Fall Line Patents LLC v. Chili'S

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Chili's, Inc. and Brinker International, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00176, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's transaction of business in the district, including making the accused Chili's Mobile App available to customers, and maintaining regular and established places of business (restaurants) within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Chili's Mobile App, in conjunction with its servers, infringes a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software systems for creating and deploying data collection applications (e.g., surveys, forms) on diverse mobile devices, particularly in environments with intermittent network connectivity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent family was previously litigated in [Fall Line Patents, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/fall-line-patents-llc) v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc. before the same court, where it survived a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Public records for the patent-in-suit also show it has survived multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Notably, the sole asserted claim in this case, Claim 7, was found patentable in IPR2019-00610, while other claims not asserted here were cancelled in separate proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-08-19	Patent Priority Date ('’748 Patent)
2016-09-27	'748 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-25	Order in prior litigation denying motion to dismiss patent
2022-12-19	IPR Certificate issued confirming patentability of Claim 7
2023-06-29	Order in prior litigation granting summary judgment of validity
2023-08-22	IPR Certificate issued cancelling other, non-asserted patent claims
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 technological landscape (circa 2002) where creating data collection applications for handheld computers was inefficient (Compl. ¶23). Problems included platform incompatibility requiring separate, custom-compiled programs for different devices (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2), the need to reinstall an entire program to make small changes (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 3:7-10), and the unreliability of network connections for devices in the field (Compl. ¶23; ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a method using "device-independent" or "tokenized" questionnaires (Compl. ¶26). These tokens represent programming logic and can be executed by a common run-time engine on various devices, avoiding the need for device-specific recompilation (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store data locally when a connection is unavailable and transmit it later when the connection is restored (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). The method also integrates GPS capabilities to automate the collection of location data (Compl. ¶28; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that this combination of tokenization, store-and-forward networking, and integrated GPS for automated data collection was an unconventional advance over prior art methods (Compl. ¶¶26-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
  • A method for collecting survey data and making it available online.
  • Designing a "questionnaire" customized for a "particular location" and having "branching logic."
  • The questionnaire must request "location identifying information."
  • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has a "GPS integral thereto."
  • Executing the questionnaire on the computer when it is at the "particular location" to collect user responses.
  • While executing, "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response" to the questionnaire.
  • Automatically transferring collected responses "in real time" over the "loose network" to a central computer.
  • Making the transferred responses available on the Internet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Chili's mobile app that, in conjunction with Chili's servers" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more granular analysis of the accused app's specific technical operation or architecture.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement but does not provide a claim chart or detailed factual allegations mapping specific features of the Chili's Mobile App to the limitations of Claim 7 (Compl. ¶12). A detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's current allegations is therefore not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of Claim 7 and the general nature of a restaurant mobile application, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions for the court:
  • Scope Questions: Does a modern mobile restaurant application's user interface for ordering food, joining a loyalty program, or providing feedback constitute a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are used in the patent? The patent’s specification heavily features examples like "mystery shoppers" and formal data-entry forms, which may suggest a different context from the accused app's transactional functions (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:2).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused app performs the specific, ordered steps of the claim? For example, a key question may be whether the app uses GPS data "as a response" to the questionnaire (Claim 7(d)), as opposed to merely using location services to identify nearby restaurants. Another technical question is whether the app's data transfer architecture meets the "loosely networked" and "in real time" limitations (Claim 7(b), 7(e)).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire...having branching logic"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core instrument of the claimed method. The case may turn on whether a modern, interactive mobile app interface for commercial transactions is equivalent to a "questionnaire" as described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the creation of a questionnaire by "simply entering questions and providing response specification," and using a graphical interface to "control conditional branching" based on user responses, which could be argued to cover any guided, interactive user input flow (’748 Patent, col. 5:35-38, 8:50-58).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed examples focus on structured data collection for tasks like field inspections or mystery shopping (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-55). A defendant may argue this context limits the term "questionnaire" to formal survey instruments, not general-purpose transactional app interfaces.

• The Term: "loosely networked computer"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the patent's purported novelty over prior art. Plaintiff's infringement theory rests on the accused smartphone running the Chili's app qualifying as a "loosely networked computer."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term to describe a system that is "tolerant of intermittent network connections" and can store data locally for later transmission when a connection is restored (’748 Patent, col. 5:4-12). This arguably describes any modern smartphone that moves between Wi-Fi, cellular, and offline states.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Given the 2002 priority date, a defendant may argue the term was intended to describe devices with more primitive and unreliable connectivity (e.g., dial-up or early cellular modems) and does not read on modern devices with near-ubiquitous high-speed cellular data access (’748 Patent, col. 7:31-42).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by end-users, asserting that Defendant provides instructions, advertising, and a product that guides customers to use the app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused app has "special features" that are material to the invention and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶17).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’748 Patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶19).

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "questionnaire", which is rooted in the patent's 2002-era context of purpose-built field data collection tools, be construed to cover the interactive user interface of a modern, multi-function restaurant-chain mobile app used for ordering and loyalty rewards?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused Chili's Mobile App perform the specific, sequential functions required by Claim 7? In particular, does it "automatically provide" GPS data "as a response" to an executing process, or does it merely use location for a different purpose, such as finding store locations?

3. A significant strategic factor will be the impact of prior adjudications: How will the established history of Claim 7 surviving an Inter Partes Review and the patent family surviving a § 101 validity challenge in the same judicial district influence case strategy, settlement leverage, and the court's handling of potential dispositive motions?