Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

PAPA MURPHY’S HOLDINGS, INC., 

PAPA MURPHY’S 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, MURPHY’S 

MARKETING SERVICES, INC., AND 

PAPA MURPHY’S COMPANY 

STORES, INC., 

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-417 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc. (“Tiare”) and files this Original Complaint 

for Patent Infringement against Defendants Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc., Papa Murphy’s 

International, LLC, Murphy’s Marketing Services, Inc., and Papa Murphy’s Company Stores, Inc.

(collectively, “Defendant”), alleging as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Tiare invented groundbreaking mobile-ordering technology in the early 2000s and 

built its business on its inventions. The fruits of this technology include a patent portfolio that 

includes the asserted claims in this case. The mobile-ordering market has grown exponentially in 

recent years (and the COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated the growth). Bigger companies

have disregarded Tiare’s patent rights. Tiare has since resolved its patent disputes with a number 

of industry participants, including Chick-fil-A, Raising Cane’s, Five Guys, McAlister’s Deli, El 

Pollo Loco, Taco Cabana, Petco, Belk, Bed Bath & Beyond, American Eagle, Wingstop, Freddy’s, 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 2

Whataburger, Best Buy, Panera Bread, Albertsons, and Lowe’s, among others. Defendant is 

infringing upon Tiare’s Patents, and this case is to enforce Tiare’s rights and redress the harm to 

Tiare. 

II. NATURE OF THE SUIT

2. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United 

States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

III. THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains a

corporate address at PO Box 8312, Blackwood, NJ 08012.

4. Upon information and belief, Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business at 8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 350, Vancouver, 

WA 98662. It may be served with process by delivering a summons and a true and correct copy of 

this complaint to its registered agent for receipt of service of process, Corporation Service 

Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.

5. Upon information and belief, Papa Murphy’s International, LLC is a Delaware 

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 

350, Vancouver, WA 98662. It may be served with process by delivering a summons and a true 

and correct copy of this complaint to its registered agent for receipt of service of process, 

Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.

6. Upon information and belief, Murphy’s Marketing Services, Inc. is a Florida 

corporation with its principal place of business at 8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 100, Vancouver, 

WA 98662. It may be served with process by delivering a summons and a true and correct copy of 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 2
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 3

this complaint to its registered agent for receipt of service of process, Corporation Service 

Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301-2525.

7. Upon information and belief, Papa Murphy’s Company Stores, Inc. is a Washington 

corporation with its principal place of business at 8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 350, Vancouver,

WA 98662. It may be served with process by delivering a summons and a true and correct copy 

of this complaint to its registered agent for receipt of service of process, Corporation Service 

Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E 7th Street, Suite 620, 

Austin, TX 78701.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United 

States Code. Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a).

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

10. Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in this 

District, has conducted business in this District, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic 

activities in this District.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action because 

Defendant has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action and has established 

minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not 

offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant has committed and 

continues to commit acts of infringement in this Defendant by, among other things, offering to 

sell, selling products and/or services, and/or using services that infringe the Asserted Patents, 

including the Defendant application.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 3
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 4

12. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action pursuant 

to due process and the Texas Long Arm Statute because the claims asserted herein arise out of or 

are related to Defendant voluntary contacts with this forum, such voluntary contacts including but 

not limited to: (i) at least a portion of the actions complained of herein; (ii) purposefully and 

voluntarily placing one or more Accused Products into this District and into the stream of 

commerce with the intention and expectation that they will be purchased and used by customers 

in this District; or (iii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses 

of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services, including the Accused 

Products, provided to customers in Texas and in this District.1

13. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b).

14. Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, 

Defendant has transacted business in this District and has committed acts of direct and indirect 

infringement in this District.

15. Defendant has regular and established places of business in this District.

16. Defendant offers its products and/or services, including those accused herein of 

infringement, to customers and potential customers located in Texas and in this District. As nonlimiting examples, Defendant distributes the Accused Products directly to customers and through 

its partners. Among other business, Defendant is in the business of providing mobile ordering in 

this District.

17. Defendant operates multiple stores in this District. These stores are regular and 

established places of business of Defendant.

1 The “Accused Products” include Defendant’s mobile application.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 4
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 5

18. Defendant distributes its mobile ordering app to users located within this District. 

The use of the Defendant application in this District provides for mobile ordering from stores in 

this District. Defendant puts its mobile ordering application in service within this District to allow 

users within this District to order from stores in this District in a manner alleged to infringe the 

asserted claims, as detailed herein. On information and belief, Defendant derives a significant 

portion of its revenue from the use, promotion and distribution of its products and services in this 

District, including through the use of Defendant’s application.

19. A user also is able to order from Defendant stores in the user’s local area, which 

includes this District. This is including based on the location of the user’s mobile device to find 

nearby stores, including stores in this District. These locations are held out as a regular and 

established place of business of Defendant. 

