Fall Line Patents LLC v. Brookshire Grocery Co Pursuant To Court Order Docket In Lead Case As Directed

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Brookshire Grocery Company (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00175, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's transaction of business within the district, including the operation of numerous physical grocery stores and the use of the accused mobile applications to direct customers to and receive orders for those stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for its grocery brands infringe a patent related to methods for creating and executing location-aware, customizable questionnaires on remote devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the cross-platform collection of data from mobile devices, particularly using GPS to automate location-based inputs and managing data transfer over intermittent networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case involving the same patent ([Fall Line Patents, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/fall-line-patents-llc) v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc.), the court denied a motion to dismiss after finding plausible allegations of inventive concepts and later granted a motion for summary judgment of the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-08-19	U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 Priority Date
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 Issue Date
2021-05-25	Date of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Zoe's Kitchen
2023-07-11	Date of Public Version of Order Granting SJ of Validity in 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", Issued September 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where creating software for various handheld computers was challenging due to incompatible operating systems and hardware, requiring developers to write and compile separate, custom programs for each device type (’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). Furthermore, these remote devices often operated on unreliable, low-bandwidth networks, making it difficult to update programs or transmit collected data in a timely manner (’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses "device-independent tokens" to represent a questionnaire, allowing a single questionnaire design to be executed on different types of remote devices without recompilation (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). This system is designed to leverage a device's integrated GPS to automate the collection of location information and to customize or trigger questionnaires based on that location (’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65). It also accommodates intermittent network connectivity by storing data locally on the device and transmitting it when a connection becomes available (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline the development and deployment of mobile data collection applications, reduce costs, and improve the timeliness and accuracy of data gathered from field operations (Compl. ¶24; ’748 Patent, col. 2:56-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The prayer for relief more broadly references "one or more claims" (Compl., p. 11).
• Independent Claim 7 recites a method with the following key steps:
  • Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location, which includes branching logic and requests location identifying information.
  • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has an "integral" GPS.
  • Executing the questionnaire on the 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" to the questionnaire.
  • Automatically transferring collected responses in real time to a central computer via the "loose network."
  • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the Brookshire's Mobile App, the Super 1 Foods Mobile App, and the FRESH by Brookshire's Mobile App (collectively, the "Brookshire Mobile Apps"), operating in conjunction with Defendant's servers (Compl. ¶4, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Brookshire Mobile Apps are used by customers to place orders for products from specific store locations within Defendant's grocery store network (Compl. ¶5). These apps, in conjunction with servers, are alleged to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶10).

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
(a) designing a questionnaire including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having branching logic...wherein at least one...questions requests location identifying information	Brookshire provides mobile apps that function as location-specific systems for its various store locations, which are used to receive orders (responses) from users (customers).	¶10, ¶5	col. 8:40-50
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto	Customers download the Brookshire Mobile Apps onto their mobile devices, which are "loosely networked" (via cellular/Wi-Fi) and have integrated GPS capabilities.	¶14, ¶15	col. 5:40-49
(c) when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire...thereby collecting responses from the user	Customers use the mobile apps to place orders for specific Brookshire's, Super 1 Foods, or FRESH store locations, which constitutes executing the questionnaire and collecting responses.	¶5, ¶10	col. 10:55-65
(d) while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response...	The system is alleged to be "location-specific," implying the use of the mobile device's location services in the ordering process.	¶10	col. 10:55-59
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer	The mobile apps, when used by customers, transmit information to Brookshire's servers to collect the responses.	¶10	col. 5:7-12
(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.		col. 6:45-48

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A central issue may be whether a customer-facing e-commerce application for ordering groceries constitutes a "questionnaire" for "collecting survey data" as contemplated by the patent. The patent’s detailed examples focus on scenarios like mystery shopping and field data collection (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:27), raising the question of whether the claimed invention's scope extends to routine commercial transactions.
  • Technical Question: For element (d), the court will need to determine if the accused apps "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire." The analysis may turn on whether the device's GPS data is merely used to filter a list of stores or if it functions as an actual, automated input or "response" within the logic of the claimed method. The complaint does not detail this specific mechanism.
  • Scope Question: For element (f), the meaning of "making available via the Internet" may be disputed. It is unclear if this requires providing access to a third-party client, as described in the patent's abstract and preferred embodiments ('748 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:45-48), or if internal processing of order data on an internet-connected server is sufficient.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire" / "collecting survey data"

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the entire claim to the accused apps hinges on this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because if a mobile ordering process is not "collecting survey data" via a "questionnaire," the infringement analysis may fail at the outset.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a questionnaire as a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response," which could arguably describe the prompts in a mobile ordering workflow (’748 Patent, col. 8:26-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary examples involve "mystery shoppers" and collecting observational data for quality control, suggesting the terms relate to information gathering and analysis, not facilitating a commercial sale (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:27).

• The Term: "location identifying information as a response"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to infringement of element (d). The dispute will likely center on whether the use of GPS data is a direct, logical "response" within the claimed method or simply background context used by the application.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes automating the entry of location information where a user might otherwise be prompted for it, which could be interpreted as the location data itself serving as the response (’748 Patent, col. 10:55-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language "as a response" suggests that the location data must be the substantive answer to a question posed by the questionnaire, not just a parameter used by the app to, for example, determine the nearest store.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides the apps and "advising or directing customers and end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶15). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the apps have "special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and lack substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" and, on information and belief, a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" constituting willful blindness (Compl. ¶17-18).

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

This case will likely focus on fundamental questions of scope and technical operation. The primary issues for the court may be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "questionnaire" and "collecting survey data", which are described in the patent's specification in the context of field reporting and quality-control surveys, be construed to cover the transactional workflow of a customer's e-commerce mobile application?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the plaintiff's complaint, which is light on technical specifics, foreshadow an ability to prove that the accused apps perform the precise function recited in Claim 7(d)—automatically providing GPS information as a response to the executing program—or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed technical mechanism and the actual operation of the accused apps?