DCT
5:24-cv-00173
Fall Line Patents LLC v. AutoZone
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: AutoZone, Inc. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00173, 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, has committed acts of infringement in the district through its mobile app, and maintains regular and established places of business (retail stores) in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AutoZone Auto Parts & Repair Mobile App, in conjunction with its servers, infringes a patent related to methods for managing and collecting data from remote computing devices using location-specific, tokenized questionnaires.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of developing data-collection applications that can run on diverse mobile hardware platforms with varying and intermittent network connectivity, a common issue in enterprise mobile computing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent, or its family members, has been the subject of prior litigation, citing [Fall Line Patents, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/fall-line-patents-llc) v. Zoe's Kitchen Inc, where a court denied a motion to dismiss and later granted Fall Line's motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent-in-suit has also survived multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, which resulted in the cancellation of several claims but confirmed the patentability of the asserted Claim 7. This history may influence the court’s view on the patent’s validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | '748 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. No. 60/404,491) |
| 2016-09-27 | '748 Patent Issued |
| 2017-10-06 | IPR2018-00043 Filed (Resulted in cancellation of claims 16-18) |
| 2019-01-22 | IPR2019-00610 Filed (Resulted in cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 19-22; Claim 7 found patentable) |
| 2024-11-25 | Complaint Filed |
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 a technical landscape where creating software for handheld computers was problematic due to hardware and operating system incompatibility between different manufacturers ('748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). This forced developers to create costly, custom programs for each device type, and even small changes required recompiling and reinstalling the entire program ('748 Patent, col. 3:1-10). Additionally, these devices often had intermittent or low-bandwidth network connections, making real-time data transfer unreliable ('748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses "device indifferent tokens" to create a "questionnaire" ('748 Patent, col. 13:51-54). This tokenized questionnaire can be executed on any remote device equipped with a compatible operating system layer, without needing to be recompiled for specific hardware ('748 Patent, col. 8:50-58). The system is also "loosely networked," meaning it can store data locally on the device when a network connection is unavailable and transmit it later when the connection is restored, accommodating unreliable networks ('748 Patent, col. 5:7-12).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce development costs and complexity by enabling the creation of a single, universal application for data collection that could be deployed across a heterogeneous fleet of mobile devices ('748 Patent, col. 2:57-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 ('Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
- A method for collecting survey data from a user and making responses available via the Internet, comprising:
- 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;
- automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto;
- 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;
- while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire;
- automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and,
- making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "AutoZone Auto Parts & Repair Mobile App" operating in conjunction with "AutoZone servers" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is a system that allows AutoZone to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶10).
- The complaint further alleges that AutoZone uses its mobile app to direct customers to its stores and receive orders for stores located within the judicial district, suggesting the app is integral to its retail operations (Compl. ¶5). No further technical details on the app's operation are provided. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 questions requests location identifying information | The complaint alleges AutoZone creates and executes a "location-specific questionnaire" using its app and servers (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 14:48-54 |
| automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto | The complaint alleges the system involves the AutoZone mobile app and servers, implying transfer of data between them (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 14:55-57 |
| 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 complaint alleges the system executes a questionnaire to collect responses from users of the mobile app (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 14:58-61 |
| while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire | The complaint alleges the questionnaire is "location-specific," implying the use of location data like GPS (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 14:62-64 |
| automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer | The complaint alleges the mobile app works "in conjunction with AutoZone servers" to collect responses (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 14:65-67 |
| 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. 15:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the features and functions of the AutoZone app constitute a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are understood in the context of the patent. The complaint does not specify what branching logic or questionnaire is at issue. Another question is whether the interaction between the app and server qualifies as a "loose network," which the patent defines as a system tolerant of intermittent connections ('748 Patent, col. 5:4-12).
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence detailing how the accused app technically operates. A key question for discovery will be whether the app uses GPS data as a response to a question, as required by the claim, or merely uses location data for other purposes (e.g., finding a nearby store). Further, it raises the question of what evidence will show that the app's architecture is analogous to the "tokenized" system described in the patent, which is central to the invention's alleged novelty (Compl. ¶25).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire customized for a particular location"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused app's functionality, which may present location-based store information or offers, can be construed as a "questionnaire" that is "customized" for a specific "location." Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether general location-aware features meet this specific claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes creating questionnaires by simply entering questions and response specifications, without requiring "particular programming skill" ('748 Patent, col. 5:36-38), which might support construing a wide range of interactive, data-gathering interfaces as "questionnaires."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a detailed example of a "mystery shopper" at a restaurant, where the questionnaire involves a sequence of specific observational questions tied to timed events and physical locations within the establishment ('748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:27). This could support a narrower construction requiring a structured, survey-like series of prompts rather than a general-purpose user interface.
The Term: "branching logic"
Context and Importance: The complaint does not specify what "branching logic" in the accused app allegedly infringes. The definition of this term will be critical, as it requires a specific logical structure within the "questionnaire." Defendant may argue its app lacks the conditional, multi-path structure implied by this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the logic in general terms as controlling "conditional branching based on the user's response" ('748 Patent, col. 8:51-53), which could be argued to cover any "if-then" logic in a user interface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of creating branching logic to ask different questions based on a user's gender ("branch if 'male'") ('748 Patent, col. 8:65-9:2). This suggests a specific implementation where the path through the questionnaire is altered based on discrete user inputs, which may be narrower than any and all conditional code.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "advising or directing customers and end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner" and distributing instructions (Compl. ¶15). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting the accused app has "special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than ones that infringe Claim 7" (Compl. ¶16).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness 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). It 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
A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire customized for a particular location," which the patent illustrates with a highly structured "mystery shopper" survey, be construed to cover the functions of a commercial retail application like the AutoZone app? The answer will likely depend on the specific user interactions presented by the app.
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: can the Plaintiff produce evidence through discovery that the accused app's software architecture performs the specific method steps of Claim 7? This includes not only using GPS data but using it as an automatic response within a questionnaire, and managing data transfer via a "loose network" tolerant of intermittent connections, as described in the patent.
The case will also test the impact of the patent's procedural history. While the survival of Claim 7 in multiple IPRs provides a strong presumption of validity, the infringement analysis remains open. The key question is whether the facts of the accused infringement in this case are sufficiently distinct from those in prior litigation to create new, unresolved questions of claim scope and application.