OrderMagic LLC v. Eatstreet Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: EatStreet, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00881, W.D. Wis., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote food ordering system infringes a patent related to an electronic menu and ordering apparatus.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of restaurant point-of-sale and customer-facing ordering systems, a market focused on improving operational efficiency and customer experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) 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,"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475, "Remote ordering system," issued November 9, 2010 (’475 Patent). (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies inefficiencies in traditional restaurant ordering, which relies on waitstaff for transcribing orders and processing payments. (ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:21-34). It also criticizes then-existing electronic menus, such as those using tablet PCs, as being overly complex, fragile, costly, and susceptible to damage from liquids commonly found in a restaurant environment. (ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:36-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable remote ordering device that combines an electronic menu with physical pages, a set of input devices (e.g., membrane switches) corresponding to menu items, a display for confirming selections, and a wireless transmitter to send the order to a receiving station. (ʼ475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-61). The system is designed to be more robust and less complex than a general-purpose computer, using a "low-level programming language" to improve reliability. (ʼ475 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 7:56-64).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to create a more cost-effective, durable, and user-friendly electronic ordering solution specifically tailored for the demanding environment of a restaurant. (ʼ475 Patent, col. 2:14-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" of the ’475 Patent without specifying them, instead incorporating by reference claim charts in an unattached exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's scope.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a first and second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus includes at least one display listing items.
  • Each apparatus includes an "input means" for selecting items, where the input means includes a touch screen overlaying a "feedback display."
  • Each apparatus includes a "feedback means" for confirming the selection.
  • The system is "constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other" via the two apparatuses.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" provided by EatStreet, Inc., which operates an online and mobile food ordering and delivery platform. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused EatStreet products. It makes general allegations that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use them in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific functionality or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’475 Patent Claims" but incorporates its element-by-element infringement theory in an external exhibit not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint's narrative theory asserts that EatStreet directly infringes by making, using, and selling the products, and that its employees do so by testing and using them internally. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether EatStreet's likely client-server architecture meets the "system" limitation of claim 1, which requires "a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus." The claim further requires that the system be "constructed and arranged to allow" the two customers to "communicate with each other" via these apparatuses. This raises the question of whether two users interacting independently with a central EatStreet server constitutes the communicating apparatus system described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused products contain an "input means" and "feedback means" that correspond to the structures disclosed in the patent. As "input means" is a means-plus-function term, its scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification (e.g., membrane switches, touch screens, joysticks) and their equivalents. (’475 Patent, col. 5:58-67). The complaint provides no facts regarding the specific structure of the accused interface.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "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 core architecture of the claimed system. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this language can be construed to cover modern app-based ordering systems where users interact with a central server rather than directly with each other's devices.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to specification language stating that "the menu's can communicate with other menus, providing an ability to send messages, pay for all or just selected items, play games, or otherwise interact." (’475 Patent, col. 3:52-55). This could support a reading that covers any form of inter-user communication enabled by the system, even if mediated by a server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the patent's embodiments, which depict dedicated hardware units, limit the term "apparatus" to devices provided by the establishment. (’475 Patent, Figs. 1, 4). Further, the phrase "communicate with each other" could be interpreted to require a more direct, peer-to-peer style of communication than what is typical in a client-server model.

The Term: "input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items"

• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their legal equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will require a structural comparison, not merely a functional one.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (scope of equivalents): The specification discloses multiple structures for performing the function, including "membrane switches," a "touch screen," a "joystick," a "scroll-wheel," and "verbal input." (’475 Patent, col. 2:52, col. 5:58-67). Plaintiff will likely argue that the accused product's touch-based UI is equivalent to the disclosed "touch screen."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (limiting to disclosed structures): Defendant may argue that the accused interface is structurally different from the specific embodiments disclosed. The analysis would turn on whether any differences are substantial or were developed after the patent was filed, which are key inquiries in the test for equivalency.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end-users to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15). The allegation of knowledge is based on the service of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is done despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: does an online ordering platform where individual users on personal devices communicate with a central server meet the claim requirement for a "system" comprising "a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus" that are "constructed and arranged to allow" customers to "communicate with each other"?
• A second central question will be one of structural equivalence: for the "input means" limitation, is the user interface of the accused EatStreet platform structurally equivalent to the specific input devices (e.g., membrane switches, joysticks, specific touch screen implementations) disclosed in the '475 patent's specification?
• A threshold procedural question concerns sufficiency of the pleadings: given that the complaint's factual basis for infringement is contained entirely within an unattached exhibit, the case may face an early test of whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.