First Novo v. Tabletop Media: Seven-Patent Ziosk Infringement Suit Dismissed
First Novo, LLC filed suit against Tabletop Media, LLC in the Northern District of Georgia, asserting seven patents covering wireless order entry and real-time payment authorization — the core technology behind Tabletop’s Ziosk system. Judge Mark H. Cohen granted Tabletop Media’s motion to dismiss without prejudice after 233 days, leaving First Novo’s infringement claims unresolved on the merits.
Seven-Patent Ziosk Suit Ends at Pleading Stage in N.D. Georgia
On October 1, 2024, First Novo, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Tabletop Media, LLC, the company behind the Ziosk tabletop tablet system widely deployed in casual dining restaurants. First Novo asserted seven U.S. patents — US10592881B2, US7721969B2, US10579978B2, US2648523A, US8490878B2, US8011587B2, and US8356754B2 — all alleged to cover aspects of wireless order entry and real-time payment authorization as embodied in the Ziosk platform.
Before reaching any substantive merits, Tabletop Media moved to dismiss First Novo’s complaint. Judge Mark H. Cohen granted that motion on May 22, 2025, ordering the complaint dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying patent claims on their merits; it means First Novo retains the ability to refile a corrected or supplemented complaint, provided it cures the deficiencies identified by the court. Tabletop Media secured a full dismissal of all seven patent counts at the pleading stage.
The 233-day case duration — from filing to dismissal — is consistent with a complaint that failed to survive the pleading threshold rather than one decided after claim construction or summary judgment. The public record does not disclose which specific pleading deficiencies drove the dismissal, whether standing, patent eligibility under § 101, or insufficient factual allegations. First Novo’s next move — whether to refile with a strengthened complaint or abandon the action — remains unknown from the available record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 233 days
233 days from filing to closure — resolved at pleading stage before full merits review
Dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Motion to dismiss granted — complaint failed at the pleading stage
Judge Cohen granted Tabletop Media’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss before any answer, discovery, or claim construction. A dismissal without prejudice at this stage signals that the complaint as filed was found legally insufficient — but the underlying patents and claims are not adjudicated on their merits. The specific grounds (e.g., § 101 eligibility, standing, or insufficient factual pleading) are not publicly detailed in the available termination record.
Pleading-stage dismissalFirst Novo retains the right to refile — but faces a higher bar
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, First Novo, LLC is not permanently barred from asserting these seven patents against Tabletop Media. However, refiling requires addressing the court’s identified deficiencies. Courts scrutinise successive complaints against the same defendant more closely, and a second dismissal risks conversion to a with-prejudice ruling. First Novo must weigh the cost and risk of refiling against the commercial value of the asserted patent portfolio.
Refile right preservedTabletop Media wins dismissal but litigation risk is not fully extinguished
Tabletop Media successfully eliminated all seven patent claims at the pleading stage — avoiding costly claim construction and discovery. Its Alston & Bird and Brooks Kushman defence team secured a clean exit from this proceeding. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the Ziosk platform remains exposed to a potential refiled action. Tabletop Media should assess whether the complaint deficiencies are curable and prepare accordingly.
Risk not fully resolvedRestaurant tech payment IP remains an active enforcement frontier
The assertion of seven patents across wireless ordering and real-time payment authorisation against a widely deployed restaurant tablet platform signals continued monetisation pressure in the hospitality-tech and point-of-sale space. A without-prejudice dismissal does not clear the Ziosk IP landscape. Competitors and operators deploying similar tabletop ordering and payment systems should monitor whether First Novo refiles and what claim scope survives any amended pleading.
Sector enforcement pressureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | First Novo, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10592881B2 and 6 related wireless ordering/payment patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tabletop Media, LLC | Company | Tabletop Media, LLC — developer and operator of the Ziosk restaurant tablet ordering and payment systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brad Fallon | Attorney | Counsel for First Novo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack C. Lundstedt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for First Novo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fallon Law PC | Law Firm | Representing First Novo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | JCorbit Advisory Services Co. | Law Firm | Representing First Novo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily Chambers Welch | Attorney | Counsel for Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frank A. Angileri | Attorney | Counsel for Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Philip Rondini | Attorney | Counsel for Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicolette Nunez | Attorney | Counsel for Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas W. Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP (Atl) | Law Firm | Representing Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brooks Kushman PC | Law Firm | Representing Tabletop Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mark H. Cohen | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is precise in its scope: Tabletop Media’s motion to dismiss is granted and First Novo’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant — it forecloses no future action and leaves the merits of all seven patent claims unadjudicated. For Tabletop Media, this is a full procedural victory; for First Novo, it is a setback requiring substantive pleading revision rather than a terminal bar to enforcement.
