DCT

5:24-cv-00169

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Academy Ltd Pursuant To Court Order Docket In Lead Case As Directed

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00169, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly transacting business and committing acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas, as well as maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Academy Sports + Outdoors Mobile App infringes a patent related to systems for creating and executing location-specific, dynamic questionnaires on remote devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software frameworks for collecting data on mobile devices, designed to function across different hardware platforms and over intermittent network connections.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent has been the subject of prior legal challenges. In a separate case, a court granted summary judgment that the patent claims valid subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Additionally, the specific claim asserted in this complaint, Claim 7, was previously challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and was found to be patentable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 '748 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-27 '748 Patent Issue Date
2019-01-22 IPR2019-00610 Filed (Challenging Claim 7)
2021-05-25 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Fall Line v. Zoe's Kitchen
2022-12-19 IPR Certificate Issued Confirming Patentability of Claim 7
2023-06-29 Order Granting Summary Judgment of Validity in Fall Line v. Zoe's Kitchen
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: The patent describes a technical landscape (circa 2002) where creating data-collection applications for handheld computers was difficult. Key problems included software incompatibility across different device manufacturers, requiring separate, costly custom programs for each platform, and unreliability due to intermittent network connectivity in the field (’748 Patent, col. 1:48-2:12, 3:64-4:17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using a device-independent method to create and distribute "questionnaires." These questionnaires are "tokenized"—converted into a universal format—so a single design can be executed on various remote devices without recompilation (’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). The system is also designed to be "loosely networked," meaning it can store data locally when a network is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored, accommodating unreliable field connectivity (’748 Patent, col. 5:4-12).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to solve the practical business problem of deploying and updating data collection applications efficiently and affordably across a fleet of diverse mobile devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 (’748 Patent, col. 15:7-16:6; Compl. ¶11).
  • 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.
    • When the computer is at the particular location, executing the questionnaire to collect user responses.
    • While executing, 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 dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Academy Sports + Outdoors Mobile App" operating "in conjunction with Academy servers" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused mobile app and server system is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶10). It is also alleged that Defendant uses the app to direct customers to its physical store locations within the district (Compl. ¶5). The complaint does not provide specific details about the architecture or operational steps of the accused app beyond these general allegations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint presents its infringement theory in a narrative format without a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product to the claim language. The core allegation is that the Academy Sports + Outdoors Mobile App, together with its backend servers, performs a method of creating and executing location-specific questionnaires to collect user data, thereby infringing Claim 7 of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how specific features of the accused app allegedly meet each distinct limitation of Claim 7.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "questionnaire." The court may need to determine if the term, as used in the patent, is limited to a formal survey or data-entry form (as suggested by the "mystery shopper" example at col. 10:38-11:15), or if it can be construed more broadly to cover interactive features common in retail apps, such as location-based searches, promotions, or product review submissions.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely require evidence on several technical points not detailed in the complaint. Key questions include:
      • What evidence demonstrates that the accused system uses GPS-derived location information specifically as a response to a query within the "questionnaire," as required by Claim 7(d)?
      • Does the accused app function as a "loosely networked computer" with the store-and-forward capability described in the patent (’748 Patent, col. 5:4-12), or does it require a persistent network connection to operate?
      • What functionality in the app constitutes the "branching logic" required by Claim 7(a)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "questionnaire"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to Claim 7. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the functionality of the accused mobile app is found to be a "questionnaire." Practitioners may focus on this term as it directly controls the scope of infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that creating a questionnaire involves simply "entering questions and providing response specification" and that the terms "program" and "form" are used interchangeably with "questionnaire" (’748 Patent, col. 5:35-38, col. 8:36-39). This could support an interpretation covering any guided, interactive data input process.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed examples focus on structured data collection, such as for "mystery shoppers" and medical forms, which involve a series of explicit questions and collection of answers for later analysis (’748 Patent, col. 10:38-12:54). This could support a narrower definition limited to formal survey-like instruments.

  • The Term: "customized for a particular location"

    • Context and Importance: This term links the "questionnaire" to a geographic context. The dispute will likely be over the degree and nature of the required "customization."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be argued to cover any content that changes based on location, such as displaying local store information or nearby product availability.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 7(a) requires designing a questionnaire that is customized. The specification's example of a mystery shopper being asked specific questions about a particular visit suggests the content of the questionnaire itself is pre-designed for a specific place or type of place, not merely displaying generic but location-filtered data (’748 Patent, col. 10:55-11:15).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant advises and directs customers to use the accused app in an infringing manner through instructions and promotions (Compl. ¶15). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the app has special features not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶16).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge of the ’748 Patent as of the complaint's filing date, and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).

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 structured forms and surveys, be construed to cover the interactive, location-aware features of a modern retail mobile application?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: assuming a favorable claim construction, what factual evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused app performs the specific technical steps of Claim 7, particularly the requirements that GPS data is used as a response and that responses are transferred in real time?
  • Given that the asserted claim has survived an IPR and the patent’s subject matter eligibility has been previously upheld, a central focus of the litigation may become the factual basis for infringement and willfulness. This will likely involve a deep dive into the accused app’s architecture and the evidence supporting Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant maintained a policy of "willful blindness" toward patent rights.