Fall Line Patents LLC v. 7 Eleven Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00167, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in the district and maintains regular and established places of business (i.e., 7-Eleven stores) within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 7-Eleven Mobile App and 7NOW Mobile App infringe a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses cross-platform data collection on mobile devices, using device-independent logic and handling intermittent network connectivity, a domain relevant to modern location-based services and mobile commerce.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. 9,454,748, has survived two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that confirmed the patentability of the asserted Claim 7 while cancelling other claims. The complaint also notes that in prior litigation against a different defendant, a court in the same district denied a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility grounds and later granted summary judgment of validity for the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This history may narrow the focus of the current case to questions of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-08-19	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
2016-09-27	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
2017-10-06	Filing of IPR2018-00043 against the ’748 Patent
2019-01-22	Filing of IPR2019-00610 against the ’748 Patent
2021-05-25	Order denying motion to dismiss in Fall Line v. Zoe's Kitchen
2022-12-19	IPR Certificate issued (IPR2019-00610), confirming Claim 7
2023-06-29	Order granting summary judgment of validity in Fall Line v. Zoe's Kitchen
2023-08-22	IPR Certificate issued (IPR2018-00043)
2024-11-25	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - “System and Method for Data Management”

• Patent Identification: 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 data collection applications for handheld computers was challenging due to hardware and software fragmentation; an application written for one device often had to be completely rewritten for another (Compl. ¶22; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). Furthermore, these devices often had unreliable or "loose" network connections, making real-time data transmission difficult (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a "questionnaire" (a data collection form with branching logic) is created on a central computer and then represented by "device-independent tokens" (’748 Patent, col. 13:51-53). These tokens are transmitted to a remote, GPS-enabled handheld computer. This approach allows the same questionnaire to run on different devices without custom recompilation and enables incremental updates rather than resending the entire program (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). The system is also designed to handle poor connectivity by storing data locally and transmitting it when a network becomes available (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more flexible and efficient framework for creating and deploying data-gathering applications across a heterogeneous landscape of mobile devices with intermittent connectivity (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
  • Designing a questionnaire with branching logic, customized for a particular location, on a first computer platform.
  • The questionnaire must request location-identifying information.
  • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has a GPS unit.
  • 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 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, though this is common practice.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "7-Eleven Mobile App" and the "7NOW Mobile App," which are used on customer mobile devices in conjunction with 7-Eleven's servers (Compl. ¶¶4, 10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused mobile apps and servers operate together to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶10). Functionally, these apps are used by customers to find store locations, receive orders, and be directed to stores within the district (Compl. ¶5). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the apps' operation or market position beyond identifying 7-Eleven as a large corporation with numerous physical store locations (Compl. ¶¶2, 5).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint pleads infringement at a high level without a detailed claim chart. The following table maps the elements of the asserted claim to the general allegations.

’974,748 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...	7-Eleven allegedly creates a "location-specific questionnaire" using its servers, which function as the "first computer platform."	¶10	col. 8:11-17
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto;	The "questionnaire" is allegedly transferred from 7-Eleven's servers to a user's mobile device (the "loosely networked computer"), which is assumed to have an integrated GPS.	¶10	col. 9:3-7
(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 apps allegedly "execute" the questionnaire on the user's device to "collect responses from users."	¶10	col. 9:29-32
(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 system is alleged to be "location-specific," which suggests the app uses the device's GPS to provide location information as part of its operation.	¶10	col. 10:55-65
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and,	The mobile apps, operating on a user's device, allegedly work "in conjunction with 7-Eleven servers" to "collect responses," implying data transfer from the device to the server.	¶10	col. 10:1-12
(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.	N/A	col. 15:61-65

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the user interface and logic of a mobile commerce application (e.g., for ordering products) can be construed as a "questionnaire" for "collecting survey data" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue the patent is directed at explicit survey or inspection tools, not transactional platforms.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the accused system operates according to the claimed method. The claim requires "designing a questionnaire" on a first computer and "transferring" it to the remote device. The defense may argue that the accused apps are pre-compiled, monolithic programs downloaded from an app store, and that any subsequent communication with 7-Eleven's servers involves the exchange of data, not the transfer of the "questionnaire" itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire"
  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is central to the dispute. Plaintiff's case requires this term to read on a mobile commerce app's user interface. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent applies to modern e-commerce apps or is limited to the explicit "mystery shopper" and data-gathering examples in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "questionnaire" is used interchangeably with "program" and "form," which could support a broad definition encompassing any system for prompting user input (e.g., ’748 Patent, col. 8:37-39, "the terms 'program' and 'form' are used interchangeably with questionnaire").
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples in the specification describe using the questionnaire for specific data-gathering tasks like a "mystery shopper" reporting on "service time, cleanliness, friendliness of the employees" (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-43). This context may support a narrower construction limited to survey-like or observational data collection.
• The Term: "designing a questionnaire... on a first computer platform" and "automatically transferring said designed questionnaire"
  • Context and Importance: These are active method steps that define how the claimed system is set up and deployed. The infringement analysis depends heavily on whether 7-Eleven's system of servers and apps can be shown to perform these specific "design" and "transfer" steps during operation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent specification and figures depict a system where a client creates a form on one computer (22), which is then processed by a server (24) and transmitted in a tokenized format to a remote handheld device (28) (’748 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 8:11-24). Plaintiff may argue that 7-Eleven's servers, which deliver content and logic that shape the app's functionality, meet this limitation. Conversely, Defendant may argue that a pre-compiled app downloaded from an app store does not undergo this "design" and "transfer" process during its use by a customer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that 7-Eleven directs and provides instructions for customers to use the accused apps in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the apps contain "special features" with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶16).
• 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. ¶17). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, claiming on information and belief that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶18).

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

Given the patent's survival of multiple IPRs and a prior favorable ruling on patent eligibility, the case will likely focus on infringement. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire," which is described in the patent in the context of collecting survey and inspection data, be construed broadly enough to cover the user interface and ordering process of a modern mobile e-commerce application?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused 7-Eleven system actually perform the claimed method of "designing" a questionnaire on a server and then "transferring" it to a mobile device for execution, or is the accused app a pre-compiled program that merely exchanges data with a server, creating a potential mismatch with the specific steps recited in Claim 7?