20. The stores within this District are, at the very least, Defendant agents for the 

purposes of carrying out the mobile-ordering functionality asserted to infringe the claims.

21. Defendant provides the accused mobile-ordering application, and the application 

allows a user to select a store, order from the store, and then pick up the order from the store. The 

store and its employees are agents of Defendant, at least for that purpose. To the extent the stores 

are franchisees, Defendant exercises significant control over these franchisees in relation to the 

mobile-ordering system. On information and belief, among other aspects of control, Defendant 

(1) requires franchisees to purchase the hardware and software for mobile ordering (in addition to 

upgrades); (2) requires franchisees to participate in mobile ordering; (3) controls how franchisees 

use their computer systems; (4) has the right to all of the data; (5) has the right to suspect access 

to the computer systems; (6) having employees visit stores within the District; and/or (7) providing 

step-by-step instructions to franchisees, including as it relates to mobile ordering. Defendant also 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 5
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 6

identifies the stores in this District with Defendant’s name, including on Defendant’s website, 

telephone or other directory, and/or by listing Defendant’s business name (and associated signage) 

on the store building. On information and belief, to the extent stores are franchisees, Defendant 

requires each franchisee to use Defendant’s signage and logos throughout the store. On 

information and belief, to the extent stores are franchisees, Defendant controls the location of each 

franchisee, including approving the store location. 

V. BACKGROUND

A. Tiare 

22. Tiare pioneered wireless ordering almost two decades ago, before the inception and 

proliferation of smartphone and tablets. Technology executives founded Tiare to revolutionize the 

service industry through its mobile-ordering technology. 

23. Tiare saw success. It developed products.2

 It provided solutions to businesses such 

as hotels, airports, restaurants, bars, and airlines.3 It had partners.4 It hired vendors and software 

2 See, e.g., Tiare Technology, https://www.tiaretech.com/; intelliChaise, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20080219175102/http://www.tiaretech.com/; Tiare Products 

Provide an Eco-Friendly Platform Capable of Real-Time Updates, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20100618052642/http://www.tiaretech.com:80/; Patented 

intelliChaise Personal Ordering System available on Apple iPhone & iPod touch, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120411071039/http://www.tiaretech.com/product_sheets/Tiare_in

tellichaise_2010.pdf.

3 See, e.g., Press Room, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20080120233903/http://www.tiaretech.com/pressroom.html; Tiare 

In The News, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120227194146/http://www.tiaretech.com/press.html.

4 See, e.g., Partners, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120413225638/http://www.tiaretech.com/partners.html.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 6
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 7

developers. It received numerous praise and awards for its work.5 And Tiare’s innovations 

resulted in a portfolio of patents.

B. The Asserted Patents

24. This cause of action asserts infringement of three of Tiare’s patents, United States 

Patent Nos. 8,682,729 (the “’729 Patent”), 10,157,414 (the “’414 Patent”), and 11,195,224 (the 

“’224 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents” or the “Tiare Patents”).

25. A true and correct copy of the ’729 Patent, entitled “Patron Service System and 

Method,” and with Julie Werbitt as the named inventor, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

26. The ’729 Patent duly and legally issued on March 25, 2014.

27. A true and correct copy of the ’414 Patent, entitled “Patron Service System and 

Method,” and with Julie Werbitt as the named inventor, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

28. The ’414 Patent duly and legally issued on December 18, 2018.

29. A true and correct copy of the ’224 Patent, entitled “Patron Service System and 

Method,” and with Julie Werbitt as the named inventor, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

30. The ’224 Patent duly and legally issued on December 7, 2021.

31. Tiare is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and under 

the ’729 Patent. Tiare has standing to sue for infringement of the ’729 Patent. 

32. Tiare is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and under 

the ’414 Patent. Tiare has standing to sue for infringement of the ’414 Patent. 

33. Tiare is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and under 

the ’224 Patent. Tiare has standing to sue for infringement of the ’224 Patent. 

5 See, e.g., Testimonials, https://www.tiaretech.com/testimonials; News, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170818210312/http://tiaretech.com/news/. 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 7
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 8

34. Tiare also has provided notice to the public of its patented inventions. Tiare, for 

example, has listed on its website the patent numbers in its patent portfolio, including the Asserted 

Patents.6 

35. The Asserted Patents result from Tiare’s inventive work in the early 2000s. Tiare’s 

solution, reflected in the Asserted Patents, provides a technical improvement to mobile ordering 

systems. 

36. Before Tiare’s invention, conventional systems had significant drawbacks when it 

came to enabling a fulsome mobile-ordering system able that would also perform location 

tracking.7 These drawbacks flowed from how those systems were architected.

