Smart Order LLC v. Carrabba’s Italian Grill: Dismissed With Prejudice After 267 Days
Smart Order LLC filed suit against Carrabba’s Italian Grill in the Western District of Texas, asserting US9390424B2 — a patent covering customer wait-time, service, and marketing systems for restaurants and hospitality. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in December 2025, with each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs.
Restaurant tech patent dispute ends quietly with no damages on record
On March 10, 2025, Smart Order LLC filed a patent infringement action against Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLC in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00115), asserting US9390424B2. That patent covers a system and method for improving customer wait time, service quality, and marketing efficiency across restaurants, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment venues — a broad claim set with direct relevance to table-management and digital ordering infrastructure deployed in casual dining chains.
The case closed on December 2, 2025, after the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice on December 1, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the request and ordered the clerk to close the action. Critically, dismissal with prejudice means Smart Order LLC is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Carrabba’s on this patent. No damages award and no injunction appear on the public record; each party was ordered to bear its own attorney fees and costs.
At 267 days, the case resolved before any trial-stage activity typically visible in the public docket, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution — possibly a license, covenant not to sue, or commercial agreement — though the public record is silent on specific terms. The mutual fee-bearing order is the default outcome of a stipulated dismissal and does not itself signal who held the stronger legal position. What drove Carrabba’s to stipulate, or Smart Order to abandon its public pursuit, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 267 days
267 days from filing to closure — broadly consistent with pre-trial settlement or resolution in W.D. Tex. patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — automatic dismissal, no court merits review
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires no judicial approval on the merits — it takes effect automatically upon filing when signed by all parties who have appeared. The court’s role was ministerial: it ordered the clerk to close the file. No ruling on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement was ever issued. This means the dismissal creates no adverse precedent on the substance of US9390424B2.
No merits adjudicationWith prejudice bars Smart Order from re-filing against Carrabba’s
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Smart Order LLC cannot re-file these specific patent claims against Carrabba’s Italian Grill on US9390424B2. This provides Carrabba’s with permanent protection from this particular plaintiff on this patent — a materially stronger outcome than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to re-filing. Whether Carrabba’s secured this outcome through a license or litigation leverage is not evident from the public docket.
Permanent bar on re-filingSmart Order retains the patent — but lost its litigation leverage here
Smart Order LLC’s US9390424B2 remains in force and can be asserted against other defendants. The with-prejudice dismissal does not invalidate the patent or limit its use elsewhere. However, by agreeing to dismiss with prejudice rather than obtaining a judgment or license on the record, Smart Order signals — at minimum — that it was unable or unwilling to sustain this particular action to a merits outcome. Whether a private commercial arrangement compensates for that is unknown.
Patent remains enforceableSector watch: restaurant tech patents remain an active enforcement risk
US9390424B2’s claim scope — customer wait-time management, digital service coordination, and marketing efficiency across hospitality verticals — touches infrastructure increasingly embedded in casual dining operations. Other restaurant chains and hospitality operators using similar table-management, digital queue, or CRM-integrated ordering systems should assess exposure to this patent. Smart Order’s willingness to file and pursue for 267 days suggests a structured enforcement program, not a one-off action.
Enforcement risk: hospitality techFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Smart Order LLC | Company | Restaurant and hospitality technology licensor — holder of US9390424B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLC | Company | Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLC — casual dining restaurant chain operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Smart Order LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Smart Order LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lindsay Volpenhein Cutie | Attorney | Counsel for Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger J. Fulghum | Attorney | Counsel for Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural disposition: acting on the parties’ joint stipulation, the court granted dismissal and closed the docket without reaching validity, infringement, or damages. The explicit ‘with prejudice as to the asserted patent’ language is significant — it permanently forecloses Smart Order from re-litigating these claims against Carrabba’s, but leaves US9390424B2 legally intact. The mutual fee-bearing order is the default rule under Rule 41 absent exceptional circumstances, and should not be read as a substantive finding favouring either party.
US9390424B2 — Restaurant & Hospitality Customer Wait-Time and Service System
US9390424B2 (application number US13/088046) protects a system and method for improving customer wait time, customer service, and marketing efficiency across the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries. The patent’s cross-vertical claim scope is deliberately broad — covering digital coordination of customer queues, service workflows, and marketing touchpoints in physical venue contexts. Its application filing date and the technology domain place it squarely in the early wave of cloud-connected hospitality management systems, before dedicated table-management SaaS platforms became commoditised.
The strategic significance of US9390424B2 lies in its sector-agnostic framing: any operator deploying a digital wait-list, SMS notification queue, table-turn analytics, or integrated CRM system in a customer-facing venue could plausibly fall within its claim scope. For the casual dining segment specifically — where chains like Carrabba’s have invested heavily in digital service infrastructure — this patent represents a credible enforcement risk. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means the patent carries full presumption of validity. Competitors and technology vendors supplying hospitality operators should analyse claim scope against their current product architectures.
Should your restaurant tech stack be cleared against US9390424B2?
Any company developing, deploying, or procuring digital customer wait-time management, queue notification, table-management, or hospitality CRM systems should treat US9390424B2 as an active enforcement risk. The patent’s explicit coverage of restaurants, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment creates unusually wide exposure. This case confirms that at least one assertion entity views it as commercially viable against major chain operators — and the with-prejudice dismissal did not extinguish the patent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the full claim tree of US9390424B2, surface related continuation or divisional applications in the same family, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed. For R&D and product teams building or integrating digital service management tools for hospitality, running a targeted FTO analysis before deployment or contract signature is the lowest-cost risk mitigation available.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9390424B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar restaurant and hospitality technology patent cases in W.D. Tex.
Cases involving restaurant, retail, and hospitality service-system patents asserted in the Western District of Texas — comparable claim scope and enforcement profile to Smart Order v. Carrabba’s.
What this case signals for the restaurant and hospitality tech IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit after nine months in W.D. Tex. typically reflects a negotiated resolution rather than litigation fatigue alone.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Carrabba’s permanently — but not the sector
Carrabba’s Italian Grill achieved a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning Smart Order cannot re-file on US9390424B2 against them. However, the patent itself is unscathed and freely asserted elsewhere. Other casual dining chains using comparable wait-time or digital service management systems have no equivalent protection from this case outcome.
No merits ruling leaves patent validity and claim scope unresolved
Because the case ended by joint stipulation before any Markman hearing or merits ruling, the scope and validity of US9390424B2 remain legally untested in this proceeding. Competitors cannot rely on this case to argue the patent is invalid or narrow. Any entity operating in the restaurant, retail, or hospitality technology space should treat this patent as fully live.
Smart v Carrabba’s — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on December 1, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court ordered each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. No merits ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued.
Smart Order LLC asserted US9390424B2 (application number US13/088046), which covers a system and method for improving customer wait time, customer service, and marketing efficiency in the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries.
Dismissal with prejudice means Smart Order LLC is permanently barred from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Carrabba’s Italian Grill on US9390424B2. It operates as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other defendants.
No. Because the case ended by joint stipulation before any merits ruling, the validity and claim scope of US9390424B2 were never adjudicated. The patent retains its full presumption of validity and can be asserted in other proceedings or against other defendants. Other hospitality and restaurant technology operators should not assume this case provides any shield.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason. At 267 days, the case resolved before any trial-stage activity, which is consistent with a negotiated private resolution — potentially a license, covenant not to sue, or commercial agreement. The mutual fee-bearing order is standard for a stipulated dismissal and does not indicate which party held the stronger litigation position.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.