Fall Line Patents v. Wendy’s International: Dismissed With Prejudice After 328 Days
Fall Line Patents, LLC asserted US9454748B2 — covering location-specific mobile questionnaire technology — against Wendy’s International and Quality Is Our Recipe, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, closing the case in 328 days with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees.
PAE targets Wendy’s mobile ordering app in East Texas infringement action
On October 13, 2023, Fall Line Patents, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against Wendy’s International, LLC and its operating subsidiary Quality Is Our Recipe, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:23-cv-00120), before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The sole asserted patent, US9454748B2 (application no. 12/910706), covers technology for creating and executing location-specific questionnaires to collect user responses via mobile devices in conjunction with remote servers — functionality Fall Line contended was embodied in the Wendy’s consumer mobile app.
The case closed on September 5, 2024, when the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Wendy’s Only (Docket No. 127). All claims and counterclaims between Fall Line Patents and the Wendy’s defendants were dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither party may relitigate the same claims in federal court. The order further specified that each party would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, consistent with the American Rule and suggesting no exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
At 328 days from filing to closure, the resolution is relatively swift for an E.D. Tex. patent matter, suggesting the parties reached a resolution — whether a licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or straightforward walkaway — before significant pretrial motion practice concluded. The public record does not disclose whether any consideration changed hands. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses future assertion of US9454748B2 against these specific Wendy’s entities by Fall Line, though the patent remains enforceable against third parties.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 328 days
328 days — resolved well under the median E.D. Tex. patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars re-litigation of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Fall Line Patents cannot reassert US9454748B2 against Wendy’s International or Quality Is Our Recipe in any future federal action. The joint motion format — both parties signing — signals a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal, which would typically require court approval or the opposing party’s consent at this stage of litigation.
Final on the meritsFall Line loses enforcement rights against Wendy’s permanently
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Fall Line Patents surrenders any future right to assert US9454748B2 against these Wendy’s entities — regardless of future app features or conduct. Unless undisclosed licensing proceeds were exchanged, Fall Line receives no ongoing royalty stream from Wendy’s. The patent itself remains valid and active, preserving Fall Line’s ability to pursue other companies operating location-specific mobile questionnaire or ordering systems.
No future claims against Wendy’sWendy’s secures permanent freedom from this patent assertion
Wendy’s International and Quality Is Our Recipe emerge with a permanent bar against Fall Line re-asserting US9454748B2. Each party bearing its own costs means Wendy’s absorbs its own legal fees but avoids any damages or royalty obligation on the public record. The swift resolution — under 11 months — suggests Alston & Bird’s defence strategy, whether through licensing negotiations or invalidity pressure, produced a commercially acceptable exit without prolonged litigation exposure.
Permanent defence securedUS9454748B2 remains a live threat for other QSR and app operators
Fall Line’s patent survives this case fully intact. Other quick-service restaurant operators, food delivery platforms, and mobile commerce companies deploying location-aware survey or ordering questionnaires face the same assertion risk. The E.D. Tex. filing, combined with Fall Line’s PAE structure, is consistent with a portfolio monetisation strategy that likely extends well beyond this single defendant. Companies in the mobile app and QSR tech space should assess their exposure independently of this outcome.
Patent still enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fall Line Patents, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9454748B2, mobile location-based questionnaire techSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wendy’s International, LLC | Company | Wendy’s International, LLC and Quality Is Our Recipe, LLC — fast-food operator and franchisee entitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Quality is Our Recipe, LLC | 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 Wendy’s International, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Donald | Attorney | Counsel for Wendy’s International, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert L. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Wendy’s International, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wendy’s International, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing Wendy’s International, LLCSearch 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 motion verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims. The dual with-prejudice standard and the mutual own-costs provision indicate a negotiated, arms-length resolution. No monetary damages, injunctions, or royalty terms appear in the public record. The absence of a contested ruling means no claim construction record or validity findings exist — leaving the scope of US9454748B2 legally unresolved for third-party defendants who may face the same patent.