37. One type of conventional ordering systems were “centrally-located kiosks.”8 These 

systems were an attempt to provide some degree of mobile-ordering functionality in a venue or 

within the vicinity of a venue, such as a restaurant or store. These systems had the drawbacks in 

that they did not provide true mobile-ordering and location-tracking functionality.

9

38. Another type of conventional system were point-of-sale systems. These systems 

could include handheld terminals that staff could use to service customers from a distance.10 These 

systems, however, “typically only allow[ed] the staff member, to take and transmit the order on 

6 See, e.g., Wireless Ordering Solutions to Enhance Guest Service and Increase Revenue, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20141218065508/https://www.tiaretech.com/; Tiare Technology, 

https://www.tiaretech.com/.

7 E.g., ’729 Patent, 2:21–60.

8 E.g., ’729 Patent, 2:21–60.

9 E.g., ’729 Patent, 2:21–60.

10 E.g., ’729 Patent, 2:21–60.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 8
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 9

behalf of the patron.”11 These systems did not allow a patron to place the order and they were 

unable to perform location tracking.

12

39. Tiare’s inventions solve these drawbacks of conventional systems, among others. 

Tiare reimagined the mobile-ordering architecture by tracking portable patron units (now known 

as a smartphone or tablet) and providing a venue-specific application. The conventional systems 

had limitations because they were unable to track location because they focused on a fixed kioskbased or mobile point-of-sale-based solution. Tiare recognized that it could improve upon the 

technical aspects of these systems—through providing mobile-ordering software for a venue (such 

as a restaurant or store chain) on a mobile device and tracking the location of the mobile device to

facilitate the fulfillment of the order. 

40. While the concept and techniques for tracking distributed mobile computing 

devices of the Asserted Patents are described within the context of providing services, the concept 

is, at its core, a technical solution of electronic location tracking of distributed mobile computing 

devices. Furthermore, Tiare developed this technology well before the advent of modern mobile 

computing devices such as smartphones and tablets. Indeed, even location-tracking technologies 

such as commercial GPS and wireless computer networks (such as 802.11, Bluetooth, and higherbandwidth cellular data networks) were in their nascent stages of use and could hardly be 

considered conventional at the time that Tiare came up with the technology embodied in the 

asserted claims.

41. The subject matter of the asserted claims is rooted in computer technology and 

provides an unconventional solution to the problem of tracking locations of distributed mobile 

11 E.g., ’729 Patent, 2:21–60.

12 E.g., ’729 Patent, 2:21–60.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 9
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 10

devices. The claimed subject matter enables the centralized location tracking of one or more 

mobile-computing devices in real-time by integrating location-tracking technology into mobilecomputing devices and communicating at least one location update over wireless communication 

networks, which did not exist in the pre-digital world. Indeed, even the kiosk-based and point-ofsale-based systems lacked the technical capacity to perform the location tracking enabled by the 

asserted claims. The technology utilizes what was at the turn of the century an unconventional use 

of location tracking sensors integrated into mobile computing devices to determine the location of 

the mobile computing devices based on electronic signals (e.g., GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, and/or 

cellular data) and convey location information to a server system over wireless computer networks. 

42. The claims do not merely recite customizing information or collecting and 

displaying data. Although the overall environment is in the context of providing services, the 

claims do not simply recite a non-technical business practice; they instead recite a technical 

solution for tracking the location of mobile-computing devices (and, by extension, the users). 

43. The mobile-ordering field is one rooted in technology. The field has seen 

significant patenting activity in recent years, reflecting the technological nature of the field. 

Technology companies in the mobile-ordering space like DoorDash, GrubHub, Uber, Lyft, 

Instacart, and Postmates have filed hundreds of patent applications.13 

13 USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearchadv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=+%28an%2Fdoordash+or+an%2Fgrubhub+or+an%2Fl

yft+or+an%2F%28uber+and+technologies%29+or+an%2Finstacart+or+an%2Fpostmates%29&

d=PTXT (listing over 700 patents). 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 10
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 11

44. Tiare’s Patents have likewise been cited in patent applications by technology 

companies such as AT&T,14 eBay,15 Bally Gaming,16 Intel,17 RockSpoon,18 Uptown Network,19

Quick Check,20 and Monscierge.

21 This further underscores that the patent claims are directed to 

the technical advancements discussed above.

45. Tiare’s Patents have undergone extensive examination before the U.S. Patent & 

Trademark Office (“Patent Office”), spanning the better part of two decades. Tiare retained 

highly-skilled patent counsel to prosecute its patents. Tiare retained Greenblum & Bernstein 

(including the former Acting Chief Judge of the Patent Office). For the application that issued as 

the ’414 Patent, Tiare retained Fish & Richardson P.C. for prosecution. Fish is one of the country’s 

14 See, e.g., 10,152,700.

15 See, e.g., 10,096,011.

16 See, e.g., 10,403,081.

17 See, e.g., 8,390,436.

18 See, e.g., 10,719,858.

19 See, e.g., 10,127,585.

20 See, e.g., 9,633,344.

21 See, e.g., 9,436,958.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 11
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 12

premier patent prosecution law firms in the United States22 and has prosecuted thousands of patents 

for technology companies such as Google, Intel, Twitter, Cisco, Adobe, and Apple.23 

46. The Patent Office’s examination of Tiare’s patent portfolio included extensive 

consideration of Section 101 issues.24 During prosecution, the Patent Office expressly considered 

the eligibility of the patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank

decision, and the Federal Circuit decisions applying the Alice framework.

