Analytical Technologies v. Five Guys Properties: Dismissed With Prejudice After 205 Days
Analytical Technologies, LLC asserted US8799083B1 — a patent covering a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements — against Five Guys Properties, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after 205 days, with each side bearing its own costs, suggesting a confidential resolution was reached.
A restaurant-data patent assertion ends in a bilateral close-out
Analytical Technologies, LLC filed suit against Five Guys Properties, LLC on May 1, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00307), asserting infringement of US8799083B1. The patent covers a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements — technology with direct relevance to loyalty programs, order management, and customer relationship infrastructure used in quick-service and fast-casual restaurant chains.
On November 22, 2024 — 205 days after filing — the court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. All claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-litigation of the same claims. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, a term that typically signals a negotiated exit rather than a one-sided capitulation.
The 205-day resolution is relatively swift for an E.D. Texas patent case, suggesting the parties may have reached a settlement or licensing agreement before significant litigation costs accumulated. The court’s order also notes that a lead case (No. 2:24-cv-00445) remains open, indicating this action was one member case within a broader, multi-defendant campaign. The financial terms of any underlying resolution remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 205 days
205 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice permanently closes the claim
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-file the same claims against the same defendant. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Analytical Technologies cannot reassert US8799083B1 against Five Guys Properties on the same infringement theory in any future action.
No re-filing permittedWith-prejudice dismissal signals a likely negotiated exit for the patentee
Plaintiffs rarely agree to with-prejudice dismissal without receiving something in return — whether a licensing fee, a covenant not to sue on related IP, or a commercial arrangement. The ‘each party bears own costs’ term is consistent with a structured settlement. Analytical Technologies retains US8799083B1 for use against other defendants, and the lead case (No. 2:24-cv-00445) reportedly remains open.
Lead case still activeFive Guys Properties exits with full finality — no future exposure on this claim
The with-prejudice dismissal provides Five Guys Properties with a clean exit from this specific action. The defendant faces no ongoing royalty obligation visible from the public record, and no judgment or damages award was entered. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement avoids the reputational and financial exposure of a contested fee motion. Any licensing terms, however, remain confidential.
Full finality achievedRestaurant-sector patent assertions: swift resolution as industry norm
This case is consistent with a pattern of targeted patent assertions against restaurant chains over customer data and loyalty-platform technologies. Quick resolutions — often within 12 months — suggest defendants in this sector frequently elect early settlement over protracted litigation. Companies operating customer data management, loyalty, or CRM infrastructure in the restaurant vertical should assess exposure to US8799083B1 and related continuation patents.
Monitor for continuationsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Analytical Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8799083B1 covering restaurant customer data systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Five Guys Properties, LLC | Company | Five Guys Properties, LLC — franchisor entity associated with the Five Guys restaurant chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob S. Wharton | Attorney | Counsel for Five Guys Properties, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Five Guys Properties, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the parties’ joint motion without independent merits analysis, reflecting a purely consensual dismissal. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it forecloses any future filing of the same claims by Analytical Technologies against Five Guys Properties. The explicit preservation of lead case No. 2:24-cv-00445 as ‘MAINTAIN AS OPEN’ confirms this member case was one node in a broader assertion strategy, and that the broader campaign continues.
US8799083B1 — System and Method for Managing Restaurant Customer Data
US8799083B1 (application No. US13/534195) covers a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements. The patent sits at the intersection of customer relationship management, loyalty platform architecture, and point-of-sale data integration — all core infrastructure for modern quick-service and fast-casual restaurant operations. Its grant as a utility patent with a B1 designation indicates it issued without a pre-grant publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined prosecution history.
For restaurant chains investing in digital ordering, loyalty programmes, and first-party customer data infrastructure, this patent represents a credible assertion vector. The breadth of ‘customer data elements’ language may capture common implementations of CRM, loyalty tier management, and customer profile databases. With a lead case still active in E.D. Texas, any technology vendor or operator building on similar data architecture should assess their FTO posture against this patent and its related family.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8799083B1?
If your organisation develops, deploys, or licenses restaurant customer data management systems — including loyalty platforms, CRM integrations, or order-history analytics tools — US8799083B1 warrants direct FTO attention. The Eastern District of Texas filing history and the ongoing lead case suggest Analytical Technologies is actively enforcing this patent across multiple restaurant-sector defendants. Technology vendors supplying QSR or fast-casual chains are potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claims of US8799083B1, identify any continuation or divisional applications in the same family, and surface prior art that could support an IPR or invalidity argument. Running a targeted FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — is significantly less costly than responding to litigation in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8799083B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: restaurant customer data and CRM system assertions in E.D. Texas
Cases involving restaurant-sector customer data management patents in the Eastern District of Texas, including loyalty platform and point-of-sale CRM system assertions.
What this case signals for the restaurant-tech and customer-data IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice dismissal in a multi-defendant campaign is a calibrated signal — not a clean win for either side.
Multi-defendant campaigns in E.D. Texas: the lead case is the real risk barometer
The court’s order explicitly preserved lead case No. 2:24-cv-00445, indicating Analytical Technologies is running a coordinated assertion campaign. Defendants in related cases should track the lead case closely — the outcome there will shape licensing leverage and litigation risk for the entire portfolio.
Each-party-bears-own-costs is a settlement hallmark, not a plaintiff concession
When both parties in a patent case agree to mutual cost-bearing at dismissal, it typically signals a negotiated financial resolution rather than a defendant walkaway. Restaurant operators receiving demand letters tied to US8799083B1 should factor in the likelihood of a settlement-oriented plaintiff when assessing litigation vs. licence strategy.
Analytical v Five — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on November 22, 2024, approximately 205 days after filing. All claims were extinguished with no ability to refile. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The financial terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed in the public record.
Analytical Technologies asserted US8799083B1 (application No. US13/534195), which covers a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements. The patent is relevant to loyalty programmes, CRM systems, and customer data infrastructure used in the restaurant industry.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Analytical Technologies from re-filing the same infringement claims against Five Guys Properties based on US8799083B1. It is a final disposition for procedural purposes. However, it does not invalidate the patent itself — Analytical Technologies may continue asserting it against other defendants.
Yes. The court’s dismissal order explicitly directed the clerk to maintain lead case No. 2:24-cv-00445 as open. This indicates Case No. 2:24-cv-00307 was one member case in a broader multi-defendant litigation campaign, and the assertion campaign around US8799083B1 is ongoing as of the date of this dismissal.
A mutual cost-bearing arrangement in a joint dismissal with prejudice is consistent with a negotiated resolution — typically a licensing agreement or settlement payment — where neither side wishes to characterise the outcome as a win or loss. It avoids a contested fee motion and provides both parties with a clean, symmetric exit from the litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.