Aeritas LLC v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aeritas, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. & Panda Express, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01021, W.D. Tex., 12/05/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing a Panda Express restaurant located in Waco, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Panda Express mobile application infringes patents related to location-aware, mixed-mode (voice and data) interactions on wireless devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves leveraging a mobile device's voice input and location-tracking capabilities to provide users with relevant, real-time commercial information, a foundational concept in modern mobile commerce and location-based services.
• Key Procedural History: This filing is an Amended Complaint. The asserted patents are part of a larger family sharing a common specification. The complaint dedicates a substantial portion of its text to arguing that the patents claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, suggesting an anticipated or ongoing dispute over the claims' validity under the Alice framework.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,706,819 - MIXED-MODE INTERACTION

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,706,819, MIXED-MODE INTERACTION, issued on April 27, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of using early mobile devices for internet browsing due to small screen sizes and cumbersome text entry, which created a barrier to the adoption of internet-type services on wireless platforms (’819 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to make wireless web interaction more convenient by combining voice and data modes. A user can initiate a query with a spoken input, and a server system retrieves information based on both the spoken query and the device's current physical location. It then delivers a "non-verbal response" (such as a text message or WML page) containing a "drill-down menu" that allows the user to obtain additional, more specific information through further interaction (’819 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-col. 3:4).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to overcome the user interface limitations of early mobile devices by creating a more seamless method for accessing location-relevant information without extensive typing (’819 Patent, col. 1:55-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • receiving spoken input from a wireless communication device;
  • obtaining data identifying a current location of the wireless communication device;
  • based on the current location of the wireless communication device and the spoken input, retrieving information;
  • delivering, to the wireless communication device by a notification server, a non-verbal response to the spoken input, the non-verbal response based on the retrieved information and including a drill-down menu by which additional information related to the retrieved information can be obtained; and
  • providing additional information related to the retrieved information in response to receipt of at least one additional input provided via the drill-down menu.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’819 Patent (Compl. ¶94).

U.S. Patent No. 8,055,285 - MIXED-MODE INTERACTION

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,055,285, MIXED-MODE INTERACTION, issued on November 8, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’285 Patent addresses the need for more convenient methods of accessing internet-based information and services on mobile devices (’285 Patent, col. 1:20-56).
• The Patented Solution: This invention describes an asynchronous, profile-based system. At a "first time," the system receives and stores "consumer interest data" in a user's profile. At a "second time distinct from the first time," the system obtains the device's current location and initiates a search for information that is pertinent to both the stored interest data and the current location, delivering the results to the user (’285 Patent, col. 11:57-12:10). This enables proactive notifications based on a user's pre-defined preferences and current geographic context, facilitated by a "rules engine" that correlates interests with available inventory and location (’285 Patent, col. 7:25-45).
• Technical Importance: The invention moves beyond on-demand queries to enable a more automated and personalized mobile commerce experience, where users can be passively notified of relevant opportunities as they move through different locations (’285 Patent, col. 8:33-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶104).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • at a first time, receiving and storing an input in a user profile in a database, the input comprising consumer interest data;
  • at a second time distinct from the first time, obtaining data identifying a current location of the mobile communication device;
  • based on the input stored in the user profile and the current location of the mobile communication device, initiating a search to locate information pertinent to the input;
  • receiving results derived from the search; and
  • in response to the input and the search, delivering, by a notification server, information to the mobile communications device.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶102).

