DCT
5:24-cv-00096
Fall Line Patents LLC v. Raising Canes Restaurants LLC Pursuant To Court Order Docket Only In Lead Case 5 24 CV 89
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Raising Cane's Restaurants, L.L.C., Raising Cane's Franchising, L.L.C., and Raising Cane's USA, L.L.C. (Louisiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00096, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant transacting business in the district and maintaining a regular and established place of business, specifically citing a restaurant location in Texarkana, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application, used for ordering and location services, infringes a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and deploying data collection applications on mobile devices that can operate across different hardware platforms and tolerate intermittent network connectivity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent, and specifically the asserted claim, has been the subject of prior proceedings. The asserted claim (Claim 7) was found patentable in an Inter Partes Review (IPR). In separate litigation against a different defendant (Fall Line Patents LLC v. Zoe's Kitchen Inc), the patent reportedly survived a motion to dismiss on Section 101 grounds and was the subject of a summary judgment order finding it valid under Section 101.
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 litigation cited in complaint |
| 2022-12-19 | Inter Partes Review Certificate issued for IPR2019-00610; Claim 7 found patentable |
| 2023-06-29 | Order granting summary judgment of validity in Zoe's Kitchen litigation cited in complaint |
| 2024-07-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: 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 in the early 2000s of developing data collection applications for handheld computers. Key problems included software incompatibility across different devices, the need to recompile and reinstall entire programs for minor updates, and the unreliability of wireless network connections for real-time data transfer (Compl. ¶¶24-26; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-3:10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to overcome these issues by using "device-indifferent tokens" to represent a questionnaire. This tokenized approach allows a single application to run on various devices and enables incremental updates without a full reinstallation (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store data locally when a connection is unavailable and transmit it later when the connection is restored (Compl. ¶28; ’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12). It also integrates GPS functionality to enable location-specific operations (Compl. ¶29; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
- Technical Importance: The described solution offered a more flexible and robust framework for deploying data-gathering applications in the field, a significant challenge given the fragmented mobile device market and nascent wireless infrastructure of the time (’748 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint specifically identifies independent Claim 7 as being infringed (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 7 are:
- Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer.
- The questionnaire must request location-identifying information.
- Automatically transferring the 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 information as a response.
- Automatically transferring collected responses in "real time" to a central computer via the loose network.
- Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. p. 12, ¶a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Raising Cane's mobile app" operating "in conjunction with Raising Cane's servers" (Compl. ¶12).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality functions to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶12). It is also described as a tool used by Defendant to direct customers to its restaurants and to receive orders from them (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the app's features. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 7 but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product's features to the claim limitations. The core allegation is a high-level assertion that the mobile app and server system performs the claimed method (Compl. ¶12).
'748 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| designing a questionnaire including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having branching logic on a first computer platform... | The Raising Cane's mobile app and servers are alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶12 | col. 8:41-46 |
| automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto | The Raising Cane's mobile app and servers are alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶12 | col. 9:3-7 |
| 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 Raising Cane's mobile app and servers are alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶12 | col. 15:56-61 |
| while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire | The Raising Cane's mobile app and servers are alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶12 | col. 15:62-65 |
| automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer | The Raising Cane's mobile app and servers are alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶12 | col. 16:1-2 |
| making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer | The Raising Cane's mobile app and servers are alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶12 | col. 16:2-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether a mobile food ordering process constitutes the collection of "survey data" via a "questionnaire" as those terms are used in the patent. The patent's examples center on data gathering for purposes like mystery shopping and field inspections (’748 Patent, col. 10:38-44), raising the question of whether the claim scope covers commercial transactions.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are general. A central issue will be whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused app performs the specific technical functions required by the claim. For instance, what evidence demonstrates the use of "branching logic" (Claim 7a) or that the app "automatically" provides GPS coordinates "as a response" (Claim 7d), rather than for other purposes like identifying nearby stores.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental. The case's viability depends on whether the accused mobile ordering interface is a "questionnaire." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue its app is a transactional tool, not a data survey instrument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the terms "program" and "form" are used interchangeably with "questionnaire," which may support a broader construction covering any system for structured data input (’748 Patent, col. 8:36-37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed examples describe "mystery shoppers" and the collection of observational data, such as service times and cleanliness, suggesting the term may be limited to survey or inspection contexts rather than general e-commerce (’748 Patent, col. 10:38-11:22).
The Term: "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for linking the GPS function to the data collection process in the manner claimed. The dispute may turn on whether the app uses GPS data as an input in response to the questionnaire, or merely for background functionality like finding nearby locations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the format of the "response," potentially allowing for GPS coordinates to be appended to a user's data submission automatically without explicit user action.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The structure of Claim 7 implies a sequence where the "questionnaire" is "executing" and collecting "responses from the user," and the GPS provides information "as a response." This could be interpreted to require that the location data itself is an answer to a specific (implicit or explicit) question within the questionnaire, not just metadata associated with a transaction. The patent also describes automatically entering GPS coordinates where a user might otherwise be prompted to enter a store number or location (’748 Patent, col. 10:55-61).
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. ¶17). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused products have special features "specially designed to be used in an infringing way" with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶18).
- 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. ¶19). The complaint further alleges willful blindness, claiming on information and belief that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the 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", rooted in the patent’s context of field surveys and inspections, be construed to cover the transactional interface of a modern quick-service restaurant's mobile ordering application?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused app performs the specific technical steps of Claim 7, particularly the requirements for "branching logic" and the use of GPS to "automatically provide" location data "as a response" to the executing questionnaire, moving beyond the complaint's high-level allegations.
- The case will also involve a question of infringement in context: given that the asserted claim survived an IPR, the focus will shift from its validity in the abstract to how its limitations apply to the specific architecture of the accused e-commerce system, which may differ from the prior art and technologies considered during the patent's examination and subsequent review.