Smart Order LLC v. Panera Bread: Dismissed With Prejudice in 268 Days
Smart Order LLC brought a patent infringement action against Panera Bread Co. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9390424B2 — a patent covering systems to improve customer wait times and ordering efficiency in restaurants and hospitality. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 268 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
E.D. Texas ordering-system suit ends in bilateral walk-away
On 10 March 2025, Smart Order LLC filed suit against Panera Bread Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of US9390424B2. That patent claims a system and method for improving customer wait times, service quality, and marketing efficiency in restaurants, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment contexts — a technology directly relevant to Panera’s digital ordering and loyalty infrastructure.
On 3 December 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a financial structure that suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a clear-cut capitulation by either side.
At 268 days, the case resolved relatively quickly for patent litigation in E.D. Texas, where matters routinely extend beyond two years to trial. The speed of resolution, combined with the symmetric cost allocation and with-prejudice finality, is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. What is known is that Smart Order cannot re-assert these claims against Panera on the same patent.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 268 days
268 days — resolved before trial in a court averaging multi-year dockets
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. Filing it with prejudice means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — Smart Order LLC is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Panera Bread based on US9390424B2. The court’s role is confirmatory; no judicial merits analysis is performed.
Permanent bar on re-filingSmart Order forfeits the right to re-assert these claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Smart Order LLC permanently surrendered the right to sue Panera Bread again on US9390424B2. However, the symmetric cost allocation — neither side paying the other’s fees — suggests Smart Order did not simply capitulate. A confidential licence or lump-sum payment remains consistent with this structure, though the public record does not confirm any such arrangement.
No re-filing against PaneraPanera secures finality but validity remains untested
Panera Bread obtains a permanent resolution of this specific suit without a court ruling on infringement or patent validity. US9390424B2 survives the litigation unchallenged on the merits — Panera did not pursue IPR or invalidity defences to a decision. The patent therefore remains available for Smart Order to assert against other restaurant and hospitality companies operating similar ordering systems.
Patent validity untestedOther restaurant tech operators remain exposed to this patent
Because the case ended without a merits ruling, US9390424B2 carries the same legal force it held before filing. Competitors deploying customer wait-time optimisation, digital queuing, or integrated ordering platforms in restaurant and hospitality settings should treat this patent as live enforcement risk. The Panera resolution provides no precedential shield for third parties.
Live risk for restaurant techFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Smart Order LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9390424B2, restaurant ordering systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Panera Bread | Individual | Panera Bread Co. — national fast-casual restaurant chain with digital ordering infrastructureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip 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 Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Panera BreadSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — confirms mutual consent and permanent finality. The court made no finding on infringement or validity; it solely acknowledged the parties’ agreement. The instruction that ‘each party is to bear its own costs’ is a deliberate bilateral carve-out, distinguishing this outcome from a default or uncontested win. All pending relief was denied as moot, confirming no injunction or damages order remains live.
US9390424B2 — Restaurant and hospitality customer ordering system
US9390424B2, filed under application number US13/088046, protects a system and method for improving customer wait times, service quality, and marketing efficiency across restaurants, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries. The patent’s broad vertical scope is strategically significant — a single claim set covering multiple high-volume consumer-facing sectors. The application number suggests the invention was filed in the 2011 timeframe, predating many modern mobile-first ordering deployments now standard across QSR chains.
For the restaurant and fast-casual sector, US9390424B2 represents a foundational claim in the digital ordering and queue-management space. As chains like Panera have invested heavily in app-based ordering, loyalty integration, and kitchen display systems, the overlap with this patent’s claimed methods becomes commercially material. The patent’s survival without a validity ruling means it retains full enforcement potential against any operator who has not secured a licence or conducted a formal FTO analysis.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9390424B2?
Any company deploying digital ordering platforms, mobile queue management, or integrated customer-wait optimisation tools in restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, or entertainment settings should treat US9390424B2 as a live enforcement risk. The Panera case closed without invalidating a single claim, meaning the patent’s scope is fully intact. Product teams rolling out new ordering flows or loyalty-integrated service systems should flag this patent before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim language of US9390424B2, identify prior art that could support a validity challenge, and surface related Smart Order LLC assets that may present parallel risk. Running a structured FTO now — before receiving a demand letter — is materially less expensive than defending an E.D. Texas infringement action before Judge Gilstrap.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9390424B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: restaurant ordering and hospitality technology in E.D. Texas
Cases involving customer ordering system patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap, covering restaurant and hospitality technology.
What this case signals for the restaurant technology IP landscape
A fast E.D. Texas resolution with symmetric costs suggests a negotiated exit — and leaves the patent primed for further assertion.
With-prejudice finality cuts both ways in licensing strategy
Smart Order accepted permanent closure against Panera, which typically signals value was extracted elsewhere — most likely through a confidential licence. For defendants in similar suits, this pattern suggests early negotiation may be more cost-effective than protracted litigation, especially in E.D. Texas where pre-trial costs accumulate quickly.
No IPR filed means US9390424B2 remains valid and enforceable
Panera did not challenge the patent’s validity at the PTAB. With no inter partes review on record, US9390424B2 emerges from this litigation with its claims fully intact. Any company operating digital ordering, wait-time management, or hospitality service platforms should assess their exposure before Smart Order files its next complaint.
Smart v Panera — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means all of Smart Order LLC’s infringement claims under US9390424B2 against Panera Bread are permanently extinguished. Smart Order cannot re-file the same claims against Panera. The dismissal resulted from a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and was acknowledged by Judge Gilstrap on 3 December 2025.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. However, the combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, symmetric cost allocation (each party bears its own fees), and resolution after 268 days is consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or lump-sum payment. No financial terms have been disclosed in the court record.
US9390424B2 claims a system and method for improving customer wait times, service quality, and marketing efficiency in restaurants, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries. Because the patent was not invalidated in the Panera case, any operator in those verticals using comparable ordering or queue-management technology could face assertion risk from Smart Order LLC.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly Judge Gilstrap’s docket, is a historically favoured venue for patent assertion entities due to its established patent litigation procedures, predictable scheduling, and plaintiff-friendly reputation. Filing in E.D. Texas typically accelerates pre-trial timelines and increases settlement pressure on defendants.
The public record contains no evidence that Panera Bread filed an inter partes review petition or pursued invalidity defences to a ruling. The case ended via joint stipulation before any substantive merits determination. US9390424B2 therefore survives this litigation with its claims fully intact and enforceable against third parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.