U.S. Patent No. 9,888,107 - MIXED-MODE INTERACTION

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,888,107, MIXED-MODE INTERACTION, issued on February 6, 2018.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus comprising a processor and memory with instructions to manage a notification lifecycle. The system receives permission to send a user notifications based on certain criteria, determines the mobile device's location, and provides a notification (e.g., visual or tactile alert) based on that location and the criteria. It then receives a subsequent input from the user, retrieves information related to that input, and provides a response, using a rules engine to evaluate criteria and execute notification rules (’107 Patent, col. 12:57-13:22).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶112).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Panda Express App infringes by asking for location permission, providing notifications about store availability based on location, and responding to user selections within the app (Compl. ¶113).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Panda Express App for iOS and Android mobile devices, operating in conjunction with associated back-end Panda Express servers (Compl. ¶¶83, 94).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentality allows customers to find restaurant locations, view menu items, and place orders for pickup or delivery (Compl. ¶83, ¶85 Screenshot).
• The complaint alleges the app has "enhanced features" that are enabled when a Panda Express server asks for and receives permission to access the mobile device’s location, such as via GPS coordinates (Compl. ¶84). A screenshot in the complaint shows the app's location permission prompt (Compl. ¶84).
• The app allegedly identifies and displays the closest Panda Express restaurant to the user's mobile device (Compl. ¶84). Another screenshot shows a list of nearby locations with distance information (Compl. ¶84).
• The system is alleged to receive spoken input from a user searching for a location (Compl. ¶85). A provided screenshot depicts the app's voice input interface (Compl. ¶85).
• The app allegedly allows users to save specific locations as "favorites," which are then stored in the user's profile (Compl. ¶88).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,706,819 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused list of nearby restaurants (Compl. ¶86) constitutes a "drill-down menu" as that term is used in the patent. A defendant could argue that a simple list of search results is technically distinct from a hierarchical menu designed for progressive information refinement as the patent may be construed to require (’819 Patent, col. 6:9-11).
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on what evidence shows the accused system "retriev[es] information" based on the combination of spoken input and location data. The court will have to examine whether the voice input is merely transcribed and used for a text-based keyword search, or if there is a more integrated retrieval process that specifically combines the semantic content of the speech with the geographic coordinates, as contemplated by the claim.

8,055,285 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: It raises the question of whether saving a store as a "favorite" meets the claim's requirement for "consumer interest data." Practitioners may question if this action is merely a convenience bookmark or if it represents a standing expression of interest sufficient to trigger the claimed method, which the patent specification suggests could be part of a proactive notification system (’285 Patent, col. 8:33-40).
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary hurdle will be to demonstrate that the accused system actually "initiat[es] a search" based on both the stored "favorite" data and a new, current location. The complaint's allegations on this point are narrative (Compl. ¶105), and the case may depend on technical evidence showing a functional link where the "favorite" data actively informs a subsequent location-based search, rather than the two features operating independently.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "drill-down menu" (’819 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory for the ’819 Patent, as the Plaintiff alleges that a list of nearby restaurant locations functions as a "drill-down menu" (Compl. ¶¶86, 97). The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on whether this construction is adopted.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the purpose of such menus is to allow a user to "obtain more detailed or specific information," a general description that could plausibly cover selecting an item from a list to see more details (’819 Patent, col. 9:15-17).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discusses providing "session oriented notifications" that allow a user to "'drill-down' through multiple menu levels," which could support a narrower definition requiring a more complex, hierarchical navigation structure rather than a simple one-level list of search results (’819 Patent, col. 6:9-11).

Term 2: "consumer interest data" (’285 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’285 Patent hinges on the act of a user "favoriting" a store being interpreted as providing "consumer interest data" (Compl. ¶¶88, 105). The outcome of the case could turn on this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "user profiles database 257" as including "information associated with user preferences and purchasing patterns," which could be argued to encompass a user's favorited locations (’285 Patent, col. 7:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification often frames the use of such data in the context of proactive notifications, such as a collector specifying that "he wants to be notified of any Elvis memorabilia being offered for sale" (’285 Patent, col. 8:39-42). This may support a narrower interpretation requiring an explicit or implicit standing request for future information, a function that a simple "favorites" bookmark might not serve.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant encourages users to use the Panda Express App in a manner that practices the claims of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶95, 103, 111). The factual basis is Defendant's act of providing the app with the allegedly infringing functionality.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents prior to the lawsuit. For the ’285 Patent, it alleges notice "at least as of the date of service of this complaint," which would only support a claim for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶103).

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

• A Threshold Question of Patentability: The complaint preemptively argues at length for the patent-eligibility of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 (Compl. ¶¶9-82). This signals that a central issue for the court will be to determine whether the asserted claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and, if so, whether they contain a sufficient "inventive concept" to be patentable under the Alice framework.
• A Core Issue of Definitional Scope: The infringement analyses for both the ’819 and ’285 patents will likely turn on claim construction. Key questions will be whether the term "drill-down menu" can be construed to read on a list of search results, and whether "consumer interest data" can be construed to cover a user "favoriting" a store location, which may be functionally closer to a bookmark than a standing data query.
• A Key Evidentiary Question of Operation: For the ’285 patent, the case may hinge on a question of technical fact: does the accused app actually perform a search based on the combination of pre-stored "favorite" data and a user's new current location, as required by Claim 1, or do these functions operate independently within the app?