DCT
5:24-cv-00092
Fall Line Patents LLC v. El Pollo LoCo
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: El Pollo Loco, Inc. and El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00092, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in the district, commits acts of alleged infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, such as a restaurant location in Allen, TX.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s El Pollo Loco Mobile App and associated server infrastructure infringe a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating, deploying, and executing customized, location-aware questionnaires on remote devices, and managing the data collected, a foundational concept for many modern location-based mobile application services.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit has a notable history. It has survived two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2018-00043 and IPR2019-00610), which resulted in the cancellation of several claims but confirmed the patentability of the asserted Claim 7. The complaint also cites a prior case, Fall Line v. Zoe's Kitchen, where the same patent survived a motion to dismiss on Section 101 grounds and a motion for summary judgment of invalidity, potentially strengthening the patent’s presumption of validity in this new litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | ’748 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-09-27 | ’748 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-05-25 | Order denying motion to dismiss in Zoe's Kitchen case |
| 2023-06-29 | Order granting summary judgment of validity in Zoe's Kitchen case |
| 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: In the early 2000s, developing software for remote data collection on handheld computers was difficult due to device incompatibility, limited network connectivity, and low bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). Creating a single application that worked across different hardware and operating systems was a significant challenge, often requiring custom, costly programs that needed to be entirely recompiled for any minor change (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 3:1-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where "questionnaires" (application logic) are created on a central server and "tokenized" into a device-independent format (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). These tokens are sent to remote devices, which use a specialized operating system overlay to execute them. This allows a single application to run on various devices and enables incremental updates without reinstalling the entire program (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 5:26-32). The system is also designed for "loosely networked" environments, storing data locally when a connection is unavailable and transmitting it when the connection is restored (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 5:4-14).
- Technical Importance: The approach aimed to decouple application logic from specific hardware, enabling more flexible and scalable deployment of data collection applications on a heterogeneous landscape of early mobile devices (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 7.
- Essential elements of Claim 7 include:
- Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic.
- Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with an integral GPS.
- Executing the questionnaire on the remote computer when it is at the specified location to collect user responses.
- Using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response.
- 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 El Pollo Loco Mobile App in conjunction with El Pollo Loco's back-end servers (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality functions to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶11). This functionality is used to direct customers to restaurant locations and receive orders from them (Compl. ¶6). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the app's operation but frames it as a system for location-based interaction between a user's mobile device and a central server infrastructure.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the allegations in the complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 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 on a first computer platform... | Defendant's servers are used to design the functionality of the El Pollo Loco Mobile App, which presents location-specific content (e.g., nearby stores, local menus) to users. | ¶11 | col. 8:40-50 |
| (b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; | The El Pollo Loco Mobile App is downloaded from an app store (a central source) to a user's smartphone (a loosely networked computer with GPS). | ¶11, ¶15 | col. 5:4-14, col. 10:55-65 |
| (c) when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire on said loosely networked computer, thereby collecting responses from the user; | The mobile app executes on the user's smartphone, for example when the user is near a restaurant, to present options and collect user input (e.g., placing an order). | ¶11 | col. 9:28-48 |
| (d) while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire; | The mobile app uses the smartphone's GPS to determine the user's location to identify nearby restaurants or enable location-based features. | ¶11 | col. 10:55-65 |
| (e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and, | User interactions, orders, and location data are transmitted from the mobile app over a cellular or Wi-Fi network to Defendant's servers. | ¶11 | col. 5:4-14 |
| (f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e). | Defendant's servers process the data received from the app, for instance, to fulfill an order at a specific restaurant location, making the data available internally. | ¶6, ¶11 | col. 10:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the patent’s claim terms, drafted with early-2000s handheld computers in mind, can be construed to read on a modern smartphone/app-store ecosystem. For example, does downloading an "app" from an app store constitute "automatically transferring [a] designed questionnaire"? Does a modern smartphone, which is almost always connected, qualify as a "loosely networked computer" as defined in the patent?
- Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused app performs the specific functions as claimed. For instance, does the app use GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire," or does it simply use location data for a different purpose, such as displaying a map? The complaint's allegations are high-level, and discovery will be needed to determine the precise technical operation of the accused system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "loosely networked computer"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it defines the type of remote device covered by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent defines it in the context of intermittent, unreliable connections typical of the early 2000s, whereas modern smartphones have near-ubiquitous connectivity. Defendant may argue a modern smartphone does not meet the definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The definition states "if a network connection is unavailable at that moment, the information is temporarily stored" (’748 Patent, col. 5:10-12). Plaintiff may argue that even modern devices experience transient connection loss (e.g., in subways, elevators) and must buffer data, thus falling within the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts "loosely networked" with systems where a link is always available, describing it as "tolerant of intermittent network connections" (’748 Patent, col. 5:4-7). Defendant may argue this term was intended to describe a specific technical problem of frequent and expected disconnects, a problem largely solved by modern mobile networks.
The Term: "questionnaire"
- Context and Importance: The scope of "questionnaire" is critical, as it must be mapped to the functionality of the El Pollo Loco Mobile App. Plaintiff will likely argue for a broad definition covering any interactive, logic-driven user interface, while Defendant may argue for a narrower meaning limited to a survey-like series of questions and answers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the terms "program" and "form" are used interchangeably with "questionnaire" (’748 Patent, col. 8:36-39). It is described as being built with "branching logic" and "tokens" that correspond to "logical, mathematical, or branching operation[s]" (’748 Patent, col. 8:50-59), suggesting it refers broadly to application logic, not just a list of questions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the creation of the questionnaire as a "series of questions or statements" designed to "collect information regarding service at that establishment" (e.g., service time, cleanliness) in the context of a "mystery shopper" (’748 Patent, col. 9:30-40). Defendant could argue this context limits the term to survey-like applications, not general e-commerce functions like placing an order.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement:
- Inducement: The complaint alleges Defendant induces infringement by providing the El Pollo Loco Mobile App to end-users and distributing instructions, advertising, and promotions that guide customers to use the app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16).
- Contributory Infringement: Plaintiff alleges the accused products have "special features" that are "specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and have no substantial non-infringing uses, constituting a material part of the invention (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge, stating Defendant has knowledge of the ’748 Patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and technological evolution: Can the term "questionnaire", as described in the context of 2002-era data collection forms, be construed to cover the interactive ordering and location-finding functionalities of a modern e-commerce mobile application?
- A second key question revolves around the scope of "loosely networked computer": Does a modern smartphone with persistent, high-bandwidth cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity meet the patent’s definition, which was crafted to solve the problem of intermittent and unreliable network access?
- An important evidentiary question will be one of specific functionality: What evidence will show that the El Pollo Loco app uses GPS to "automatically provide... location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire" as required by claim 7, versus simply using location data for other purposes like finding nearby stores? The outcome may depend on whether the system's architecture matches the specific data flow claimed in the patent.