US10592881B2 and six further patents — wireless order entry and payment tech
The asserted portfolio spans seven U.S. patents — US10592881B2, US7721969B2, US10579978B2, US2648523A, US8490878B2, US8011587B2, and US8356754B2 — covering wireless order entry, real-time payment authorisation, and related transactional technologies. The application dates span across multiple years, suggesting a prosecution strategy designed to extend coverage across evolving implementations of tabletop and point-of-sale wireless payment systems. The breadth of the portfolio, with grants ranging from early-generation wireless device patents through later continuation-style claims, is consistent with a layered enforcement position.
The commercial target — Tabletop Media’s Ziosk platform — is one of the most widely deployed tabletop tablet systems in the U.S. casual dining sector, used for ordering, entertainment, and payment at restaurant tables. Asserting seven patents against a single, well-established commercial product signals that First Novo views the Ziosk system as broadly overlapping with its claimed inventions. For competitors developing similar wireless ordering and embedded payment platforms — including cloud-connected POS terminals, tableside devices, and kiosk-based payment systems — this portfolio represents a meaningful freedom-to-operate consideration, particularly given the without-prejudice dismissal leaves all claims technically alive.
Should your team run an FTO against US10592881B2 and the First Novo portfolio?
If your organisation develops, deploys, or licenses tabletop ordering systems, wireless point-of-sale devices, or real-time payment authorisation platforms — particularly in the hospitality, food service, or retail sectors — the First Novo portfolio warrants direct FTO attention. Seven patents asserting coverage over the Ziosk system’s core functionality suggest claim language broad enough to potentially implicate competing implementations. The without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement risk has not been adjudicated away.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map claim language from US10592881B2 and the six co-asserted patents against your specific product architecture. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies claim scope boundaries, and flags prosecution history estoppel that may limit enforcement reach — giving your team a structured, defensible FTO analysis before a potential refiled complaint or licensing demand lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10592881B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless ordering and payment patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving wireless order entry, tabletop payment systems, and point-of-sale technology litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the restaurant-tech and payment IP landscape
Seven patents, one dismissed complaint, and an unresolved portfolio — here is what IP professionals need to watch.
Pleading-stage victories are not permanent — monitor for refiling
A without-prejudice dismissal means First Novo’s seven-patent portfolio remains live enforcement ammunition. Tabletop Media and similarly positioned restaurant-tech operators should treat this as a pause, not a resolution. Tracking any amended complaint — and its claim scope — is essential for FTO planning across wireless ordering and payment platforms.
Seven-patent assertions signal a broad coverage strategy
Asserting seven patents across a single product system is consistent with a portfolio-based enforcement strategy designed to make design-arounds difficult and settlement more likely. Even if individual patents are narrowed or invalidated, the breadth of the portfolio creates compounding litigation cost for defendants in this sector.
First v Tabletop — key questions answered
First Novo, LLC filed a seven-patent infringement complaint against Tabletop Media, LLC in the Northern District of Georgia on October 1, 2024, targeting the Ziosk wireless ordering and payment platform. Judge Mark H. Cohen granted Tabletop Media’s motion to dismiss on May 22, 2025, dismissing the complaint without prejudice. No merits determination was made on any of the seven asserted patents.
A dismissal without prejudice means the court did not rule on whether the seven asserted patents were infringed, valid, or enforceable. First Novo retains the legal right to refile a corrected complaint asserting the same patents against Tabletop Media. However, any refiled complaint must address the pleading deficiencies that led to dismissal, and a subsequent dismissal could be with prejudice.
First Novo asserted seven U.S. patents: US10592881B2, US7721969B2, US10579978B2, US2648523A, US8490878B2, US8011587B2, and US8356754B2. All were alleged to cover aspects of the Ziosk system’s wireless order entry and real-time payment authorisation functionality as deployed by Tabletop Media.
The public record confirms Tabletop Media’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss was granted, but the specific legal grounds are not detailed in the available termination data. Dismissals of multi-patent complaints at this stage are commonly driven by insufficient factual allegations of infringement, patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice), or standing and ownership deficiencies — though the precise basis here is not confirmed by the public record.
The without-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish First Novo’s portfolio. Companies operating wireless ordering or tabletop payment platforms should monitor for any refiled complaint and review their FTO position against the seven asserted patents. The breadth of a seven-patent assertion against a single commercial system is consistent with an enforcement strategy designed to create licensing pressure even if individual claims are narrowed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.