DCT

5:24-cv-00178

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Darden Restaurants

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00178, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' transaction of business in the district and the operation of regular and established places of business (Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse restaurants) in Texarkana, Texas, where the accused mobile applications are allegedly used.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mobile applications for the Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse brands infringe a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and deploying data collection applications, such as surveys or questionnaires, on remote, portable computing devices, particularly in environments with unreliable network connectivity.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, has been the subject of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In IPR2019-00610, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the single asserted claim in this litigation, Claim 7, to be patentable, while other claims were cancelled. The complaint also notes that in prior litigation involving the same patent, a court denied a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and later granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the same issue.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 ’748 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/404,491)
2016-09-27 ’748 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-06 IPR2018-00043 Filed (mentioned in patent record)
2019-01-22 IPR2019-00610 Filed (mentioned in patent record)
2021-05-25 Court Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Prior Litigation
2023-07-11 Court Order Granting Summary Judgment of Validity in Prior Litigation
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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the early 2000s, developing software for the fragmented handheld computer market was challenging. Different devices used incompatible operating systems and processors, requiring developers to create and compile separate, custom programs for each platform (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2). Furthermore, these devices often had intermittent and low-bandwidth network connections, making real-time data transfer to a central server unreliable (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to overcome these issues by using "device indifferent tokens" to represent a data-collection "questionnaire." (Compl. ¶30; ’748 Patent, col. 15:52-54). This tokenized questionnaire can be executed on any remote device equipped with a compatible run-time engine, avoiding the need for device-specific recompilation (Compl. ¶30; ’748 Patent, col. 4:66-5:2). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it stores collected data locally on the device if a network is unavailable and transmits it later when a connection is restored (Compl. ¶31; ’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). The invention also integrates GPS functionality to enable location-customized questionnaires and automatic capture of location data (Compl. ¶32; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to provide a cross-platform, network-resilient solution for mobile data collection at a time when such capabilities were not standardized, aiming to replace error-prone manual paper forms with more efficient electronic methods (Compl. ¶28; ’748 Patent, col. 2:41-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 7.
  • The essential elements of Claim 7, a method for collecting survey data, include:
    • Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer platform.
    • 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 remote computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
    • While executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location-identifying information "as a response."
    • Automatically transferring collected responses in "real time" to a central computer via the "loose network."
    • 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 "Olive Garden Mobile App" and the "Longhorn Steakhouse Mobile App" (collectively, the "Accused Products"), operating in conjunction with their respective back-end servers (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are mobile applications that, together with servers, "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users." (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
  • The complaint further alleges that the Defendants use these apps to direct customers to and receive orders from their restaurant locations, including those within the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. ¶¶8-9). The complaint does not provide further technical details regarding the architecture or specific operation of the apps.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’971 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 on a first computer platform... The complaint alleges Defendants' systems create and execute a "location-specific questionnaire" but provides no specific facts regarding a "first computer platform" or "branching logic." ¶¶14-16 col. 15:45-48
...wherein at least one of said at least one questions requests location identifying information; The complaint does not specify which questions request location information but generally alleges the execution of a "location-specific questionnaire." ¶¶14-16 col. 15:48-50
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; The complaint alleges the mobile apps are used on customer devices, which are implicitly presented as the "loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto." ¶19 col. 15:50-52
(c) 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 apps allegedly execute a "location-specific questionnaire" to collect user responses when customers use them, for instance, to place orders for a specific restaurant. ¶¶8-9, 14-15 col. 15:53-57
(d) 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 does not provide specific facts on how GPS data is used "as a response" but alleges infringement of the claim containing this limitation. ¶16 col. 15:58-61
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and, The mobile apps, operating on what is implicitly alleged to be a "loose network" (e.g., cellular/Wi-Fi), are alleged to send user responses to Defendants' servers. ¶¶14-15 col. 15:62-64
(f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e). The complaint does not explicitly address this element, but it is a necessary component of the asserted claim which Plaintiff alleges is infringed. ¶16 col. 15:65-67

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the claim terms, which originate from a 2002 priority date, can be construed to read on modern smartphone technology. For example:
    • Does a modern smartphone, which has near-ubiquitous connectivity via Wi-Fi and cellular data, meet the definition of a "loosely networked computer" as described in the patent, which emphasizes tolerance for intermittent or unavailable connections? (c.f. ’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12).
    • Does an application's use of a modern smartphone's operating system-level location services constitute a "GPS integral thereto" in the manner contemplated by the patent?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and raise questions about the factual basis for infringement.
    • What evidence demonstrates that the accused apps are "designed" on a "first computer platform" and then "transferred" to user devices in a manner that maps to the claim, as opposed to being a monolithic application downloaded from an app store?
    • What evidence shows that the apps use GPS data "as a response to said executing questionnaire," as required by step (d), rather than simply using location data to filter content (e.g., find nearby stores) before a "questionnaire" is presented?
    • How will the term "real time" in step (e) be interpreted, given the patent's own description of storing and forwarding data when a network connection is unavailable?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "loosely networked computer"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the patent's teachings apply to modern smartphones. The patent was written to solve problems of intermittent connectivity. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the accused system, which operates on modern, highly-connected cellular and Wi-Fi networks, falls within the scope of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "if any communication connection is available between devices wishing to communicate, network transmissions occur normally, in real time." (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-10). This could be argued to cover any system that has a network connection, including modern smartphones.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines the term by its function in the face of network failure: "If a network connection is unavailable at that moment, the information is temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored." (’748 Patent, col. 5:10-12). This suggests the term describes a specific store-and-forward capability designed for unreliable networks, which may be argued as distinct from the standard buffering in modern network protocols.

  • The Term: "GPS integral thereto"

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term will determine whether the claim requires a specific hardware configuration common at the time of invention or can cover modern software-based access to location services. Infringement may turn on whether accessing the smartphone's OS-provided location data meets this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not specify the nature of the integration. A party could argue that any device where the GPS function is available to the claimed method is "integral."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses the use of an "integral GPS device" as a novel and "unconventional" feature for automating data collection in 2002 (Compl. ¶32; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65). This historical context may support a narrower construction limited to a physically integrated hardware unit, as opposed to an app calling a generic OS service.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendants took active steps with the specific intent to cause infringement by "advising or directing customers" and distributing "instructions that guide users" to use the accused apps in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). Contributory infringement is alleged based on the apps having "special features" that are "specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, Defendants have knowledge of the ’748 Patent "at least as of the date when they were notified of the filing of this action," making subsequent infringement willful (Compl. ¶22). Second, on "information and belief," Plaintiff alleges Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" and have thus been willfully blind to Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶23).

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

This dispute will likely center on the extent to which patent claims drafted in the context of early-2000s mobile technology can read on modern, ubiquitous smartphone applications. The key questions for the court appear to be:

  1. A central question of claim construction: Can key terms rooted in the 2002 technological landscape, such as "loosely networked computer" and "GPS integral thereto," be interpreted broadly enough to encompass modern smartphones and their OS-level location services, or are they limited by the specification to the specific hardware and network unreliability problems the inventor sought to solve?

  2. A key evidentiary question: Beyond the conclusory allegations in the complaint, what factual evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused restaurant apps perform the specific, ordered steps of Claim 7, particularly the requirements of (a) "designing" a questionnaire on a separate platform, (d) using GPS information "as a response" to a question, and (e) transferring data in "real time" as the patent defines it?

  3. A question of technical operation: Does the functionality of the accused apps, which likely rely on standardized app store distribution and modern, persistent network protocols, align with the patent's core inventive concept of a device-indifferent, token-based system designed to overcome hardware fragmentation and network intermittency?