OrderMagic LLC v. BBQ Holdings LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: BBQ Holdings LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00158, W.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district, committing acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff suffering harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services related to remote ordering infringe a patent for a remote ordering system.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to electronic, table-side ordering systems for restaurants, a market segment focused on improving service efficiency and customer experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that its service, along with referenced claim charts, provides Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement for the purpose of potential future willfulness claims. No prior litigation or other proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475 - "Remote ordering system"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes traditional restaurant ordering as inefficient due to its reliance on waitstaff for transcribing orders and processing payment (U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, col. 1:21-34). It also critiques then-existing electronic menus, such as those using tablet PCs, as being overly complex, fragile, costly, and susceptible to damage from spilled liquids (U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, col. 1:36-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more durable and specialized remote ordering device. A key embodiment combines a physical, multi-page menu with corresponding selection buttons (membrane switches) aligned with the printed items, a display to confirm selections, and a wireless transmitter to send the order to a central location like the kitchen (’475 Patent, col. 2:50-65; Fig. 4). This design aims to provide electronic ordering functionality in a more robust and less complex form factor than a general-purpose computer (’475 Patent, col. 1:12-18).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide a cost-effective and ruggedized hardware solution for digitizing the ordering process, directly addressing the perceived durability and cost limitations of using consumer-grade tablets in a demanding restaurant environment (’475 Patent, col. 1:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’475 Patent are asserted, instead incorporating by reference "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" from an "Exhibit 2" that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in the future (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" throughout the allegations (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality, operation, or market context. All infringement allegations are incorporated by reference from an un-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly and indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’475 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶15). However, it does not contain specific factual allegations detailing how any particular product feature meets the limitations of any specific patent claim. Instead, the complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an un-provided "Exhibit 2," stating that these charts demonstrate that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without this exhibit or more detailed allegations, a direct comparison is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, any analysis is preliminary. However, a review of the ’475 Patent in light of the general nature of the dispute raises several potential questions for the court:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's complete reliance on an external, un-provided document raises the question of whether the pleading provides sufficient notice of the basis for the infringement claim. The central issue will be whether the forthcoming infringement contentions can establish a plausible link between an actual product of the Defendant and the specific limitations of an asserted patent claim.
  • Technical Questions: A review of the patent's independent claims (e.g., claims 1, 4, and 13) shows a recurring requirement for a system comprising at least a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus that are constructed to "communicate with each other" (’475 Patent, col. 10:35-38; col. 12:5-9). A significant technical question will be whether Defendant’s system, presumably a standard online or in-restaurant ordering platform, possesses this specific two-apparatus communication architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While no claims are specified as asserted, the construction of the following terms, which appear in the patent's independent claims, may be critical to the dispute.

• The Term: "customer menu apparatus"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all independent claims and defines the core device. Its scope will determine what type of technology can infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification appears to describe a very specific type of hardware, while the accused product is likely a software application on general-purpose devices.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may dispute whether this term can read on a general-purpose device (e.g., a smartphone) running ordering software. The claims themselves do not explicitly limit the apparatus to a specific physical form factor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "apparatus" as a purpose-built, ruggedized device designed to overcome the fragility of "tablet pc's" (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-44, col. 5:58-65). Embodiments show a physical, book-like menu with integrated membrane switches, a separate display, and other hardware components, which may support a narrower construction limited to such dedicated devices (’475 Patent, Fig. 4).

• The Term: "a grouping of input devices that correspond to the locations of menu items on the touch screen" (from Claim 4)

• Context and Importance: Should Claim 4 be asserted, this limitation is ambiguous. Its interpretation is critical to determining whether a standard touchscreen interface, where the "input device" is the screen itself, can meet this element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the touch-sensitive areas of a screen that overlay menu item text constitute a "grouping of input devices."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue this requires physical input devices separate from, but corresponding to, the touchscreen display. This is supported by embodiments like Figure 4, which depicts physical navigation and selection buttons ("471-474") alongside the display screen ("480"), and the specification's description of "selection means 440" as distinct from the display (’475 Patent, col. 4:60-63).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells products and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15). The factual support for this allegation is deferred to the un-provided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it explicitly pleads that the service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears intended to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement and enhanced damages if infringement continues.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary threshold question is one of pleading and proof: can the Plaintiff substantiate the complaint's conclusory allegations, which rely entirely on an un-provided exhibit, by identifying specific accused products and articulating a plausible theory of how they meet the limitations of the asserted patent claims?
2. Definitional Scope: A central legal issue will be the construction of the term "customer menu apparatus." The case may turn on whether this term, rooted in the patent's disclosure of a purpose-built, ruggedized hardware device, can be interpreted broadly enough to encompass modern, software-based ordering systems running on general-purpose consumer electronics.
3. Architectural Mismatch: A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused ordering system implement the specific architecture required by the patent’s independent claims, namely, a system of at least two separate "customer menu apparatuses" that directly "communicate with each other," or does this represent a fundamental difference between the patented invention and the accused technology?