DCT
5:24-cv-00182
Fall Line Patents LLC v. Sprouts Farmers Market
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and SFM, LLC d/b/a SF Markets, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00182, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly transacting business, committing acts of infringement, and maintaining a regular and established place of business through its retail stores within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sprouts Mobile App infringes a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data on remote computing devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating and executing customizable, location-aware questionnaires on diverse mobile devices, particularly in environments with intermittent network connectivity.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, has been the subject of multiple post-grant proceedings. The asserted claim, Claim 7, was found patentable in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00610), while numerous other claims were cancelled in that and another IPR (IPR2018-00043). The complaint also notes that in separate litigation involving the same patent ([Fall Line Patents, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/fall-line-patents-llc) v. [Zoe's Kitchen, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/zoes-kitchen-inc)), the court denied a motion to dismiss and later granted a motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | '748 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application) |
| 2016-09-27 | '748 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-10-06 | IPR2018-00043 Filed (Resulted in cancellation of claims 16-18) |
| 2019-01-22 | IPR2019-00610 Filed (Resulted in Claim 7 confirmed, other claims cancelled) |
| 2021-05-25 | Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Zoe's Kitchen case |
| 2023-06-29 | Order Granting Summary Judgment of Validity in Zoe's Kitchen case |
| 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 challenges in the early 2000s with collecting data on handheld computers, which suffered from software incompatibility across different device models, required cumbersome, full-program recompilation for minor changes, and were hampered by unreliable or low-bandwidth network connections in the field (Compl. ¶¶23-24; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2, 3:7-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where data-gathering applications, or "questionnaires," are created and then "tokenized" into a device-independent format. These tokens can be executed by a common runtime package on various devices, eliminating the need for device-specific programming (Compl. ¶26; ’748 Patent, col. 2:13-31). The system is "loosely networked," meaning it functions in real-time when a connection is present but stores data locally for later transmission when the network is unavailable, conserving bandwidth (Compl. ¶27; ’748 Patent, col. 5:4-12). The system also integrates GPS to automate the collection of location-specific information (Compl. ¶28; ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
- Technical Importance: This architecture was designed to enable the creation of a single, flexible data-collection application that could be deployed across a heterogeneous fleet of mobile devices and operate reliably in unpredictable network environments (Compl. ¶8; ’748 Patent, col. 4:66-5:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts Claim 7 of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
- Independent Claim 7 recites a method with the following key elements:
- Designing a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" that is "customized for a particular location" and requests "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.
- Using the GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response" while the questionnaire is executing.
- Automatically transferring collected responses in "real time" to a central computer via the "loose network."
- Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
- The prayer for relief seeks a judgment that "one or more claims" have been infringed, suggesting Plaintiff may assert additional claims later (Compl. p. 11, ¶a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Sprouts Mobile App" operating "in conjunction with Sprouts servers" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused system of the mobile app and servers is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶11). The app is also described as being used to direct customers to Sprouts stores and to receive customer orders for stores located in the district (Compl. ¶6). The complaint does not provide further technical details regarding the app's specific features or operation.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. The analysis below is based on the general allegation that the Sprouts Mobile App and associated servers perform the patented method (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'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 wherein at least one of said at least one questions requests location identifying information | The system of Sprouts servers and the Sprouts Mobile App is alleged to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. | ¶11 | col. 14:46-52 |
| (b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto | The functionality of the Sprouts Mobile App is allegedly transferred to a user's smartphone (a loosely networked computer with GPS). | ¶11 | col. 14:53-56 |
| (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 Sprouts Mobile App, when at a specific location, allegedly executes a questionnaire to collect user responses. | ¶11 | col. 14:57-62 |
| (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 system is alleged to execute a location-specific questionnaire, which may imply the use of GPS to provide location information as part of the questionnaire's function. | ¶11 | col. 14:63-67 |
| (e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer | The system is alleged to collect responses from users, which would be transferred from the mobile app to Sprouts servers. | ¶11 | col. 15:1-4 |
| (f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e) | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | — | col. 15:5-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the Sprouts Mobile App, a consumer-facing retail and ordering application, constitutes a system for collecting "survey data" via a "questionnaire" as contemplated by the patent. The patent’s examples, such as mystery shopping and field data entry, suggest a more structured data-gathering context (e.g., ’748 Patent, col. 10:37-11:28).
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused app's use of location services meets the claim limitation of using GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire." A key question is whether the app simply uses location as a trigger for displaying content (a common practice) or if it formally collects location data as an answer to a specific prompt within a "questionnaire," as the claim language suggests. The complaint does not provide the evidence needed to resolve this question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire"
- Context and Importance: The applicability of the entire claim to the accused mobile app hinges on this term's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a retail application with location-based features falls within the patent's ambit, which seems directed at more formal data collection tasks.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the terms "program" and "form" interchangeably with "questionnaire," which could support a construction that is not limited to a rigid series of interrogatories ('748 Patent, col. 8:36-38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the questionnaire to have "branching logic" and the specification provides a detailed "mystery shopper" example, suggesting a structured, question-and-answer-based flow designed for explicit data gathering ('748 Patent, col. 14:49, 10:37-11:28).
The Term: "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the specific technical operation required for infringement. The infringement case may depend on whether the accused app's background use of location services satisfies this "as a response" requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that any automated use of GPS data to fulfill a function of the "questionnaire" (e.g., populating a location field or triggering a location-specific offer) constitutes providing information "as a response."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language suggests a causal link where the executing questionnaire prompts a need for location data, and the GPS provides it as a direct answer. This is supported by language in cancelled Claim 1, which refers to a question "requesting GPS coordinates" ('748 Patent, col. 13:50-51), implying the location data is the answer to a specific request.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing the Sprouts Mobile App to its customers and distributing instructions that allegedly guide them to use it in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the app has "special features" with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the '748 patent from at least the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶18). The complaint 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", as used in a patent focused on structured field data collection, be construed to cover the features of a modern mobile retail application that displays location-aware content?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused app's use of the smartphone's GPS meet the specific claim requirement of providing location data "as a response" to the executing questionnaire, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the app's use of location as a trigger and the patent's claimed method?
- A central legal and factual issue will be the impact of the prior proceedings: while Claim 7's survival of an IPR strengthens its presumption of validity, the arguments, evidence, and claim constructions from that proceeding and the related Zoe's Kitchen litigation will likely frame the parties' positions on both claim scope and infringement in this case.