1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00090-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.’S 

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS 

TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant” or “LCE”) files this Answer, Affirmative 

Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiff Analytical Technologies, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “AT”) 

Complaint filed on February 9, 2024 (Dkt. No. 1) (“Complaint”). LCE denies the allegations and 

characterizations in Plaintiff’s Complaint unless expressly admitted in the following paragraphs. 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. LCE admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for patent 

infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. LCE denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

THE PARTIES 

2. LCE is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 76
2 

3. LCE admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Michigan, that it has a principal place of business at 2211 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, 

Michigan, and that it may be served via its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan 

St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136. LCE admits that its franchisees do business in the Eastern 

District of Texas but denies that LCE directly does business in this District. LCE denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

JURISDICTION 

4. LCE admits this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because Plaintiff has alleged infringement of a patent, but LCE 

denies it has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any 

relief. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

5. LCE does not contest whether personal jurisdiction over it properly lies in this 

District in this action, or that it conducts business in the State of Texas. LCE denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

6. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 

7. LCE denies that it maintains a corporate presence in this District. LCE denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

8. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

9. LCE admits that franchisees own, maintain, and/or operate restaurants in the United 

States, Texas, and in this District. LCE denies that it owns, maintains, and/or operates restaurants 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 77
3 

in this District. LCE denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., 

within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

10. LCE denies that it owns property in this District or in Texas. LCE denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

11. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

VENUE 

12. LCE denies that venue is proper in this District in this action. LCE denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 

THE PATENT IN SUIT 

13. LCE admits that a purported copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 (the “’083 Patent”) 

is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1, and that the face of the purported ’083 Patent indicates 

that it is entitled “System and Method for Managing Restaurant Customer Data Elements.” LCE 

denies that the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on August 5, 2015, but admits that it 

indicates that the ’083 Patent issued on August 5, 2014. LCE denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 

14. LCE is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. 

15. LCE is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. 

16. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 78
4 

Overview of the Technology 

17. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 

18. LCE admits that the ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith. LCE is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and on that basis, 

denies them. 

19. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 

20. LCE admits the ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations 

inconsistent therewith. LCE is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis, denies them. 

The [Allegedly] Patented Invention 

21. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

22. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 

23. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 

24. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 

25. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 79
5 

26. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 

27. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

28. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 

The Claims are [Allegedly] Directed to Patentable Subject Matter 

29. The ’083 Patent speaks for itself, but LCE denies any characterizations inconsistent 

therewith. LCE denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

The Claims are [Allegedly] Directed to Solving an Existing Problem With Restaurant 

Ordering Systems 

30. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 

31. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 

The Claims are [Allegedly] not Directed to an Abstract Idea or Law of Nature 

32. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

33. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

The Claims [Allegedly] do not Preempt Their Field 

34. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

35. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 

The Claimed Method [Allegedly] Could not be Performed Mentally or by Hand 

36. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 80
6 

DEFENDANT’S SYSTEM AND SERVICES 

37. LCE admits that it owns the LITTLE CAESAR’S restaurant brand. LCE denies it 

has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or 

in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 37 of the 

Complaint. 

38. LCE admits that it offers a mobile app through which customers can use their 

mobile phones to place and pay for orders. LCE denies it has committed and/or is committing acts 

of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies 

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 

39. LCE admits that it offers a mobile app through which customers can place orders 

and pay for products. LCE denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in 

the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 

40. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ’083 Patent) 

41. LCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40 herein by reference. 

42. LCE admits that patents are presumed to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282, but denies 

that the ’083 is valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. LCE denies any remaining allegations 

in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 

43. LCE is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and on that basis, denies them. 

44. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 81
7 

45. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 

46. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 

47. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 

48. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

([Alleged] Indirect Infringement of the ’083 Patent) 

49. LCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 48 herein by reference. 

50. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 

51. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 

52. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 

53. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 

54. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 

55. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 

56. LCE denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 

[PLAINTIFF’S] PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

To the extent that a response is required to Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, LCE denies that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any judgement against LCE and/or and order granting relief in any of the 

forms requested in parts (A)–(G). 

[PLAINTIFF’S] DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff’s Jury Demand does not contain any allegations and therefore does not require a 

response. To the extent a response is required, LCE denies those allegations. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 82
8 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

LCE’s Affirmative Defenses are listed below. LCE reserves the right to amend its answer 

to add additional Affirmative Defenses consistent with the facts discovered in this action. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

LCE has not infringed and does not infringe, under any theory of infringement (including 

directly (whether individually or jointly) or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)), 

any valid, enforceable claim of the ’083 Patent. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Each asserted claim of the ’083 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or more of 

the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 

101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiff and any predecessors in interest of the ’083 Patent failed to 

properly mark any of their relevant products or materials as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, or 

otherwise give proper notice that LCE’s actions allegedly infringe the ’083 Patent, LCE is not 

liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to have been performed before it received actual notice that 

it was allegedly infringing the ’083 Patent. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that LCE indirectly infringes, either by contributory 

infringement or inducement of infringement, LCE is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to 

have been performed before LCE knew that its actions would cause indirect infringement. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 83
9 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The claims of the ’083 Patent are not entitled to a scope sufficient to encompass any system 

employed or process practiced by LCE. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, among 

other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that LCE makes, uses, or sells each 

claimed element of any asserted claim, or that LCE directs or controls another entity to make, use, 

or sell any element that is not made, used, or sold by LCE. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it alleges a claim for indirect infringement (whether 

by inducement or contributorily), Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the 

