Analytical Technologies v. McDonald’s: Mobile App Patent Dispute at Texas Eastern District Court
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Analytical Technologies, LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation |
| Case Number | 2:23-cv-00405 |
| Court | Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Sep 2023 – Mar 2024 6 months |
| Outcome | Confidential Settlement |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | McDonald’s™ mobile app |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focusing on IP monetization, asserting both design and utility patents against commercially deployed technology products.
🛡️ Defendant
A global quick-service restaurant chain whose mobile application is a cornerstone of its digital ordering, loyalty rewards, and customer engagement strategy.
Patents at Issue
This dispute involves two distinct patents — a design patent and a utility patent — creating a multi-layered infringement claim against McDonald’s mobile application technology.
- • USD0395884S — A U.S. design patent covering ornamental features, likely pertaining to a graphical user interface (GUI) or visual display element associated with mobile or computing applications.
- • US6779196B1 — A U.S. utility patent covering functional technology, the specific claims of which relate to application-level processes potentially encompassing mobile ordering, data management, or user interaction workflows.
Developing a new mobile app?
Check if your mobile application’s UI/UX or functional architecture might infringe existing patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case record reflects an open outcome status with a closed date of March 11, 2024. No verdict, damages award, or formal basis of termination was recorded in the available data. This pattern is highly consistent with a confidential settlement agreement, wherein both parties agree to resolve the dispute without public disclosure of financial terms or licensing arrangements.
Key Legal Issues
The sole cause of action on record is patent infringement. With both a design patent (USD0395884S) and a utility patent (US6779196B1) asserted against the McDonald’s mobile app, plaintiff’s litigation theory likely pursued parallel tracks. Design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 could target profits from specific app components. Utility patent claims required construction against the app’s technical architecture, potentially facing eligibility challenges under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International due to the patent’s earlier filing date.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in mobile app development. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Mobile App Patent Landscape
Learn about related patents and common assertion strategies in the mobile app space.
- Identify key patents in mobile UI/UX and functional processes
- Analyze competitive patent portfolios in digital ordering
- Understand claim construction patterns for software patents
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your mobile application or digital product.
- Input your app description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking design and utility patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Mobile app GUI elements & ordering workflows
Dual Patent Assertions
Design & utility patent risk
Early Action
Key to mitigating risk
✅ Key Takeaways
Dual design/utility patent assertions broaden infringement theories and increase settlement pressure against high-revenue digital products.
Search related case law →Eastern District of Texas remains a strategically viable plaintiff venue for mobile technology assertions, despite rapid resolution in this instance.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved design patent USD0395884S (Application No. US29/076710) and utility patent US6779196B1 (Application No. US09/135504), both asserted against the McDonald’s™ mobile app.
The case closed on March 11, 2024, with no public verdict or disclosed basis of termination, consistent with a confidential settlement. Specific terms were not made public.
It reinforces the viability of combined design and utility patent assertions against consumer mobile applications and highlights the importance of early invalidity and eligibility challenges for defendant companies.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case 2:23-cv-00405)
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (for USD0395884S, US6779196B1)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 289
- Oyez — Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
- Docket Navigator — Mobile App Patent Litigation Trends
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.