DCT

5:24-cv-00180

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Enterprise Holdings

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00180, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including physical car rental locations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for its Enterprise, National, and Alamo car rental brands infringe a patent related to methods for location-aware data collection on remote computing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating, distributing, and executing tokenized, device-independent questionnaires on remote devices, with features for handling intermittent network connectivity and using GPS data.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent, 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 the court denied a motion to dismiss and later granted a motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent has also survived two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2018-00043 and IPR2019-00610), which resulted in the cancellation of several claims but confirmed the patentability of the single claim asserted in this litigation, Claim 7.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 ’748 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-27 ’748 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-06 IPR2018-00043 Filed
2019-01-22 IPR2019-00610 Filed
2021-05-25 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Zoe's Kitchen litigation
2022-12-19 IPR2019-00610 Certificate Issued (Confirming Patentability of Claim 7)
2023-06-29 Order Granting Summary Judgment of Validity in Zoe's Kitchen
2023-08-22 IPR2018-00043 Certificate Issued (Cancelling Claims 16-18)
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 Sep. 27, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in the early 2000s with collecting data using handheld computers, which suffered from software incompatibility across different hardware platforms, limited and unreliable network connectivity, and cumbersome processes for updating software that required recompiling and reinstalling an entire application for any change (’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2; col. 3:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a data-collection application is created as a "questionnaire" composed of device-independent "tokens." These tokens can be executed by a small run-time engine on various remote devices without modification (’748 Patent, col. 4:66-5:6). This system is designed to be "loosely networked," meaning it can store collected data locally when a network is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored, thereby accommodating intermittent connectivity (’748 Patent, col. 5:7-12). The invention also integrates GPS functionality to customize questionnaires for a specific location and to automate the collection of location data (’748 Patent, col. 5:45-48).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to create a flexible, cross-platform system for field data collection that was more resilient to network outages and easier to update than prior-art custom software solutions (Compl. ¶¶27-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
    • A method for collecting survey data from a user and making responses available via the Internet.
    • Designing a questionnaire on a first computer, where the questionnaire is customized for a particular location and includes a question requesting location identifying information.
    • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has an "integral" GPS.
    • Executing the questionnaire on the loosely networked 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" to the questionnaire.
    • Automatically transferring collected responses "in real time" over the loose network to a central computer.
    • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
  • The complaint does not explicitly assert any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Enterprise Car Rental Mobile App," the "National Car Rental Mobile App," and the "Alamo Car Rental Mobile App" (collectively, "the mobile apps"), when operating in conjunction with Enterprise's back-end servers (Compl. ¶¶6, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the mobile apps, together with Enterprise servers, "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶12). The functionality described includes directing customers to rental locations and receiving reservations (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide further technical detail about how the accused apps operate or what specific "questionnaire" functionality is at issue beyond these general statements. 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 on a first computer platform... Enterprise, via its servers, creates a "location-specific questionnaire" for its mobile apps. ¶12 col. 15:8-16
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; The questionnaire is transferred from Enterprise servers to users' mobile devices, which are loosely networked and have GPS. ¶12 col. 15:17-20
(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 mobile apps execute the "location-specific questionnaire" on a user's device. ¶12 col. 15:21-25
(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 specify how this element is met, alleging only the execution of a "location-specific questionnaire." ¶12 col. 15:26-29
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and, The mobile apps, in conjunction with servers, "collect responses from users." ¶12 col. 15:30-33
(f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e). The complaint does not contain a specific allegation mapping to this element. -- col. 15:34-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the general interactive functions of a car rental app (e.g., finding a nearby location) constitute a "questionnaire" as the term is used in the patent, which provides examples like structured mystery shopper surveys and medical intake forms (’748 Patent, col. 9:41-11:54).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not allege specific facts showing how the accused apps meet claim element 7(d). A key factual dispute may be whether the apps merely use GPS data to filter search results or whether the GPS data itself is automatically provided as a response within a questionnaire, as the claim language requires. The complaint also lacks detail on how the alleged "real time" transfer of element 7(e) is performed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "questionnaire"

    • Context and Importance: This term's scope is central to the infringement analysis. If construed narrowly to mean a formal, multi-question survey, it may not read on the accused apps' functionality. If construed broadly to mean any interactive data-gathering process, Plaintiff's infringement case may be stronger. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be dispositive.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a questionnaire is a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response" and uses the terms "program" and "form" interchangeably with it, which could support a broad definition covering various software interactions (’748 Patent, col. 8:25-33).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed embodiments in the specification describe highly structured, purpose-built surveys, such as a "mystery shopper" report for a fast-food restaurant and medical data collection forms (’748 Patent, cols. 9-11). This could support an argument that the term is limited to such explicit, form-based data capture.

  • The Term: "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire"

    • Context and Importance: This functional limitation in claim 7(d) is highly specific. The construction will dictate the type of evidence Plaintiff must produce. The complaint's lack of specific facts on this point suggests it will be a focal point of discovery and argument.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language covers any system where GPS data is used as the input to satisfy a function within the questionnaire, such as populating a list of nearby locations in response to a user's action.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language suggests a more limited meaning: that the raw or processed GPS coordinates are themselves captured and stored as a discrete "response," analogous to a user typing an answer into a field. The claim distinguishes between a question that "requests" location information (element 7a) and the GPS providing that information "as a response" (element 7d).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions and advertising that encourage customers to use the mobile apps in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶17). The contributory infringement allegation claims the apps contain special features with no substantial non-infringing use, which is a standard pleading that may face challenges given the apps' general utility for booking car rentals (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both post-suit knowledge (from the filing of the complaint) and alleged pre-suit willful blindness, based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The complaint asserts Defendant's conduct was "objectively reckless" (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire," which the patent illustrates with structured, form-based surveys, be construed to cover the interactive, location-based search functions of a modern car rental application?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused apps perform the specific function of using GPS data as a "response" to the questionnaire, as required by Claim 7(d), or is there a fundamental mismatch where the apps only use location data as a filter for other functions?
  • A central strategic question will be the impact of the patent's history: how will the confirmed patentability of Claim 7 after two IPRs, and a prior judicial finding of validity under § 101, affect Defendant’s ability to mount a validity challenge and shape the overall litigation strategy?