’083 Patent does not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, among 

other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that any method or system employed by 

or process practiced by LCE includes: (1) “receiving at least one request of at least one service 

related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone,”; (2) “uploading, by a system of a restaurant, a 

bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and”; (3) “performing a self-checkout by a at 

least one customer whereby payment for the at least one service is submitted by the at least one 

customer via the mobile phone to the system”; and/or (4) “wherein the payment is submitted 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 84
10 

without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant,” as required by at least Claim 1 of the 

’083 Patent. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it alleges a claim for willful infringement, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

LCE’S COUNTERCLAIMS 

For its counterclaims against Counterclaim Defendant Analytical Technologies, LLC 

(“AT”), Counterclaim Plaintiff Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (“LCE”) alleges as follows: 

1. Counterclaim Plaintiff LCE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws 

of the State of Michigan and has a principal place of business at 2211 Woodward Avenues, Detroit, 

Michigan. 

2. Upon information and belief based solely on Paragraph 2 of the Complaint as pled 

by Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant AT is a limited liability company organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Wyoming and maintains its principal place of business at 1712 

Pioneer Ave Suite 500, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. 

JURISDICTION 

3. LCE incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–2 above. 

4. These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, 

United States Code. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, and 2201–02. 

5. AT has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court at least by commencing 

its action for patent infringement in this District, as set forth in its Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 85
11 

6. Based solely on AT’s filing of this action, venue is proper, though not necessarily 

convenient, in this District pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. 

COUNT I: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT 

7. LCE incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–6 above. 

8. Based on AT’s filing of this action and at least LCE’s First Affirmative Defense, 

an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether LCE infringes 

U.S. Patent No. 8,799,083 (the “’083 Patent”). 

9. LCE does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’083 Patent because, among other 

things, it does not make, use, or sell any method or system that includes: (1) “receiving at least one 

request of at least one service related to a restaurant menu from a mobile phone,”; (2) “uploading, 

by a system of a restaurant, a bill for the at least one service to the mobile phone; and”; (3) 

“performing a self-checkout by a at least one customer whereby payment for the at least one service 

is submitted by the at least one customer via the mobile phone to the system”; and/or (4) “wherein 

the payment is submitted without interaction with staff associated with the restaurant,” as required 

by at least Claim 1 of the ’083 Patent. 

10. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., LCE 

requests a declaration by the Court that LCE has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of 

the ’083 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly) or indirectly 

(whether contributorily or by inducement)). 

COUNT II: DECLARATION REGARDING INVALIDITY 

11. LCE incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–10 above. 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 86
12 

12. Based on AT’s filing of this action and at least LCE’s Second Affirmative Defense, 

an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of the claims 

of the ’083 Patent. 

13. The asserted claims of the ’083 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by, 

inter alia, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,129,319; 7,234,640; 5,969,968; 6,425,524; 6,741,969; and U.S. 

Patent Application Publication Nos. 2015/0039450 and 2004/0215517. LCE reserves the right to 

assert additional prior art and/or other invalidity defenses against the ’083 Patent in accordance 

with the Court’s Local Patent Rules. 

14. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., LCE 

requests a declaration by the Court that claims of the ’083 Patent are invalid for failure to comply 

with one or more of the requirements of United States Code, Title 35, including without limitation, 

35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, LCE asks this Court to enter judgment in LCE’s favor and against AT by 

granting the following relief: 

a) a declaration that the ’083 Patent is invalid; 

b) a declaration that LCE does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim of the 

’083 Patent that may be enforceable; 

c) a declaration that AT take nothing by its Complaint; 

d) judgment against AT and in favor of LCE; 

e) dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice; 

f) a finding that this action is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award 

to LCE of its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 87
13 

g) further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

LCE hereby demands trial by jury on all issues.

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 88
14 

Dated: March 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Neil J. McNabnay ___ 

Neil J. McNabnay 

Texas Bar No. 24002583 

Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Texas Bar No. 24082704 

Aaron P. Pirouznia 

Texas Bar No. 24098958 

Alexander H. Martin 

Texas Bar No. 24091828 

mcnabnay@fr.com 

rbonilla@fr.com 

pirouznia@fr.com 

chakkalakal@fr.com 

patel@fr.com 

martin@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 747-5070 (Telephone) 

(214) 747-2091 (Facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC. 

 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 89
15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy has been electronically filed using the CM/ECF 

filing system on March 4, 2024, which automatically sends email notifications to all counsel of 

record and which will permit viewing and downloading of same from the CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Neil J. McNabnay 

 Neil J. McNabnay 

Case 2:24-cv-00090-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 03/04/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 90