Fall Line Patents LLC v. Dine Brands Global Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Dine Brands Global, Inc., Applebee's Restaurants LLC, Applebee's Restaurant Holdings, LLC, Applebee's Franchisor LLC, International House of Pancakes, LLC, IHOP Restaurants LLC, and IHOP Franchisor LLC (collectively, "Dine Brands") (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00097, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants transacting business in the district, committing acts of patent infringement in the district, and maintaining regular and established places of business (Applebee's and IHOP restaurant locations) within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Applebee's and IHOP mobile applications, which allow for location-based ordering, infringe a patent related to collecting data from remote, location-aware computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to systems for creating and deploying data collection applications (e.g., surveys or forms) on diverse, mobile handheld devices, particularly in environments with unreliable network connectivity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, has been the subject of prior litigation where it survived a motion to dismiss on Section 101 patent eligibility grounds and was later subject to a summary judgment order of validity. Furthermore, the patent has survived multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. IPR certificates attached to the patent confirm that the asserted Claim 7 was found patentable, while other claims (1, 2, 5, and 16-22) were cancelled.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - "System and Method for Data Management" (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the early 2000s, collecting data on handheld computers in the field was difficult due to numerous technical challenges. These included software incompatibility between different device models, requiring custom programs to be written and compiled for each specific device type (Compl. ¶30; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). Furthermore, making even a small change to a program required recompiling and reinstalling the entire application on every device (Compl. ¶32; ’748 Patent, col. 3:7-10). Finally, handheld devices often had intermittent and low-bandwidth network connections, making real-time data transmission to a central server unreliable (Compl. ¶30; ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to overcome these issues by using device-independent "tokens" to represent a questionnaire's questions and logic. This tokenized questionnaire can be executed by a common runtime package on various handheld devices, eliminating the need for device-specific custom programming (Compl. ¶33; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). To handle poor connectivity, the system operates in a "loosely networked" fashion, where data is stored locally on the device if no network is available and transmitted later when a connection is restored (Compl. ¶34; ’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). The system also leverages an integrated GPS unit to automatically capture location information and customize the questionnaire for a specific location (Compl. ¶35; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline remote data collection by creating a flexible, cross-platform framework that was resilient to the unreliable network conditions common in early mobile computing environments (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶19).
• The essential elements of 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 loosely networked 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" via 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, and several claims have been cancelled through IPR proceedings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "Applebee's Mobile App" and the "IHOP Mobile App" operating in conjunction with Defendants' back-end servers (Compl. ¶¶17-18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused mobile apps, when used with their associated servers, "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶¶17-18). This system is used by customers to find specific restaurant locations, place food orders, and submit them for fulfillment (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The functionality described suggests a system where a user selects a restaurant (a location), receives a menu customized for that location (the alleged "questionnaire"), and submits an order (the alleged "responses") from their mobile device.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient technical detail to construct a full element-by-element chart. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused mobile apps and servers, when used by customers, perform the method of Claim 7 (Compl. ¶¶17-19, 22). The narrative theory is that the mobile ordering systems of Applebee's and IHOP constitute the creation and execution of a location-specific questionnaire.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a mobile food ordering interface constitutes a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are used in the patent. The patent's examples focus on "mystery shopper" surveys and data collection forms (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:22). A court will have to determine if the claim language is broad enough to cover a commercial transaction like placing a food order.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires a "loosely networked computer." The patent describes this in the context of early 2000s technology with intermittent and unreliable connections (’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12). It raises the question of whether a modern smartphone operating on robust 4G/5G and Wi-Fi networks, which typically has persistent connectivity, meets this definition.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires transferring responses "in real time." The specification discusses both real-time and store-and-forward methods (’748 Patent, col. 4:2-19). The precise operation of the accused apps' data transmission protocol will be a key factual question to determine if this limitation is met.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "questionnaire"

Context and Importance

• The applicability of the patent to the accused mobile ordering apps hinges entirely on the definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because if a food menu and ordering process is not a "questionnaire," the infringement case may fail.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit "questionnaire" to a specific type, such as a survey. Plaintiff may argue it covers any system that poses a "series of questions or statements" to a user to elicit a "response," which could include a menu (’748 Patent, col. 8:26-29).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description heavily features a "mystery shopper" embodiment for collecting survey-style data about a restaurant experience (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:22). Defendants may argue this context limits the term to data-gathering surveys, not commercial ordering systems.

The Term: "loosely networked computer"

Context and Importance

• This term defines the type of device on which the invention is intended to operate. Its construction is critical for determining if the patent, conceived in an era of unreliable connectivity, applies to modern mobile technology.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term functionally as a system "tolerant of intermittent network connections" (’748 Patent, col. 5:3-6). Plaintiff may argue that even modern devices experience intermittent connectivity (e.g., in dead zones, elevators, or when switching between Wi-Fi and cellular) and are designed to be tolerant of it, thus falling within the definition.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background repeatedly contrasts its solution with systems requiring a constant connection, framing the problem in the context of early, unreliable wireless technology (’748 Patent, col. 3:20-4:17). Defendants may argue the term is limited to devices where network unavailability is a normal and expected state of operation, unlike modern smartphones.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants encourage and instruct customers to use the mobile apps in an infringing manner through advertising and user guides (Compl. ¶23). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the apps contain "special features" that have no substantial non-infringing use and are a material part of the invention (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date when they were notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶25). Plaintiff also alleges willful blindness, claiming on information and belief that Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶26).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "questionnaire," which is described in the patent's specification in the context of a "mystery shopper" data collection survey, be construed broadly enough to encompass the menu and ordering interface of a modern restaurant's mobile application?
2. A second key question will be one of technological context: Does the claim term "loosely networked computer," defined in the patent to solve problems of "intermittent" and unreliable early-2000s network connections, read on modern smartphones operating on today's persistent and high-speed cellular and Wi-Fi networks?
3. A significant factor will be the patent's procedural history: How will the court weigh the fact that the asserted Claim 7 has already survived both an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Office and a Section 101 patent eligibility challenge in prior federal court litigation? This history may present a higher-than-usual bar for Defendants' invalidity challenges.