25 The Patent Office 

ultimately found that the claims, including the ’414 Patent claims, were valid and recited patenteligible subject matter. 

47. During prosecution, the Patent Office considered the issue of patent eligibility. The 

Patent Office began an extensive examination of Section 101 starting in 2014 that spanned over 

six years across three patent applications examined by multiple examiners. 

22 See, e.g., Patent Prosecution, https://www.fr.com/services/patent-law/patent-prosecution/ (“Our 

patent prosecutors obtain durable patents that take into account our clients’ long-term objectives 

and that will be able to withstand future challenges.”); Fish & Richardson Secures More Issued 

Patents in 2020 than Any Other Firm (March 3, 2021), https://www.fr.com/fish-secures-moreissued-patents-2020/ (“Fish & Richardson obtained more U.S. utility patents in 2020 than any 

other firm[.]”); Fish & Richardson Named #1 PTAB Law Firm of 2020 by Managing Intellectual 

Property (January 25, 2021), https://www.fr.com/top-ptab-law-firm-2020-mip/ (“Fish & 

Richardson has been named the #1 law firm at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for 

2020[.]”). 

23 USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearchadv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=lrep%2Ffish+and+lrep%2Frichardson&d=PTXT. 

24 See, e.g., File History for App. No. 13/073,368 (considering patent claims under Alice v. CLS 

Bank and its progeny and allowing them); File History for App. No. 15/820,195 (same). 

25 See, e.g., File History for App. No. 13/073,368 (considering patent claims under Alice v. CLS 

Bank and its progeny and allowing them); File History for App. No. 15/820,195 (same); Oct. 31, 

2018 Notice of Allowance; October 28, 2018 Response to Office Action and Remarks; August 28, 

2018 Final Office Action; March 28, 2018 Response to Office Action and Remarks; December 29, 

2017 Office Action.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 12
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 13

48. In 2014, the Patent Office considered Section 101 during the prosecution of Tiare’s 

U.S. Patent No. 9,202,244, and rejected the claims.26 The Examiner then suggested amendments 

and ultimately allowed the claims in 2015.27 

49. The Patent Office then examined the asserted ’414 Patent under Section 101. The 

Examiner rejected the claims in 2017.

28 Tiare responded and explained in detail how “each of the 

pending claims recites features that address a problem fundamentally rooted in computer 

technology and/or operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in existing 

technology at the time of the invention.”29 That included the following assertions regarding the 

technological background, the subject matter of claims, and the claimed technical solution of realtime electronic tracking of distributed mobile computing devices.

30

• [T]he subject matter of the instant claims is directed to a process for the centralized realtime location tracking of distributed mobile computing devices. While the concept and 

techniques for tracking distributed mobile computing devices of the present application are 

described within the context of providing consumer services, the concept is, at its core, a 

technical solution of real-time electronic tracking of distributed mobile computing 

devices.”

• Furthermore, this technology was developed at the turn of the century (see priority date of 

Sep. 23, 2002) well before the advent of modern mobile computing devices such as 

smartphones and tablet computers. Indeed, even location tracking technologies such as 

commercial GPS and wireless computer networks such as 802.11 and Bluetooth were in 

their nascent stages of use and could hardly be considered “conventional.” At the original 

filing date of the present application, even the terminology of mobile computing had yet to 

be established. For example, the specification refers to what would now be considered a 

26 See, e.g., September 12, 2014 Non-Final Rejection (App. No. 13/073,368); May 13, 2015 Final 

Rejection (App. No. 13/073,368).

27 See, e.g., July 15, 2015 Notice of Allowance (App. No. 13/073,368).

28 See, e.g., December 29, 2017 Non-Final Rejection (App. No. 15/820,195).

29 See, e.g., March 28, 2018 Response to Non-Final Rejection (App. No. 15/820,195). 

30 See, e.g., March 28, 2018 Response to Non-Final Rejection (App. No. 15/820,195). 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 13
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 14

smartphone or tablet computer by one of skill in the art as “portable patron units” and 

“portable staff units.” . . . .

• [T]he subject matter of each of the claim is “rooted in computer technology” and provides 

an unconventional solution to the problem of tracking locations of distributed mobile 

devices. Specifically, the subject matter of the pending claims enables the centralized 

location tracking of one or more mobile computing devices in real-time by integrating 

location-tracking technology into mobile computing devices and communicating location 

updates over wireless communication networks, which did not exist in the pre-digital world 

. . . .

