Book a demo
Analytical Technologies v. Toast: Patent Dismissal — Restaurant Data System | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-00174
FiledFeb 2024
ClosedJun 2024
Patent Litigation

Analytical Technologies v. Toast: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 113 Days

Analytical Technologies, LLC asserted US8799083B1 — a patent covering a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements — against Toast, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice after just 113 days, before Toast filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.

Resolution time
113days
113 days — resolved well before most district court patent cases reach claim construction
Patents asserted
1
US8799083B1 — restaurant customer data management system and method
Outcome
Voluntary dismissal
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Cost ruling
Each Party Bears Own Costs
Court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A fast exit: patent suit against Toast ends before Toast answered

On February 20, 2024, Analytical Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Toast, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:24-cv-00174) before Chief Judge Robert Pitman. The asserted patent, US8799083B1, covers a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements — a technology directly relevant to Toast’s point-of-sale and restaurant management platform.

On June 11, 2024, Analytical Technologies filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Toast had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating — no court order was required to terminate the case. The court subsequently ordered the case closed and directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

The 113-day lifecycle — from filing to dismissal — is notably short even for early-exit patent cases, suggesting the parties may have reached a private resolution or that the plaintiff reconsidered the merits before substantive engagement began. The with-prejudice designation bars Analytical Technologies from re-filing the same claims against Toast. What drove the dismissal, including any licensing discussions or invalidity concerns, is not reflected in the public docket.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-00174
DefendantToast, Inc.
CourtTexas Western
JudgeRobert Pitman
FiledFebruary 20, 2024
ClosedJune 12, 2024
Duration113 days
OutcomeVoluntary dismissal
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisVoluntary dismissal
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 113 days

113 days — resolved well before most district court patent cases reach claim construction

Case timeline: Complaint filed FEB 20 2024, APR–MAY — 113 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Analytical Technologies, LLC v Toast, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. FEB 20 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 12 2024 Voluntary dismissal 113 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating voluntary dismissal

Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Toast had taken neither step, Analytical Technologies’ notice was self-effectuating — it terminated the case instantly upon filing. The court’s subsequent order merely confirmed closure; it was not the operative act ending the litigation.

No court merits ruling required
With-prejudice effect

With prejudice: Analytical Technologies cannot refile these claims against Toast

A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Analytical Technologies is barred from asserting the same claims under US8799083B1 against Toast in future litigation. This is a materially stronger outcome for Toast than a dismissal without prejudice, which would have left re-filing risk open. The with-prejudice designation is the critical detail that distinguishes this exit from a mere procedural pause.

Permanent bar on re-filing vs. Toast
Plaintiff outcome

Plaintiff forfeits its infringement claim — permanently as to Toast

By electing a with-prejudice dismissal, Analytical Technologies permanently relinquished its right to pursue Toast for infringement of US8799083B1. The cost-sharing order means the plaintiff also recovers no fees. Whether a private settlement was reached before the dismissal — which would not appear in the public docket — cannot be confirmed from available records. Publicly, however, this registers as a full exit with no demonstrated recovery.

No public recovery; re-filing barred
Commercial implications

Toast cleared on this patent — but US8799083B1 remains enforceable against others

The dismissal resolves only the dispute between these specific parties. US8799083B1 remains a granted patent and can be asserted against other restaurant technology operators, POS vendors, or data analytics providers whose products may read on its claims. Competitors operating in adjacent spaces — customer data management, loyalty programs, CRM integrations for hospitality — should note that the patent’s enforceability is uncontested and intact.