US9454748B2 — Location-specific mobile questionnaire system
US9454748B2 (filed under application no. 12/910706) protects a system and method for generating and executing location-specific questionnaires via mobile devices in coordination with remote servers to collect structured user responses. The patent sits at the intersection of mobile computing, geolocation services, and dynamic form generation — a technology domain that underpins a wide range of consumer-facing mobile applications, particularly in the retail, food service, and customer experience sectors. The application date places its priority in the early smartphone era, when location-aware mobile commerce architectures were rapidly commercialising.
For the quick-service restaurant industry, location-aware mobile ordering and feedback collection has become a core customer engagement mechanism. Fall Line’s assertion against the Wendy’s app — which allegedly uses the patented architecture to serve location-specific prompts to users — signals that US9454748B2 is being actively enforced against mainstream QSR mobile platforms. Any competitor operating a mobile app with geolocation-triggered questionnaires, customisation flows, or dynamic ordering forms should treat this patent as a credible enforcement risk requiring independent evaluation.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9454748B2?
If your organisation operates a mobile application that triggers location-specific forms, surveys, questionnaires, or ordering flows in conjunction with server-side logic, US9454748B2 is directly relevant to your freedom-to-operate position. This is not limited to QSR — retail, hospitality, healthcare check-in, and event-management apps with similar architectures face comparable exposure. The fact that Fall Line resolved its Wendy’s case without a public validity ruling means the patent’s claims remain unchallenged on the merits, preserving its full enforcement force against new targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of US9454748B2 against your specific product architecture, identify relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface continuation or divisional family members that may pose additional risk. Running a targeted FTO analysis now — before demand letters arrive — is significantly more cost-effective than reactive litigation defence in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9454748B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile app patent cases in E.D. Texas and related PAE actions
Explore comparable patent assertion actions involving mobile application and location-based technology patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile app and QSR IP landscape
A PAE assertion in E.D. Tex. resolved inside a year — consistent patterns emerge for QSR tech and mobile platform operators.
E.D. Tex. PAE cases often resolve pre-trial — speed matters
This case closed in 328 days without reaching claim construction or summary judgment on the public record. For QSR and mobile platform defendants, early case assessment and rapid invalidity mapping can compress timelines and reduce total litigation cost — Alston & Bird’s efficient exit is instructive.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Wendy’s but not the broader industry
The res judicata effect shields only these named entities. Every other restaurant chain or mobile app operator using location-triggered questionnaire or ordering flows remains exposed to Fall Line’s US9454748B2. An independent FTO analysis is essential for any QSR or food-tech company with similar mobile functionality.
Fall v Wendy’s — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 5, 2024, pursuant to a joint motion by both parties. All claims and counterclaims between Fall Line Patents, LLC and the Wendy’s defendants were terminated. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No damages award or injunction appears in the public record.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Fall Line Patents cannot reassert US9454748B2 against Wendy’s International, LLC or Quality Is Our Recipe, LLC in any future federal court action arising from the same claims. The patent remains enforceable against third parties.
US9454748B2 covers systems and methods for creating and executing location-specific questionnaires via mobile devices in conjunction with remote servers to collect user responses. Fall Line alleged the Wendy’s mobile app — which serves location-aware prompts to users — practised the patented architecture. The application number is 12/910706.
The public record does not disclose any monetary consideration. The joint motion and court order are silent on licensing terms or settlement payments. The own-costs provision indicates no fee-shifting, but whether a private licensing agreement was reached outside the docket cannot be confirmed from available public documents.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal protects only the named Wendy’s entities. US9454748B2 remains valid and enforceable against all other parties. Companies operating mobile apps with location-triggered questionnaires, ordering forms, or dynamic survey flows should conduct an independent freedom-to-operate analysis. No claim construction or validity ruling was issued in this case, leaving the patent’s full scope intact.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.