OrderMagic LLC v. Thrive Restaurant Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Thrive Restaurant Group LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00160, W.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified restaurant ordering products infringe a patent related to a remote ordering system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic, table-side ordering systems for restaurants, a domain focused on improving service efficiency and customer experience while addressing the durability and cost challenges of general-purpose computing devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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 prior art electronic menus, such as those using tablet PCs, as suffering from several drawbacks: they are costly, fragile, susceptible to damage from liquids common in a restaurant environment, require significant power, and can be unstable due to reliance on complex operating systems. (U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, col. 1:36-col. 2:6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable remote ordering apparatus that combines physical menu pages with dedicated, aligned input devices (e.g., membrane switches) for selecting items. (’475 Patent, col. 2:16-20). The system includes a feedback display to confirm selections and a wireless transmitter to send the order to a remote processing station, aiming to create a more robust and streamlined user experience than a general-purpose tablet. (’475 Patent, col. 2:21-25; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide the efficiency benefits of electronic ordering while mitigating the practical risks of deploying expensive, fragile consumer electronics in a demanding commercial setting like a restaurant. (’475 Patent, col. 2:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claimed.
• Independent Claim 1 (System):
  • a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus, each comprising:
  • at least one display listing a plurality of items;
  • an input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items;
  • a feedback means for confirming selection of the item, wherein said feedback means includes a feedback display, and said input means includes a touch screen overlaying said feedback display capable of selecting options appearing on said feedback display; and
  • wherein the system is constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the reference to "one or more claims" suggests this possibility. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details about the functionality or operation of the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶11-12, 16). The defendant, Thrive Restaurant Group LLC, is a restaurant operator, which suggests the accused products are ordering systems used within its establishments. (Compl. ¶3). The complaint makes no allegations regarding the products' specific commercial importance beyond the general claim of infringement.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain detailed infringement allegations or claim charts in its body, instead incorporating by reference an "Exhibit 2" which was not provided with the filing. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is conclusory, stating that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '475 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '475 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the referenced exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"an input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items"

• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is therefore not its plain meaning but is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused products' input mechanisms are structurally equivalent to those described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple distinct input structures, which could support an argument that the term was not intended to be limited to a single embodiment. Disclosed structures include membrane switches, a joystick, a scroll-wheel, and a touch screen. (’475 Patent, col. 2:58-60; col. 5:58-col. 6:2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes the problems with fragile tablet PCs, potentially suggesting that the disclosed, more durable membrane switches are the core of the invention, and a court could find that general-purpose touch screens on standard devices are not equivalent. (’475 Patent, col. 1:36-44; col. 5:58-62). Furthermore, Claim 1 itself recites that the input means "includes a touch screen overlaying said feedback display," which may limit the scope of this element within that specific claim. (’475 Patent, col. 9:18-20).

"a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus ... constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the invention as a system of at least two interacting devices. The nature of this "communication" is critical. The infringement analysis will require determining if the accused products function as a system of distinct but communicating apparatuses as claimed, or if they operate as standalone units or in a different network architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "communicate with each other" is broad. The specification mentions communicating to "send messages, pay for all or just selected items, play games, or otherwise interact," suggesting a wide range of possible interactions. (’475 Patent, col. 3:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes communication for order aggregation and payment, such as a "master menu that receives order information" from other menus at a table. (’475 Patent, col. 9:8-14). A court may be asked to decide if this disclosed purpose limits the scope of "communication" to functions directly related to ordering and payment consolidation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use them in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant’s continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

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

• A primary issue will be one of claim scope, centered on the means-plus-function limitations. The case may turn on whether the accused products' input and feedback mechanisms are structurally equivalent to the specific embodiments disclosed in the ’475 patent, such as the described membrane switches and touch screen overlay arrangement, or if they represent a technologically distinct approach.
• A second key question will involve the system architecture: does the accused system meet the "first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus" limitation of Claim 1, requiring two distinct devices that "communicate with each other"? The plaintiff will need to provide evidence that the accused products operate as an interacting pair, as opposed to independent units that each communicate only with a central server.
• Finally, an initial procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency. The complaint's reliance on an external, unprovided exhibit for its core infringement allegations and its failure to identify any specific accused product may raise questions about whether it provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief.