and
    • (f) making the responses available via the Internet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Domino's mobile app" operating "in conjunction with Domino's servers" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶12). The app is used by Defendant's customers to direct them to, and receive orders for, Domino's restaurant locations (Compl. ¶7). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the combination of the Domino's mobile app and Domino's servers directly infringes Claim 7 of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The central infringement theory is that this system is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶12).

The complaint, however, does not contain a claim chart or provide specific factual allegations that map the particular features and operations of the accused instrumentality to the individual limitations of Claim 7. It makes a conclusory allegation of infringement without detailing, for example, which app function constitutes the “questionnaire,” how that questionnaire is “customized for a particular location,” or the mechanism by which GPS information is “automatically” provided “as a response” (cf. ’748 Patent, col. 14:7-31). The analysis of infringement at this stage is therefore based on the general theory asserted rather than on a detailed element-by-element comparison from the pleadings.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint raises the question of whether the functionality of a standard mobile ordering app (e.g., finding a store, viewing a menu based on that store) falls within the scope of the patent's claims. This may involve disputes over whether such a workflow constitutes a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused app performs the specific function of "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response," as required by claim 7(d). Evidence may be required to distinguish between an app that automatically logs GPS data as a response value versus one that uses location services to suggest nearby stores for user selection.
  • Divided Infringement: The allegations implicate actions taken on a user's mobile device and on Defendant's servers (Compl. ¶12). This suggests a potential divided infringement issue, where different steps of the claimed method are performed by different entities. The complaint anticipates this by alleging Defendant "exercis[es] direction or control over the use of the accused products by its customers" (Compl. ¶16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "questionnaire customized for a particular location" (Claim 7)

    • Context and Importance: The interpretation of "questionnaire" is central to the dispute. The case may turn on whether a mobile ordering interface can be characterized as a "questionnaire" as described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a process of creating a form by entering a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response," which a party could argue applies to any interactive, information-gathering user interface ('748 Patent, col. 8:26-28).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's most detailed embodiment describes a "mystery shopper" scenario involving specific timed tasks and observational data entry, suggesting a "questionnaire" is a formal data collection instrument rather than a transactional interface ('748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:27). The preamble's reference to "collecting survey data" may also support a narrower construction.

  • The Term: "loosely networked computer" (Claim 7)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the claimed technological environment. Practitioners may focus on whether a modern smartphone with persistent cellular and Wi-Fi access qualifies as "loosely networked," a term the patent associates with "intermittent network connections" ('748 Patent, col. 5:5-7).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term functionally as being "tolerant of intermittent network connections" ('748 Patent, col. 5:5-7). A party could argue that all mobile devices experience intermittent connectivity (e.g., in elevators, rural areas) and their software is designed to be tolerant of it.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background discussion frames the problem in the context of early 2000s technology, where gaps in connectivity were more frequent and prolonged ('748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:4). A party could argue the term should be limited to that more primitive networking context.

  • The Term: "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response" (Claim 7)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines a critical automated step. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused app's use of location services meets this specific functional requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that any automated use of GPS data within the application's workflow, such as pre-populating a store locator field, fulfills this limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language requires providing the information "as a response," which could be interpreted to mean the GPS data itself becomes a stored answer to a question in the questionnaire, distinct from simply using location to filter a list of stores from which a user then makes a manual selection ('748 Patent, col. 14:24-27).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges Defendant provides instructions and encouragement for customers to use the app in an infringing manner with knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶17). For contributory infringement, it alleges the app has special features with no substantial non-infringing use that are a material part of the invention (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent from at least the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶19). The complaint also pleads willful blindness, alleging on information and belief that Defendant has a policy of not reviewing patents of others (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire," as defined and illustrated within the '748 Patent with examples of formal data surveys, be construed to cover the transactional user interface and workflow of a modern mobile food ordering application?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused app "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response" in the specific manner required by Claim 7, or does it merely use location services to present options for subsequent user selection, creating a potential mismatch with the claimed automated function?
  • A central legal question will be one of attribution: given that the claimed method involves actions on both customer devices and Defendant's servers, can Plaintiff meet the requirements to prove direct infringement by a single party by showing Defendant "directs or controls" its customers' actions, or will the outcome depend on the heightened standards for indirect infringement?