• [T]he present claims rely on what was at the turn of the century an unconventional use of 

location tracking sensors integrated into mobile computing devices to determine the 

location of the mobile computing devices based on electronic signals (e.g., GPS, WiFi, or 

Bluetooth) and convey location information to a centralized server system over wireless 

computer networks . . . .

• Although the concept of the present claims is described in the context of providing 

consumer services, the claims do not simply recite a non-technical business practice, but 

instead recite a technical solution for tracking the location of mobile computing devices to 

locate customers.

• The present claims [] recite “a technology-based solution” to locate distributed mobile 

computing devices (and by extension the users) “that overcomes existing problems” of the 

common technology of the time; namely “centrally-located kiosks” and “handheld POS 

[point of sale] devices” neither of which incorporated or required location-tracking 

capability.

50. The Examiner credited these factual assertions and allowed the claim that issued as 

clam 8 in ’414 Patent. The Examiner explained that Tiare’s arguments had been “fully considered 

and are persuasive.”31 After Tiare amended the claims to address the eligibility of a different set 

of claims (by including the “providing . . . a venue-specific application” and “mapping the updated 

locations” limitations), the Patent Office issued the ’414 Patent.32 

31 See, e.g., August 28, 2018 Final Rejection (App. No. 15/820,195). 

32 See, e.g., October 31, 2018 Notice of Allowance (App. No. 15/820,195); October 22, 2018 Claim 

Amendment (App. No. 15/820,195).

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 14
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 15

51. The Patent Office also evaluated under Section 101 Tiare’s most-recent patent 

application (which issued in December, 2021 as U.S. Pat. No. 11,195,224). The initial independent 

claims lacked the “venue-specific application” limitations, and the Patent Office rejected them.33 

Tiare then amended the claims to include the “venue-specific application” limitations, and the 

Patent Office withdrew the Section 101 rejections.34 

52. The Asserted Patents claim patent-eligible subject-matter, and this Court has denied 

challenges to the eligibility of the claims. Report and Recommendations Denying Motions to 

Dismiss (Dkt. 77) and Order Adopting Report and Recommendations (Dkt. 82), Tiare Technology, 

Inc. v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC, No. 2:22-CV-182 (E.D. Tex.). 

C. Defendant’s Infringement

53. Defendant offers a mobile-ordering solution. It provides a venue-specific 

application, exemplified below. 

33 See, e.g., April 29, 2020 Non-Final Rejection (App. No. 16/217,798). 

34 See, e.g., November 16, 2020 Final Rejection (App. No. 16/217,798); September 29, 2020 Claim 

Amendments (App. No. 16/217,798). 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 15
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 16

54. For example, the Defendant mobile-ordering solution provides a venue-specific 

application in which the application functionality is associated with a store-chain (e.g., Defendant), 

including the ordering and location-tracking functionality. The Defendant mobile-ordering 

solution also provides a venue-specific application in which the application functionality is 

associated with a single store, including the ordering and location-tracking functionality. The 

Defendant application, including the software providing the ordering functionality, is an 

application program that is specifically configured for a venue (e.g., a Defendant store) but may 

apply to more than one location (e.g., multiple Defendant stores).

55. Defendant also tracks the location of the smartphone or tablet (and, by extension, 

the user) to, among other things, including determining an initial location (e.g., to find a local 

store) and the arrival for pickup of the mobile order. Defendant accesses the location of the 

smartphone, for example, to access location during an open pickup order (including a curbside 

order) as further evidenced in the mobile device’s location services.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 16
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 17

56. This evidence shows that Defendant utilizes and determines (1) a current location 

of the smartphone or tablet and (2) an updated location of the smartphone or tablet, including but 

not limited to mobile ordering.

57. Defendant has had notice of Tiare and the ’414, ’729, and ’224 Patents, at least as 

early as the filing of this Complaint. 

58. Defendant’s use of the Tiare’s patented technology has generated significant 

revenue and benefits for Defendant. The app has been used, on information and belief, to complete 

a significant amount of mobile orders. Defendant’s improper gains through its use of Tiare’s 

patented technology have correspondingly harmed Tiare and its investment in its intellectual 

property. This case is to redress that harm.

VI. CLAIMS

A. Infringement of the ’729 Patent

59. The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if 

fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Defendant.

60. The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’729 Patent.

61. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the 

’729 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without

Tiare’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United 

States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.

62. Defendant has been on notice of the Asserted Patents since at least the filings of 

this Complaint.

