DCT
5:24-cv-00095
Fall Line Patents LLC v. Krispy Kreme
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Krispy Kreme, Inc. (Delaware) and Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00095, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business, commits alleged acts of infringement, and maintains regular and established places of business (restaurants) within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Krispy Kreme Mobile App, in conjunction with its servers, infringes a patent related to location-aware data collection on mobile devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and deploying data collection applications, such as surveys or forms, on a variety of mobile devices, particularly in environments with intermittent network connectivity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent family was previously litigated in *Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe's Kitchen Inc*, where the court denied a motion to dismiss and later granted summary judgment of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, USPTO records attached to the patent indicate that the asserted Claim 7 survived an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00610), which confirmed its patentability, while other claims were cancelled in that and a separate IR.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | '748 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-09-27 | '748 Patent Issue 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 describes challenges from the early 2000s related to deploying software on a wide array of handheld computers, which had different processors, operating systems, and limited resources (Compl. ¶23; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). These incompatibilities required developers to create and compile custom software for each device type, a costly and inefficient process, especially for gathering data in the field where network connections were often unreliable or slow (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24; ’748 Patent, col. 3:1-10, 3:64-4:1).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "questionnaire" or form can be created on a central server and then translated into device-independent "tokens" ('748 Patent, col. 2:13-26). These tokens represent instructions and can be executed by a small run-time package on various remote devices, allowing a single application to function across different hardware without recompilation (Compl. ¶26). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store collected data locally if a network is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored, addressing the issue of intermittent connectivity ('748 Patent, col. 5:3-12).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to decouple application logic from specific hardware, enabling rapid, cross-platform deployment of data collection tools for mobile workforces at a time before modern, standardized mobile operating systems were ubiquitous (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 ('748 Patent, col. 15:46-16:6; Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
- Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location, which includes branching logic.
- Automatically transferring the designed questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has a GPS.
- Executing the questionnaire on the computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
- Using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response while the questionnaire is executing.
- 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 dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Krispy Kreme Mobile App and its associated Krispy Kreme servers (Compl. ¶11).
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. ¶11). It also states that the mobile app is used to "direct customers to, and receive orders from customers for, one or more Krispy Kreme restaurants" (Compl. ¶6). The functionality at issue appears to be the app's ability to use a device's location to present location-specific information or options (e.g., nearby stores, local menus, or offers) and to process user interactions, such as placing an order.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'748 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 on a first computer platform wherein at least one of said at least one questions requests location identifying information; | Defendant creates and provides the Krispy Kreme mobile app and server infrastructure, which allegedly constitutes a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶11 | col. 8:40-50 |
| (b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; | The Krispy Kreme mobile app is distributed to and installed on end-user mobile devices, which are loosely networked and contain a GPS. | ¶11 | col. 5:40-48 |
| (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 a user's device, and when the user is at or near a Krispy Kreme location, it presents options and collects user inputs, such as orders. | ¶11 | col. 9:28-44 |
| (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 device's GPS to determine the user's location to enable location-specific features. | ¶11 | col. 10:56-61 |
| (e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and, | User inputs and order information are transmitted from the mobile app over a network (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi) to Krispy Kreme's servers. | ¶11 | col. 5:7-10 |
| (f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e). | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 6:45-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "questionnaire." The defense may argue that a mobile commerce interface for ordering food is not a "questionnaire" for "collecting survey data" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples like mystery shopping ('748 Patent, col. 10:37-41). The complaint also provides no factual allegations to support the presence of "branching logic," a specific limitation of the claim ('748 Patent, col. 8:51-54).
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused app's functionality meets the "real time" transfer requirement of element (e). The timing and mechanism of data transfer from the app to the servers will be a factual question for the court. Additionally, it is unclear what evidence supports the allegation that the GPS provides location information "as a response" to the questionnaire, rather than as a background input for filtering content.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to Claim 7. Its construction will determine whether the claim can read on a mobile commercial application (like the accused app) or if it is limited to more traditional survey or data-entry forms. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality—mobile ordering—does not align with the patent’s primary examples of mystery shopping and field data collection.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent also uses the more general term "form" interchangeably with "questionnaire" and describes its purpose as "data management" and "information collection" broadly ('748 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:37-39), which could support applying the term to various data-gathering interfaces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim is for a "method for collecting survey data," and the specification’s most detailed examples involve "mystery shoppers" and collecting "observations," which suggests a primary focus on formal survey-like instruments ('748 Patent, col. 10:37-55; col. 15:46).
The Term: "branching logic"
Context and Importance: This is a specific functional requirement of Claim 7(a). Infringement cannot be found unless the accused system contains this feature. The complaint does not allege any specific facts related to branching logic in the Krispy Kreme app.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide language supporting a broad definition beyond its ordinary meaning in computer science.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes branching logic with a specific example: "the questionnaire designer might desire to create a form that asks the user different questions; depending on whether the user was male or female" ('748 Patent, col. 8:62-66). This suggests a conditional path based on a prior, explicit user response, which may be narrower than simply presenting different options based on context like location.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by advertising the app and distributing instructions that allegedly guide users to infringe (Compl. ¶16). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the app has "special features" with "no substantial uses other than ones that infringe" (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) and, on information and belief, 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 used in the patent in the context of "collecting survey data" and mystery shopping, be construed to cover a modern mobile commerce application used for ordering food products?
- An essential evidentiary question will be one of factual presence: does the complaint provide, or can discovery reveal, evidence that the accused Krispy Kreme Mobile App implements the specific "branching logic" required by Claim 7?
- A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused app’s use of GPS data constitute providing location information "as a response" to the questionnaire, as claimed, or is it a background process for content filtering that operates differently from the method taught in the patent?