DCT
5:24-cv-00179
Fall Line Patents LLC v. DoorDash Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: DoorDash, Inc. (Delaware); DoorDash Essentials, LLC ( Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00179, 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 a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, and the accused DoorDash Mobile App is used in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's DoorDash Mobile App and associated server infrastructure, which create and execute location-specific data collection tasks, infringe a patent related to methods for managing and collecting data from remote computing devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and deploying data collection applications (e.g., surveys, forms) to remote, networked devices, particularly in environments with intermittent connectivity, and using location data to customize the process.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, was previously litigated in [Fall Line Patents, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/fall-line-patents-llc) v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., where it survived a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Post-issuance, the asserted claim (Claim 7) was challenged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00610) and was found patentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while other claims were cancelled. This history suggests the patentee has successfully defended the validity of the asserted claim against prior challenges.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | ’971 Patent Earliest Priority Date (Provisional 60/404,491) |
| 2016-09-27 | ’971 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-12-19 | IPR Certificate (IPR2019-00610) issues, finding Claim 7 patentable |
| 2023-08-22 | IPR Certificate (IPR2018-00043) issues, cancelling claims 16-18 |
| 2024-11-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 ("System and Method for Data Management"), issued September 27, 2016 (the “'748 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a prior art environment where creating software for data collection on remote handheld computers was difficult due to device incompatibility, limited and intermittent network connectivity, and the need for costly custom programming for each device type ( Compl. ¶¶23-25; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:12, 3:64-4:1). Making changes required recompiling and reinstalling the entire program on each target device, a cumbersome and inefficient process (Compl. ¶25; ’748 Patent, col. 3:7-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a central server is used to design a "questionnaire" with branching logic, which is then converted into device-independent "tokens" (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 8:50-59). This tokenized questionnaire can be sent to and executed on various remote devices without needing custom code for each one. The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can transmit data in real time if a connection exists or store it locally for later transmission if the network is unavailable (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 5:4-12). The system also leverages location data from an integrated GPS to automate data collection and customize questionnaires for specific locations (Compl. ¶28; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve the cross-platform compatibility problem for mobile data applications and improve efficiency in environments with unreliable network access, a common issue for early handheld devices used for fieldwork (Compl. ¶¶8, 24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
- Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer.
- The questionnaire requests location identifying information.
- Automatically transferring the designed questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with a GPS.
- When the computer is at the particular location, executing the questionnaire to collect user responses.
- While executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response.
- Automatically transferring 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 accused instrumentality is the "DoorDash mobile app that, in conjunction with DoorDash servers" (the "DoorDash System") (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the DoorDash System is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶11). This functionality is central to DoorDash's business of directing customers to stores, receiving orders, and coordinating deliveries within the district and elsewhere (Compl. ¶¶5-6). The complaint frames this as the core infringing activity, without providing detailed technical descriptions of the app's internal operations or the server-side architecture.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed technical mapping. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’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... | The DoorDash System creates and executes a "location-specific questionnaire." | ¶11 | col. 15:46-51 |
| automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto... | The DoorDash System involves the DoorDash mobile app operating on a user's device. | ¶11 | col. 15:52-54 |
| when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire... thereby collecting responses... | The DoorDash mobile app executes a process to collect responses from users. | ¶11 | col. 15:55-58 |
| while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response... | The DoorDash System utilizes location-specific information. | ¶11 | col. 15:59-62 |
| automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer... | The DoorDash mobile app operates in conjunction with DoorDash servers. | ¶11 | col. 15:63-65 |
| making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 15:66-col. 16:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "questionnaire", as used in the patent, can be read to cover the data collection and order management processes within the DoorDash app. The patent specification appears to describe a more traditional survey or form-filling tool (e.g., for "mystery shoppers") (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-55). The court may need to determine if DoorDash's interactive order flow constitutes a "questionnaire" with "branching logic".
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the creation of a "location-specific questionnaire" but does not specify how the DoorDash System's functionality is "customized for a particular location" in a manner that meets the claim limitation (Compl. ¶11). It is unclear from the complaint whether the app's logic or content dynamically changes based on location, or if it is merely location-aware for tracking purposes. Further, the complaint does not provide evidence that the system uses GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response" to a specific prompt in the alleged "questionnaire", as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire customized for a particular location"
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused DoorDash System's functionality constitutes a "questionnaire" and whether it is "customized for a particular location". Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine if the patent applies to modern, interactive mobile commerce applications or is limited to the more explicit survey-style systems described in the patent's embodiments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a "method for managing data" generally, and the specification discusses collecting information for various business applications, not just surveys (’748 Patent, col. 1:25-28). This could support an interpretation where any structured data-gathering process qualifies as a "questionnaire".
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and embodiments focus heavily on creating forms with questions and responses, similar to a survey, for tasks like "mystery shopping" or medical data entry (’748 Patent, col. 10:37-55, col. 11:43-54). The term "questionnaire" itself, along with descriptions of "branching logic" based on user answers (e.g., "Are you a man or woman?"), may suggest a more constrained, traditional form-based meaning (’748 Patent, col. 8:62-col. 9:2).
The Term: "loosely networked"
Context and Importance: This term is explicitly defined by the patentee and is central to the invention's claimed advance over prior art systems that required constant connectivity. The dispute will be a factual one: does the architecture of the DoorDash app and its communication with DoorDash servers meet this definition?
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as being "tolerant of intermittent network connections" and storing data locally when a connection is unavailable for later transmission (’748 Patent, col. 5:4-12). Modern mobile apps are often designed with this capability to handle poor cellular or Wi-Fi signals.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the definition is provided, its application in the context of the claims might be tied to the specific problems of the early 2000s handheld computing environment described in the background, potentially raising arguments about whether modern, more robust mobile networks still qualify as "loose" in the manner contemplated by the inventor.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant took active steps to cause its customers (end-users) to infringe Claim 7 by providing the DoorDash app and distributing instructions on how to use it in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the accused products have special features designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge of the patent from the filing of this action (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff also 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
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire", which is described in the patent’s embodiments as a survey-like form for explicit data gathering, be construed to encompass the interactive, transactional order and delivery management process of the accused DoorDash mobile application?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what proof will be offered to show that the DoorDash System performs the specific, multi-step method of Claim 7? Specifically, does it use GPS to "automatically provide" location "as a response" to a query within the alleged "questionnaire", or does it simply use location data for a different purpose, such as tracking?
- The case may also turn on the interpretation of "customized for a particular location." The court will need to determine whether this requires the content or logic of the alleged "questionnaire" to change based on location, a fact not detailed in the complaint, or if merely being aware of and operating at a specific location is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.