63. Defendant has been on notice of its infringement since at least the filing of this 

Complaint.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 17
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 18

64. Further and in the alternative, Defendant has been actively inducing infringement 

of at least claim 1 of the ’729 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused 

Products directly infringed at least claim 1 of the ’729 Patent when they used the Accused Products 

in the ordinary, customary, and intended way. Defendant’s inducements included, without 

limitation and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers 

to use the Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way 

by, directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the 

United States and instructing and encouraging such consumers (for example, via distributing the 

Accused Products to mobile phones through app stores and instructing users to use the Accused 

Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary, customary, and intended way, which 

Defendant knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of the ’729 Patent. Defendant’s

inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific intent to encourage the 

infringement, knowingly inducing customers to use the Accused Products within the United States, 

or knowingly inducing customers to use the Accused Products within the United States, by, 

directly or through intermediaries, instructing and encouraging such customers to make, use, sell,

or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, which Defendant knows or should know 

infringes at least claim 1 of the ’729 Patent.

65. Defendant knew or should have known of the ’729 Patent but was willfully blind 

to the existence of the ’729 Patent. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ’729 Patent since 

at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint. By the time of the trial of this case, 

Defendant will have known and intended that its continued actions since receiving such notice 

would infringe and actively induce and contribute to the infringement of one or more claims of the 

’729 Patent. Defendant’s infringement of the ’729 Patent has been willful and deliberate.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 18
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 19

66. As detailed below, the ordering application and location-tracking functionality 

through the mobile application provided by Defendant is claimed to infringe the ’729 Patent.

67. Defendant performs a method of using a wireless patron unit (e.g., a smartphone or 

tablet) within a venue or within the vicinity of the venue.

68. Defendant provides at least one patron with a wireless patron unit by either 

permitting the at least one patron to temporarily use a venue-owned wireless patron unit that 

includes at least one venue specific application program, or by providing at least one venue specific 

application program to the at least one patron for downloading into a patron-owned wireless 

communication device that can be used during the at least one patron’s visit to the venue.

69. Defendant provides at least one patron with a wireless patron unit (e.g., a 

smartphone or tablet) by providing at least one venue specific application program for 

downloading into a patron-owned wireless communication device (e.g., a smartphone or tablet) 

that can be used during a visit to the venue, as exemplified above.

70. Defendant connects the wireless patron unit (e.g., the smartphone or tablet) to a 

server enabling communication between the wireless patron unit and the server (e.g., the server in 

communication with the smartphone or tablet via the application), such as a Wi-Fi or cellular 

connection.

71. Defendant enters a patron order for at least one item or service provided by the 

venue into the wireless patron unit. Defendant enters a patron order (e.g., a user’s order) for at 

least one item or service provided by the venue (e.g., an item from a store menu) into the wireless 

patron unit (e.g., a smartphone or tablet), exemplified below.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 19
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 20

72. Defendant determines a current location of the wireless patron unit. Defendant

determines the location of, for example, a smartphone or tablet. This is reflected in the use of the 

application, as exemplified above.

73. Defendant also tracks the location of the smartphone or tablet (and, by extension, 

the user) to, among other things, find local stores and products and determine when a mobile device 

is in the vicinity of the store, as discussed above.

74. Defendant updates a status of the patron order, and the current location of the 

wireless patron unit when the patron moves to a different location, on the wireless patron unit. 

75. Defendant updates a status of the patron order (e.g., a mobile order) on the wireless

patron unit (e.g., a smartphone or tablet), including, for example, showing that an order was placed, 

in progress, cancelled, and mobile-ordering methods, pickup methods, payment options, other 

options and/or altered/updated.

76. Defendant updates the current location of the wireless patron unit (e.g., a 

smartphone or tablet) when the patron moves to a different location. Defendant also tracks the 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 20
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 21

location of the smartphone or tablet (and, by extension, the user) to, among other things, determine 

when a mobile device is in the proximity of the store, as exemplified above.

77. Defendant displays the patron order on a display of the wireless patron unit (e.g., a 

smartphone or tablet), as exemplified above.

B. Infringement of the ’414 Patent

78. The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if 

fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Defendant.

79. The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 8 of the ’414 Patent.

80. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 8 of the 

’414 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without 

Tiare's authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United 

States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.

81. Defendant has been on notice of the Asserted Patents since at least the filings of 

this Complaint.

82. Defendant has been on notice of its infringement since at least the filing of this 

Complaint.

83. Further and in the alternative, Defendant has been actively inducing infringement 

of at least claim 8 of the ’414 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused 

Products directly infringed at least claim 8 of the ’414 Patent when they used the Accused Products 

in the ordinary, customary, and intended way. Defendant’s inducements included, without 

limitation and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers 

to use the Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way 

by, directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 21
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 22

United States and instructing and encouraging such consumers (for example, via distributing the 

Accused Products to mobile phones through app stores and instructing users to use the Accused 

Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary, customary, and intended way, which 

Defendant knows or should know infringes at least claim 8 of the ’414 Patent. Defendant's 

inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific intent to encourage the 

infringement, knowingly inducing customers to use the Accused Products within the United States, 

or knowingly inducing customers to use the Accused Products within the United States, by, 

directly or through intermediaries, instructing and encouraging such customers to make, use, sell, 

or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, which Defendant knows or should know 

infringes at least claim 8 of the ’414 Patent.

