Fall Line Patents v. Panera Bread: Dismissed With Prejudice After 209 Days
Fall Line Patents, LLC asserted US9454748B2 — a system and method for data management — against Panera Bread in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice after 209 days, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Patent troll targets Panera’s data platform — ends in joint dismissal
On October 13, 2023, Fall Line Patents, LLC — a non-practising entity holding US9454748B2 covering a system and method for data management — filed suit against Panera, LLC and Panera Bread Company in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The asserted patent, filed under application number US12/910706, relates to digital data management systems of the kind broadly relevant to restaurant ordering and operational platforms.
The case closed on May 9, 2024, when the court granted a joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Fall Line Patents is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Panera on this patent. Costs and attorneys’ fees were not shifted — each party absorbs its own litigation expenses, a common outcome in agreed dismissals and consistent with no exceptional-case finding.
At 209 days, the case resolved relatively quickly for E.D. Texas patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely reached a confidential settlement or licensing agreement — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The joint nature of the motion and the symmetrical cost allocation both point toward a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation by either side. The underlying patent’s breadth and Fall Line’s litigation posture as an NPE may have shaped Panera’s calculus on the cost of continued defence versus resolution.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 209 days
209 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent infringement cases reaching final disposition
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice ends the dispute permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Fall Line Patents cannot refile this action or reassert US9454748B2 against Panera on the same claims. The joint nature of the motion — signed by both parties — indicates mutual agreement, distinguishing it from a court-ordered dismissal following a contested hearing.
Permanent bar on re-filingFall Line gives up its claims — but likely extracted value
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Fall Line Patents permanently relinquishes its infringement claims against Panera on US9454748B2. NPEs rarely accept this outcome without some form of consideration — typically a licensing fee or lump-sum payment under a confidential agreement. The public record does not confirm any payment, but the symmetric cost allocation and joint filing are consistent with a negotiated exit rather than unilateral surrender.
Likely confidential resolutionPanera secures permanent protection from this claim
Panera Bread exits with a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest procedural protection available short of a full invalidity ruling. Even if Fall Line Patents continues to assert US9454748B2 against other defendants, it cannot return to court against Panera on these specific claims. The absence of a fee award means Panera did not achieve an ‘exceptional case’ finding, but it also avoided the risk and cost of full trial proceedings.
Claim-proof against Fall Line on US9454748B2Data management patents remain a live risk for restaurant tech
US9454748B2 remains in force and Fall Line Patents can continue asserting it against other companies operating digital ordering, data management, or platform-based systems in the restaurant and hospitality sector. Companies deploying similar data management infrastructure should note that the patent survived this litigation without any validity challenge reaching a final ruling — its enforceability is unchanged against third parties.
Patent still enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fall Line Patents, LLC | Company | Non-practising entity (NPE) — holder of US9454748B2 covering data management systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Panera Bread | Individual | Panera Bread Company — national fast-casual restaurant chain operating digital ordering platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Panera Bread Company | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Larry Dean Thompson , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew J. Antonelli | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rehan Mohammed Safiullah | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachariah Harrington | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carter Babaz | Attorney | Counsel for Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Donald | Attorney | Counsel for Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert L. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint framing verbatim, granting dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The symmetrical cost allocation — each party bearing its own fees — indicates no exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and no fee-shifting sanction. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future action by Fall Line Patents against Panera on these specific claims, but leaves the patent’s validity and enforceability against all other parties entirely intact.
US9454748B2 — System and Method for Data Management
US9454748B2, filed under application number US12/910706, protects a system and method for data management. The patent sits within the digital data platform technology domain — broadly covering the architecture and processes by which data is captured, managed, and utilised across networked systems. Its claim scope is relevant to companies operating digital ordering systems, customer data platforms, and integrated operational management tools of the kind widely deployed in the restaurant and hospitality sector.
For food-service operators and restaurant technology vendors, US9454748B2 represents a credible assertion risk precisely because its data management claims can be read against a wide range of digital ordering, loyalty, and back-end operational platforms. Fall Line Patents retains full enforcement rights — this litigation concluded without any validity ruling, claim construction order, or IPR decision narrowing the patent. Any company deploying a system that captures and manages customer or operational data in a restaurant or similar context should evaluate its exposure to this patent’s claims.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9454748B2?
If your company operates, sells, or integrates a data management system in the restaurant, hospitality, retail, or digital ordering space, US9454748B2 warrants a dedicated freedom-to-operate review. The patent survived this litigation without being challenged on validity, and Fall Line Patents has demonstrated willingness to litigate in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue with real cost implications for defendants. Product teams deploying customer data platforms, order management systems, or integrated digital infrastructure should assess claim overlap before scaling deployment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of US9454748B2 against their product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark Fall Line’s broader assertion history. Rather than relying on manual searches, Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, litigation co-pendency, and claim construction signals in a single workflow — reducing the time and cost of a preliminary FTO assessment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9454748B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar data management patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving NPE assertions of data management and digital platform patents in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable Fall Line Patents filings.
What this case signals for the restaurant tech IP landscape
NPE assertions targeting digital ordering and data management platforms are a growing litigation risk for food-service and hospitality operators.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for NPE data management assertions
Fall Line Patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas — a venue historically favoured by NPEs for its plaintiff-friendly scheduling and jury demographics. Restaurant and hospitality technology companies operating digital platforms should treat E.D. Texas filings as a baseline litigation risk when auditing their data management system IP exposure.
With-prejudice joint dismissals typically signal a confidential licence
When an NPE agrees to dismiss with prejudice and both sides bear their own costs, the most commercially rational explanation is a licensing payment or settlement under NDA. Companies benchmarking NPE resolution costs in the restaurant tech space should weight this case as consistent with a paid exit, even though no financial terms are disclosed in the public record.
Fall v Panera — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on May 9, 2024, after 209 days of litigation. The court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, ordering all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Fall Line Patents cannot reassert the same claims against Panera on US9454748B2.
Fall Line Patents asserted US9454748B2, filed under application number US12/910706. The patent covers a system and method for data management — a digital platform technology broadly applicable to networked data capture and management systems of the type used in restaurant ordering and operational platforms.
A dismissal with prejudice means Panera is permanently protected from Fall Line Patents reasserting these specific claims against it on US9454748B2. However, no invalidity ruling was issued — the patent remains valid and enforceable against all other parties. The joint nature of the motion and symmetric cost allocation suggest a negotiated resolution rather than a clear litigation win for either side.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to the claims between Fall Line Patents and Panera Bread. US9454748B2 was never ruled invalid or unenforceable in this proceeding. Fall Line Patents retains full rights to assert the patent against any other company whose products or services fall within the claim scope, including other restaurant operators, hospitality technology vendors, and data platform providers.
At 209 days, the case resolved relatively quickly. The public record does not disclose financial terms, but the joint filing of a with-prejudice dismissal — combined with symmetric cost allocation — is consistent with a confidential licensing payment or settlement. NPEs like Fall Line Patents often have commercial incentives to resolve cases before expensive claim construction or trial proceedings, particularly when defendants retain capable defence counsel such as Fish & Richardson and Alston & Bird.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.