DCT

4:23-cv-00913

Ethor IP Corp v. Hungerrush LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00913, S.D. Tex., 03/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants do business, have committed alleged acts of infringement, and maintain a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of Texas, where Defendant HungerRush's headquarters is located.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online and mobile food ordering platform infringes a patent related to a system for integrating diverse and otherwise non-compatible point-of-sale (POS) systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the operational challenge faced by multi-location businesses, such as restaurant franchises, that use different POS systems, by creating a unified layer for centralized data management and online ordering.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in June 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in a decision concerning the application that issued as the patent-in-suit, found the invention "reflect[s] a technology improvement of integrating diverse systems, so that non-compatible data from diverse systems are mapped to a common data model for centralized access." This PTAB finding may be raised by the Plaintiff to support arguments regarding the patent's subject matter eligibility and non-obviousness.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009 Menufy begins operations (per screenshot)
2010-08-27 Earliest Priority Date ('363 Patent Application Filing)
2019-06 PTAB decision on application for '363 Patent
2019-10-29 '363 Patent Issue Date
2021-10 HungerRush completes acquisition of Menufy
2023-03-10 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,460,363 - "System, Method, and Computer Program for Integrating Diverse Point of Sale Systems," issued October 29, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge faced by retail chains and franchises that use a variety of different POS systems across their locations. These systems are often incompatible, preventing them from "talk[ing] to each other," which makes it difficult to implement a unified online ordering system or centralize access to sales data without creating multiple, costly custom integrations (Compl. ¶22; ’363 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture featuring "point of sale agents" that link to each diverse POS system. These agents are designed to communicate with their respective POS systems and "map" the unique, non-compatible data from each into a "common data model." A central "order manager" can then interact with this standardized data, enabling functions like system-wide online ordering from a single interface (’363 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-44).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides a scalable solution to integrate disparate, often legacy, POS systems with modern, centralized e-commerce and data management platforms, bypassing the need for numerous ad-hoc, one-off software integrations (Compl. ¶31, ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 (Compl. ¶81).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
    • A first computer processor in communication with a plurality of diverse POS systems that generate non-compatible data, where the processor communicates with each POS system using a "point of sale agent."
    • A second computer processor linked to the first, configured to operate an "order manager."
    • A memory storage unit for a POS database that provides a "common data model," which includes fields for a POS system identifier, pricing, and promotions.
    • Wherein the "point of sale agent" receives the non-compatible data from the POS systems and is configured to map that data to the common data model.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Menufy Accused Products," which include the Menufy mobile app, the Menufy website, and the underlying platform that provides online ordering and marketing services, such as "HungerRush 360 Marketing" (Compl. ¶58, ¶70).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentality is a cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform that enables restaurants to offer online and mobile ordering (Compl. ¶10, ¶47). A core feature is its ability to integrate with numerous third-party restaurant POS systems, such as Square, Clover, and Shift4 (Compl. ¶54, ¶56). The platform allegedly pulls data (e.g., menus, pricing, inventory) from these disparate systems to create a unified online storefront for a restaurant's customers (Compl. p. 19). The complaint alleges this integration also allows for the collection and analysis of sales data from otherwise incompatible systems to power marketing campaigns (Compl. ¶59-60).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'363 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first computer processor in communication with the plurality of diverse point of sale systems... wherein the first computer processor [is] configured to communicate with each of the plurality of diverse point of sale systems using a point of sale agent The Menufy platform allegedly uses Microsoft Azure processors that communicate with diverse, non-compatible POS systems (e.g., Square, Clover) via software "agents." ¶82-88 col. 5:26-30
a second computer processor linked to the first computer processor, the second computer processor configured to operate an order manager A second Azure processor is allegedly linked to the first and is configured to run a software "manager" that facilitates taking customer orders. ¶89-93 col. 5:26-30
a memory storage unit for storing a point of sale database, wherein the point of sale database provides a common data model configured to be recognized by the order manager, the common data model including fields corresponding to at least one of a point of sale system identifier, pricing, and promotions The platform is alleged to use Microsoft Azure memory to store a database with a common data model. This is evidenced by HTML code showing standardized fields for different restaurants, such as category-item-name, category-item-price, and Location ID, as well as promotion opt-ins. ¶94-103 col. 11:62-col. 12:2
wherein the point of sale agent receives the non-compatible point of sale data from each of the plurality of diverse point of sale systems and the order manager, the point of sale agent further configured to map the point of sale data to the common data model The agent software allegedly receives data from the POS systems and maps it to the common data model, which enables platform-wide functions like searching for a food category (e.g., Thai) across multiple, separately-owned restaurants. A screenshot shows how Menufy's integration with the Clover POS system can be configured for "Near Realtime" data synchronization. ¶104-110; p. 21 col. 6:1-5