Patent survives; other defendants at risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-00174 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAnalytical Technologies, LLCCompanyPatent assertion entity — holder of US8799083B1, restaurant customer data systemSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantToast, Inc.CompanyToast, Inc. — cloud-based restaurant technology and point-of-sale platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher A. HoneaAttorneyCounsel for Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselM. Scott FullerAttorneyCounsel for Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRandall T. GarteiserAttorneyCounsel for Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGarteiser Honea PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselHailey L. SuggsAttorneyCounsel for Toast, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew C. PowersAttorneyCounsel for Toast, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGraves Dougherty Hearon & Moody PCLaw FirmRepresenting Toast, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Robert PitmanJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 9). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015). As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-00174, Texas Western District Court

The court’s order confirms that Analytical Technologies filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and that because Toast had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating — requiring no court action to take effect. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it converts the voluntary exit into a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion, permanently barring Analytical Technologies from reasserting US8799083B1 against Toast. The accompanying cost order — each party bearing its own fees and expenses — reflects the absence of any prevailing party determination.

PACER case 1:24-cv-00174 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US8799083B1 — System and Method for Managing Restaurant Customer Data

Publication No.US8799083B1
Application No.US13/534195
Patent details
ProductRestaurant customer data management system and method
Cited in actionFebruary 20, 2024

US8799083B1 (application number US13/534195) is a granted US patent covering a system and method for managing restaurant customer data elements. The patent sits at the intersection of hospitality operations technology and customer data analytics — addressing how restaurants collect, organise, and utilise customer information within a managed platform environment. Its grant as a B1 patent indicates it issued without post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims were accepted in substantially their originally filed form.

For the restaurant technology sector, this patent is strategically relevant given the rapid growth of cloud-based POS and CRM platforms — precisely the market Toast operates in. Any product that systematically captures and manages customer-level data for restaurant operators may fall within the scope of its claims. The fact that Analytical Technologies chose Toast — a leading restaurant management platform — as its first named defendant suggests a deliberate targeting of the most commercially prominent operator in this space, and the patent may be used in future actions against comparable platforms.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your restaurant tech product run an FTO against US8799083B1?

Any company developing or commercialising systems that manage restaurant customer data — including POS-integrated CRM, loyalty and rewards platforms, guest data analytics tools, or reservation and feedback management systems — should treat US8799083B1 as a live enforcement risk. The patent remains valid and enforceable following this dismissal. The fact that it was asserted against Toast, one of the largest restaurant technology platforms globally, confirms the patent holder’s willingness to pursue well-resourced defendants in this space.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map their restaurant customer data management architecture against the claim language of US8799083B1 in minutes. Run a structured claim-by-claim analysis, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag design-around opportunities before your next product release. For companies operating in the hospitality technology sector, a targeted FTO on this patent is a proportionate and advisable risk management step.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8799083B1 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar patent cases: restaurant technology and customer data management systems

Cases involving restaurant customer data and POS system patents in the Western District of Texas, including related Garteiser Honea PLLC filings and comparable PAE enforcement actions.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Analytical Technologies, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Analytical Technologies, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Related restaurant tech patentsW.D. Tex. PAE dismissal casesToast prior litigation historyCustomer data system patent suits
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the restaurant technology IP landscape

A fast, with-prejudice exit before any substantive response from Toast raises questions that matter beyond this single docket.

With-prejudice exits this early often signal off-docket resolution

When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, the most commercially rational explanation is typically a private settlement or licensing arrangement. No financial terms are visible in the public record, but the speed and finality of the exit — 113 days, no court filings beyond the complaint — is consistent with a negotiated outcome rather than a unilateral concession.

US8799083B1 remains a live enforcement risk for the restaurant tech sector

The dismissal does not invalidate or limit the patent. Any company operating a system for collecting, managing, or analysing restaurant customer data elements — including loyalty platforms, POS-integrated CRM tools, or third-party data aggregators — should assess whether their product architecture reads on the claims of US8799083B1. The patent holder retains full enforcement rights against all other parties.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis of PAE enforcement patterns in restaurant technology at the Western District of Texas district court level.
Toast’s litigation postureGarteiser Honea filing trendsPAE risk in restaurant tech
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Analytical v Toast — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor restaurant technology patent enforcement before it reaches your product

US8799083B1 remains enforceable against any operator managing restaurant customer data. Run an FTO analysis and set enforcement alerts in PatSnap Eureka to stay ahead of assertion risk in the hospitality technology sector.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.