OrderMagic LLC v. Milio's Sandwiches Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Milio's Sandwiches, Inc. (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00882, W.D. Wis., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote ordering system infringes a patent related to an electronic menu apparatus that allows customers to select items and communicate with other menu devices.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to electronic, table-top ordering systems for restaurants, a field that aims to streamline customer ordering and payment processes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference 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’s background section describes traditional restaurant ordering as inefficient, relying on waitstaff to transcribe orders and process payments, which can "significantly slow the entire ordering and payment process." (’475 Patent, col. 1:28-31). It also notes that prior electronic menu solutions, such as those based on tablet PCs, are often fragile, complex, costly, and susceptible to damage from liquids. (’475 Patent, col. 1:54-63; col. 2:3-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a remote ordering system comprising multiple customer menu apparatuses. As described in the specification and illustrated in figures, each apparatus has a display for menu items and an input mechanism, such as a touch screen, for selection. (’475 Patent, col. 10:24-32). A key feature is the ability for a customer using one menu apparatus to "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses," enabling functions like group ordering or paying for items ordered from another device at the same table. (’475 Patent, col. 3:56-60; col. 9:8-13).
• Technical Importance: The described system aims to empower customers to order and pay directly from their table, potentially increasing efficiency and durability compared to general-purpose tablet computers used for the same purpose. (’475 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’475 Patent but does not specify which ones, instead referring to an attached exhibit for exemplary claims. (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A system comprising a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus comprises:
    • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Exemplary Defendant Products" but refers to charts in an unprovided exhibit for their specific identification. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context, as these details are allegedly contained within the unprovided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not included with the complaint. (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint alleges 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 analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent claims and the general nature of the dispute, the analysis will likely raise several questions:
  • Scope Questions: Do the accused products constitute a "system" with a "first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus" that are "constructed and arranged to allow" for communication between them, as required by Claim 1?
  • Technical Questions: What specific functionality in the accused products corresponds to the "input means" and "feedback means" limitations? Does the accused system permit the type of inter-device "communication" envisioned by the patent, such as cross-device payment or messaging?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the structure of the accused products is the same as or equivalent to the structures disclosed in the ’475 Patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that the specification discloses multiple embodiments, including "membrane switches," a "joystick," and a "scroll-wheel," suggesting the term should not be confined to a single implementation. (’475 Patent, col. 6:57-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself links the input means to a "touch screen overlaying said feedback display." (’475 Patent, col. 10:30-32). A defendant may argue that this explicit linkage in the claim text confines the "input means" structure for this claim to a touch screen, distinguishing it from other input devices mentioned elsewhere in the specification.

• The Term: "communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term defines the interactive capability that distinguishes the claimed system from standalone ordering devices. The definition of "communicate" will be central to determining if the accused system infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests various forms of communication, including sending "text-messages from others nearby, remotely," playing games, and interacting in other ways, which could support a broad definition of the term. (’475 Patent, col. 3:56-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the communication must be functionally related to the ordering process, citing specific examples like allowing one menu device to "pay for items ordered from said second apparatus" or sending an order through a "master menu." (’475 Patent, col. 9:8-13; col. 10:48-51). This could narrow the scope to exclude more generic forms of data exchange.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14-15). The knowledge element for inducement is alleged to exist "at least since being served by this Complaint." (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but the prayer for relief requests damages for "continuing or future infringement." (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be post-suit knowledge, alleging that "Despite such actual knowledge" from the service of the complaint, Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import... products that infringe." (Compl. ¶14).

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

• A central issue will be one of system architecture: Does the accused product offering constitute a "system" of two or more menu apparatuses that are "constructed and arranged" to "communicate with each other" as claimed, or are they functionally independent devices that merely report to a central server?
• A key claim construction question will be one of functional scope: What is the specific structure corresponding to the "input means" and "feedback means" limitations in Claim 1, and does the technology used in the accused products fall within the scope of that structure or its legal equivalents?
• An early evidentiary question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Given that the complaint's substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within an unprovided exhibit, the initial focus may be on whether the complaint itself provides sufficient notice of the infringement theory to the defendant.