DCT

5:24-cv-00177

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00177, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant transacting business in the district, maintaining a regular and established place of business (a restaurant in Texarkana, TX), and using the accused mobile application to direct customers to and receive orders for that location.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cracker Barrel Mobile App infringes a patent related to methods for creating and executing location-specific, tokenized questionnaires on remote computing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses cross-platform compatibility and data management for applications on early handheld computers, particularly for collecting data in environments with intermittent network connectivity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously litigated in the same district, where it survived a motion to dismiss and was the subject of a summary judgment order finding its concepts inventive under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Public records also indicate the patent-in-suit has undergone multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In those proceedings, several claims were canceled, but Claim 7, which is asserted in this case, was found patentable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 Issued
2017-10-06 IPR2018-00043 Filed against '748 Patent
2019-01-22 IPR2019-00610 Filed against '748 Patent
2021-05-25 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Prior Litigation
2023-07-11 Order Granting Summary Judgment of Validity in Prior Lit.
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 developing software for handheld computers was challenging due to device incompatibility. Applications written for one manufacturer's device often had to be entirely recompiled to run on another, and custom programs were costly (Compl. ¶¶ 25-27; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2, 2:57-59). Furthermore, these devices often operated with intermittent or limited-bandwidth network connections, making real-time data transfer to a central server unreliable (’748 Patent, col. 4:3-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using device-independent "tokens" to create a "questionnaire." This tokenized structure allows the same program to be executed across different hardware platforms without recompilation and enables incremental updates rather than reloading the entire program (’748 Patent, col. 5:21-32). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store data locally if a network connection is unavailable and transmit it once the connection is restored (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). It also leverages integrated GPS to automate the collection of location information and customize the questionnaire for a specific place (’748 Patent, col. 5:33-48).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce development costs and improve the functionality of data-gathering applications on a heterogeneous mix of early mobile devices, a significant issue for enterprise mobility at the time (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 7 (Compl. ¶14). The prayer for relief requests judgment on "one or more claims" (Compl. p. 12, ¶a).
  • The essential elements of Claim 7, a method for collecting survey data, are:
    • Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer platform, where at least one question requests location identifying information.
    • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto."
    • When the computer is at the particular location, executing the questionnaire to collect user responses.
    • While executing, using the GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing 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 "Cracker Barrel Mobile App" operating "in conjunction with Cracker Barrel servers" (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality functions to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶13). It is also alleged to direct customers to restaurant locations and receive orders (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the app's specific operation or its market position.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory. The core allegation is a general statement that the Cracker Barrel mobile app and servers "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users," which is alleged to infringe Claim 7 (Compl. ¶13). Without specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, the analysis must focus on the potential points of dispute implied by the claim language and the general description of the accused product.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether a mobile food-ordering interface constitutes a "questionnaire" for collecting "survey data" within the meaning of the patent. The patent's specification provides examples focused on "mystery shoppers" collecting data on service quality, cleanliness, and other inspection-related items ('748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:23). This raises the question of whether a transactional ordering system falls within the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement claim will require evidence addressing several technical requirements. What evidence shows that the app uses "branching logic" as required by claim 7(a)? How does the complaint support the allegation that the app operates on a "loose network" by storing and forwarding data as described in the patent? Does the app use GPS data as a response to the questionnaire, as required by claim 7(d), or does it merely use location services to identify nearby restaurants, a potentially distinct function?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "questionnaire"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim. The case may turn on whether a restaurant's mobile ordering menu is construed as a "questionnaire." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's preamble frames the invention as a method for collecting "survey data," which may suggest a narrower scope than a general-purpose transactional interface.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may allow for an argument that any structured series of prompts to a user (e.g., "What item would you like?," "Any modifications?") constitutes a questionnaire.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed "mystery shopper" example suggests a form for inspection or evaluation, not a commercial transaction (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:23). The preamble's reference to "survey data" may also support a narrower construction limited to polling or data gathering activities.

The Term: "loosely networked"

  • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in elements (b), (c), and (e) of Claim 7, is critical for establishing the operational environment required by the claim. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused app's handling of network connectivity matches the patent's definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to broadly cover any modern mobile device on a cellular or Wi-Fi network, which can be intermittent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific functional definition: a system that is "tolerant of intermittent network connections" and, when a connection is unavailable, "temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored" (’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12). An argument could be made that the accused system must be proven to perform this specific store-and-forward function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant encouraging and providing instructions for customers to use the accused app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the app has special features with no substantial non-infringing use, though it does not specify what those features are (Compl. ¶19).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date" of the complaint's filing (Compl. ¶20). The complaint also pleads willful blindness, alleging on information and belief that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire" used for collecting "survey data", as described in the patent's specification and claims, be construed to cover a mobile application for ordering food from a restaurant menu?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the Cracker Barrel app performs the specific technical functions required by Claim 7, such as employing "branching logic," handling network intermittency via a store-and-forward mechanism, and using GPS data as a response to a prompt, details which are not specified in the complaint?
  • A central theme of the case may be validity resilience: given that asserted Claim 7 has survived an inter partes review and the patent has previously withstood a § 101 validity challenge in the same judicial district, the dispute may focus more intensely on infringement and claim construction rather than patentability.