84. Defendant knew or should have known of the ’414 Patent but was willfully blind 

to the existence of the ’414 Patent. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ’414 Patent since 

at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint. By the time of the trial of this case, 

Defendant will have known and intended that its continued actions since receiving such notice 

would infringe and actively induce and contribute to the infringement of one or more claims of the 

’414 Patent. Defendant's infringement of the ’414 Patent has been willful and deliberate.

85. As detailed below, the ordering application and location-tracking functionality 

through the mobile application provided by Defendant is claimed to infringe the ’414 Patent.

86. Defendant performs the computer-implemented method detailed below.

87. Defendant provides over a wireless communications channel (e.g., over a cellular, 

WiFi, and/or Bluetooth network connection), a venue-specific application, as exemplified above.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 22
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 23

88. Defendant communicates, by the one or more processors, with the mobile 

computing device over the wireless communication channel to authenticate, based on a security 

protocol, a user of the venue-specific application on the mobile computing device.

89. Defendant communicates over a wireless communication channel (e.g., over a 

cellular, WiFi, and/or Bluetooth network connection) to authenticate, based on a security protocol 

(e.g., a login, password, and/or encrypted communications), a user of the venue-specific 

application on a smartphone.

90. Defendant authenticates a user via a login and password into the application (e.g., 

logging in via a username and password), as well as securing information associated with 

purchasing the order, such the user’s financial account information (e.g., credit card number).

91. Defendant receives, by the one or more processors, location information from the 

mobile computing device. Defendant receives location information of the mobile computing 

device (e.g., a smartphone or tablet) through, for example, the device’s location services, as 

exemplified above.

92. Defendant also tracks the location of the smartphone or tablet (and, by extension, 

the user) to, among other things, find local stores and products and determine when a mobile device 

is in the vicinity of the store, as discussed above.

93. Defendant determines, by the one or more processors, a location of the mobile 

computing device at a first time based on the location information. Based on the location 

information provided, Defendant determines the location of the smartphone or tablet, as detailed 

above.

94. Defendant maps, by the one or more processors, the location to a region that is 

associated with a venue, including, for example, mapping the location to a region that is associated 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 23
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 24

with a store or a group of stores, including such as the stores nearby and/or the region nearby the 

store utilized for mobile ordering.

95. Defendant receives, from the mobile computing device, order information for the 

venue that indicates a user selection of an order option from the venue-specific application. 

Defendant receives order information from a user input that indicates a service request (e.g. a store

order) through the venue-specific application, including as exemplified above.

96. Defendant receives, by the one or more processors, updated location information 

from the mobile computing device. Defendant receives updated location information from the 

mobile computing device (e.g., a smartphone or tablet). For example, Defendant also tracks the 

location of the smartphone or tablet (and, by extension, the user) to, among other things, determine 

when a mobile device is in the proximity of the store, as exemplified above.

97. Defendant determines, by the one or more processors, an updated location of the 

mobile computing device at a second time based on the updated location information. Defendant

determines updated locations of the smartphone or tablet at multiple points after receiving the 

updated location data at a second time, including as the device approaches the site, as detailed 

above.

C. Infringement of the ’224 Patent

98. The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if 

fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Defendant.

99. The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 10 of the ’224 Patent.

100. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 10 of the 

’224 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 24
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 25

Tiare’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United 

States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.

101. Defendant has been on notice of the Asserted Patents since at least the filings of 

this Complaint.

102. Defendant has been on notice of its infringement since at least the filing of this 

Complaint.

103. Further and in the alternative, Defendant has been actively inducing infringement 

of at least claim 10 of the ’224 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused 

Products directly infringed at least claim 10 of the ’224 Patent when they used the Accused 

Products in the ordinary, customary, and intended way. Defendant’s inducements included, 

without limitation and with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing 

consumers to use the Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and 

intended way by, directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers 

within the United States and instructing and encouraging such consumers (for example, via 

distributing the Accused Products to mobile phones through app stores and instructing users to use 

the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary, customary, and intended 

way, which Defendant knows or should know infringes at least claim 10 of the ’224 Patent. 