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A question for the court may be whether the accused cloud-based platform, which likely operates as a distributed software system, meets the claim limitation of a "first computer processor" and a "second computer processor linked to the first." The defense may argue this language requires a more discrete hardware architecture than is present in the accused system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that data from POS systems like Square and Clover is "non-compatible" (Compl. ¶85-86). A technical question is whether these modern POS systems, which often provide standardized Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), in fact generate data that is "non-compatible" in the manner contemplated by the patent, or if their integration is a more conventional software task.
  • Technical Questions: The functionality of the "point of sale agent" is central. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused software performs the claimed function of "mapping" data to a common model, as opposed to using other known data exchange or aggregation techniques. The complaint provides an HTML snippet showing standardized data fields as evidence of this "mapping" (Compl. ¶98, p. 25).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "point of sale agent"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core component that allegedly performs the novel integration. Its definition will be critical to determining whether the accused software architecture infringes, as the complaint broadly equates it with software modules or instructions that facilitate communication (Compl. ¶88).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the agent functionally as being "operable to communicate point of sale data" between a POS system and the order manager, which could support a broad definition covering various types of software connectors (’363 Patent, col. 2:38-41).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "POS Agent" as a distinct architectural block, separate from both the on-premise "POS" and the networked "Order Manager." The specification also contemplates that agents "may be provided on site at the business location," language that could be used to argue for a narrower construction that does not read on a purely cloud-based software function (’363 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:33-36).

  • The Term: "common data model"

    • Context and Importance: Infringement hinges on whether the Menufy platform's standardized data structure is a "common data model" as claimed. The complaint's evidence, such as HTML code showing identical div classes for item names and prices across different restaurants, directly targets this element (Compl. p. 25).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the term by its required content: it must include "fields corresponding to at least one of a point of sale system identifier, pricing, and promotions." This suggests any data structure meeting these content requirements could fall within the claim's scope (’363 Patent, col. 11:65-col. 12:2).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the model as a "single common data encapsulation that can be recognized by the order manager" (’363 Patent, col. 6:5-8). The term "encapsulation" could be argued by a defendant to imply a more specific or complex data structure than simply a set of standardized fields in a database.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendants encourage restaurants to use the infringing platform and provide customer support and documentation, such as through the Menufy Manager portal, that instructs them on how to do so (Compl. ¶124, ¶126). It further alleges Defendants induce infringement by end-customers through marketing materials, such as text messages and physical cards, that direct them to place orders using the accused system (Compl. ¶129-132).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patent and the alleged infringement, with such knowledge dating from "since they received notice and since this complaint was filed" (Compl. ¶122).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the patent's language describing a system of a "first" and "second" computer processor and a "point of sale agent" be construed to read on the architecture of a modern, distributed cloud-based software platform, or is it limited to a more discrete, physically-delineated system?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical novelty: does the accused platform's integration with modern POS systems like Square and Clover, which may offer standardized APIs, represent the patented solution to integrating "non-compatible" data, or can the defense demonstrate that this form of integration is a conventional and well-understood software practice, distinct from the problem the patent claims to solve?
  • Finally, a key legal and factual question will be the impact of the prior PTAB proceeding. Plaintiff will likely argue the PTAB’s finding that the invention reflects a "technology improvement" supports the patent's validity, while the defense will likely seek to distinguish the accused technology or introduce new prior art to argue that the claims, as asserted, are invalid over a broader understanding of the state of the art.