DCT
1:24-cv-00174
Analytical Tech LLC v. Toast Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Analytical Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Toast, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00174, W.D. Tex., 02/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including offices in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for restaurants, which allow customers to place and pay for orders, infringe a patent related to customer-managed restaurant service systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated restaurant management systems that empower customers to use personal mobile devices for ordering and payment, reflecting a broader industry shift toward autonomous, digital customer experiences.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual notice of the patent-in-suit and its infringing activities since at least August 21, 2023, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | '083 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-27 | '083 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2015-08-05 | '083 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-21 | Defendant's Alleged Date of Actual Notice |
| 2024-02-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RESTAURANT CUSTOMER DATA ELEMENTS," issued August 5, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional restaurant systems as "antiquated" and "cumbersome," noting they were ill-suited for a "newer generation of restaurant customers" who are tech-savvy, value time, and expect interactive experiences ('083 Patent, col. 1:41-54). These older systems were heavily dependent on restaurant staff for management and control.
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a comprehensive restaurant customer management system (RCMS) that allows a customer to use a terminal device (such as a mobile phone) to manage their dining experience autonomously ('083 Patent, col. 3:1-9). This includes a "customer self-checkout and payment processing" capability, where a customer can review an itemized bill on their device and submit payment electronically, reducing the need for staff involvement in the payment process ('083 Patent, col. 4:46-61).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aimed to integrate previously disparate functions—such as ordering, payment, reservations, and customer data collection—into a single, customer-facing platform. (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- receiving at least one request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone;
- uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and
- performing a self-checkout by a at least one customer whereby payment for the at least one service is submitted by the at least one customer via the mobile phone to the system, wherein the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims of the '083 patent" (Compl. ¶41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "mobile apps for restaurants" offered by Defendant Toast, Inc. (Compl. ¶35).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these mobile applications allow restaurant customers to use their own mobile phones to "place and pay for orders for food items and/or beverages" (Compl. ¶35). The alleged functionality includes providing a menu for item selection, uploading a bill for the selected items to the customer's mobile phone, and enabling the customer to pay that bill via their mobile phone (Compl. ¶36).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'083 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving at least one request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone; | Defendant's mobile apps allow a customer to use their mobile phone to select one or more food items and/or beverages from a menu. | ¶35, ¶36 | col. 4:5-12 |
| uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; | Defendant's mobile apps upload a bill for the selected food items and/or beverages to the customer's mobile phone. | ¶36 | col. 13:62-65 |
| performing a self-checkout...whereby payment...is submitted...via the mobile phone to the system, wherein the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant. | Defendant's mobile apps allow the customer to pay the bill via their mobile phone, a process the patent characterizes as autonomous and eliminating the need for staff involvement. | ¶36, ¶29 | col. 20:15-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the scope of the phrase "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant." The court may need to determine if this requires absolute autonomy for the entire ordering and payment sequence, or if it only applies to the final act of submitting payment, even if staff members are involved in order fulfillment or other background processes.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is what level of "interaction with staff" is required, if any, for the accused Toast system to function. The analysis may turn on whether the accused apps require a staff member to take a specific action (e.g., approve an order in a POS terminal) before a customer can proceed to payment, which could create a factual dispute over whether the "without interaction" limitation is met.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term for Construction: "without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation defining the invention's departure from traditional, server-mediated payment processes. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it sets the standard for the degree of automation required. Practitioners may focus on this term because the factual operation of the accused system relative to this limitation will likely be the core of the dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring infringement): The specification states that a customer is "free to leave at will, without having to wait for wait staff to close down the account" after payment, suggesting the "interaction" refers specifically to the customer-facing steps of payment and account closing, not necessarily background kitchen or POS operations ('083 Patent, col. 20:20-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): The patent contrasts the invention with prior art where a server "manually keys in the gratuity and the POS system finalizes the payment" ('083 Patent, col. 22:1-3). A defendant may argue the "interaction" that is avoided is this entire sequence, and if any staff action is a prerequisite to payment, the limitation is not met.
Term for Construction: "uploading...a bill...to the mobile phone"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term addresses how the final charges are presented to the customer. Whether simply displaying a total in an app's interface constitutes "uploading a bill" as contemplated by the patent could be a point of contention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring infringement): The patent describes a process where the "POS (Point of Sale) System...upload[s] the bill to the customer terminal device," which could be read broadly to include any electronic transmission that results in the bill being displayed on the user's device ('083 Patent, col. 13:62-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): A defendant could argue that "uploading a bill" implies a more discrete data transfer event, such as sending a specific file or record, rather than dynamically updating a user interface. They may point to descriptions of printing a receipt from the device as evidence that the "bill" is a formal, self-contained document ('083 Patent, col. 22:62-66).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using that app in practicing the method claimed" and having the knowledge and specific intent to cause infringement by its users (Compl. ¶48-49).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged continued infringement after Defendant gained "actual notice of the '083 patent" on or before August 21, 2023 (Compl. ¶14, ¶43). The complaint further alleges that Defendant made "no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" after becoming aware of its infringement (Compl. ¶44).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "without interaction with staff," which is central to the patent's claimed advance, be construed to read on the accused Toast system, or does Toast's system architecture retain a level of staff involvement that places it outside the claim's scope?
- A second primary question will be one of patent eligibility: the complaint dedicates significant space to arguing that the claims are not abstract and represent a specific technical improvement (Compl. ¶¶27-34). This suggests an early challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is anticipated, and the court will need to determine whether the claims are directed to the abstract idea of remote ordering or to a specific, non-preemptive technological solution.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: the outcome will likely depend on detailed evidence, obtained through discovery, of how Defendant’s mobile apps and back-end systems actually process an order from selection through payment, and what specific actions, if any, are required from restaurant staff during that process.