Defendant's inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific intent to 

encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing customers to use the Accused Products within 

the United States, or knowingly inducing customers to use the Accused Products within the United 

States, by, directly or through intermediaries, instructing and encouraging such customers to make, 

use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, which Defendant knows or 

should know infringes at least claim 10 of the ’224 Patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 25
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 26

104. Defendant knew or should have known of the ’224 Patent but was willfully blind 

to the existence of the ’224 Patent. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ’224 Patent since 

at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint. By the time of the trial of this case, 

Defendant will have known and intended that its continued actions since receiving such notice 

would infringe and actively induce and contribute to the infringement of one or more claims of the 

’224 Patent. Defendant's infringement of the ’224 Patent has been willful and deliberate.

105. As detailed below, the ordering application and location-tracking functionality 

through the mobile application provided by Defendant is claimed to infringe the ’224 Patent.

106. Defendant provides, through its mobile application, a system for locating electronic 

devices, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more data stores coupled to the 

one or more processors having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or 

more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform the operations detailed below.

107. Defendant provides, over one or more wireless channels (e.g., over a cellular, WiFi, 

and/or Bluetooth network connection), a venue-specific application to each of a plurality of mobile 

electronic devices, as exemplified above.

108. Defendant receives, from each of the plurality of mobile electronic devices, location 

information through the venue specific application of each respective mobile electronic device. 

Defendant receives location information of each mobile computing device (e.g., a smartphone or 

tablet) through, for example, as exemplified above.

109. Defendant also tracks the location of the smartphone or tablet (and, by extension, 

the user) to, among other things, find local stores and products and determine when a mobile device 

is in the vicinity of the store, as discussed above.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 26
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 27

110. Defendant determines locations of each of the plurality of mobile electronic devices 

based on the location information above. Based on the location information provided, Defendant

determines the location of the smartphone or tablet, as detailed above.

111. Defendant receives, over the one or more wireless channels, second location 

information from each of the mobile electronic devices (e.g., a smartphone or tablet), as detailed 

above.

112. For example, Defendant also tracks the location of the smartphone or tablet (and, 

by extension, the user) to, among other things, determine when a mobile device is in the proximity 

of the store, as exemplified above.

113. Defendant determines, by the one or more processors, an updated location of each 

of the mobile computing devices based on the second location information. Defendant determines 

updated locations of the smartphone or tablet at multiple points after receiving the updated location 

data at a second time, including as the device approaches the site, as detailed above.

114. Defendant receives from a particular one of the mobile computing device, order 

information for a venue associated with the venue-specific application. Defendant receives order 

information through the venue-specific application, as exemplified above.

115. Defendant, in response to receiving the order information, sends to a computing 

system associated with the venue, for display in a graphical user interface, data indicating the 

updated location of the particular one of the plurality of mobile electronic devices.

116. As detailed above, Defendant also tracks the location of the smartphone or tablet 

(and, by extension, the user) to, among other things, to, among other things, to determine when a 

mobile device is in the proximity of the store, as exemplified above.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 27
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 28

117. On information and belief, letting Defendant know that functionality is 

accomplished via sending to a computing system associated with the venue, for display in a 

graphical user interface, data indicating the updated location of the particular one of the plurality 

of mobile electronic devices. 

VII. DAMAGES

118. The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if 

fully set forth herein.

119. For the above-described infringement, Tiare has been injured and seeks damages 

to adequately compensate it for Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents. Such damages, 

to be proved at trial, should be no less than the amount of a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 284, together with Tiare’s costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and 

supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict or post-judgment infringement, with an 

accounting as needed.

120. As set forth above, Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents has been 

willful, such that Tiare seeks treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as appropriate.

121. Defendant’s willful infringement of the Asserted Patents renders this case 

exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, such that Tiare seeks all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in this litigation, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon.

122. Tiare is entitled to pre-suit damages for infringement of each of the Asserted Patents 

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 286, and/or 287, including for infringing acts occurring from six years 

prior to the filing of this Complaint through September 19, 2023.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Tiare respectfully requests the following relief:

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 28
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 29

a. A judgment in favor of Tiare that Defendant has infringed each Asserted Patent, 

whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that such infringement is willful as 

described herein; 

b. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Tiare its damages, costs, 

expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of each 

Asserted Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any 

continuing post-verdict or post-judgment infringement with an accounting as needed; and 

c. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Tiare enhanced damages for 

willful infringement as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

d. A judgement and order enjoining Defendant from infringing upon the Asserted 

Patents;

e. A judgment and order finding this case exceptional and requiring Defendant to pay 

Tiare its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this litigation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, 

together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon; and 

f. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

IX. JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Tiare requests a jury trial of all issues 

triable of right by a jury.

Dated: September 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ William E. Davis, III 

William E. Davis, III

Texas State Bar No. 24047416 

bdavis@davisfirm.com 

Christian J. Hurt

Texas State Bar No. 24059987 

churt@davisfirm.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 29
Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Page 30

The Davis Firm, PC

213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230

Longview, Texas 75601

Telephone: (903) 230-9090

Facsimile: (903) 230-9661

Counsel for Tiare Technology, Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00417-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 30