SmartOrder LLC v. Five Guys: Voluntary Dismissal in Restaurant Tech Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | SmartOrder LLC v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC |
| Case Number | 2:25-cv-00838 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Aug 2025 – Nov 2025 78 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal – Without Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Restaurant Technology, POS Systems, Mobile Ordering Platforms, Queue Management Tools |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Apparent patent assertion entity holding U.S. Patent No. US9390424B2, targeting hospitality and food service operators.
🛡️ Defendant
Nationally recognized quick-service burger chain with significant investments in digital ordering and customer service technology.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. **US9390424B2** (Application No. 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.”
In plain terms, the patent claims technology enabling businesses to manage customer flow, reduce perceived wait times, and enhance service delivery — functionality increasingly embedded in modern POS systems, mobile ordering platforms, and queue management tools widely deployed in the quick-service restaurant sector.
Deploying restaurant tech?
Check if your queue management or ordering system might infringe this patent.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was terminated by **voluntary dismissal without prejudice** pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)**, filed by SmartOrder LLC as plaintiff. The Court accepted and acknowledged the Notice of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 13), dismissing all pending claims in Case No. 2:25-cv-00838. Critically, the Court directed the Clerk to **maintain the lead case as open**, indicating this was a member case within a consolidated or multi-defendant litigation structure. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — no damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was issued.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The procedural posture here is instructive. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The fact that SmartOrder invoked this provision signals the case was resolved — or abandoned — at an extremely early stage, before Five Guys formally engaged on the merits.
The “without prejudice” is the operative phrase for practitioners. SmartOrder LLC retains the full right to re-file this infringement action against Five Guys Enterprises at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any tolling agreements. This is not a final adjudication on the merits of infringement or patent validity.
The Court’s instruction to **maintain the lead case as open** is a significant procedural detail. It confirms this dismissal affected only Case No. 2:25-cv-00838 as a member case — suggesting SmartOrder has asserted US9390424B2 against multiple defendants in a coordinated, multi-defendant campaign, a common NPE enforcement strategy designed to generate licensing revenue efficiently across an industry vertical.
Legal Significance
This dismissal produces **no precedential value** on the substantive merits of US9390424B2 — no claims were construed, no infringement findings were made, and no validity determinations were issued. However, the case’s existence and rapid closure contribute to the observable record of this patent’s enforcement history, which bears relevance for:
- Prior art and invalidity analysis in any future assertions of US9390424B2
- Licensing posture assessments for potential defendants receiving demand letters under this patent
- Litigation conduct patterns of Rabicoff Law LLC in managing multi-defendant NPE campaigns
Drafting a patent for restaurant tech?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims to protect your customer experience innovations.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in restaurant technology design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View NPE assertion patterns in restaurant tech
- See claim scope for wait-time optimization patents
- Understand venues favored by patent assertion entities
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Queue management & digital ordering
1 Active Patent
US9390424B2 remains in force
Strategic Options
Available for early resolution
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without prejudice preserves all plaintiff enforcement rights — treat it as a pause, not a concession.
Search related case law →The “lead case maintained as open” instruction signals a multi-defendant campaign structure that should inform defense coordination strategy.
Explore NPE strategies →For R&D & In-House Teams
Conduct or update FTO analysis on US9390424B2 if your organization deploys customer wait-time or queue optimization technology.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Evaluate vendor indemnification agreements covering customer experience and digital ordering technology for downstream infringement risks.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.