Tiare Technology v. Chili’s: Mobile Ordering Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Tiare Technology, Inc. asserted three mobile-ordering application patents against restaurant chain Chili’s, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties reached an undisclosed resolution and jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice — ending the dispute 421 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
Mobile-ordering patent dispute quietly resolved in E.D. Texas
Tiare Technology, Inc. filed suit against Chili’s, Inc. on 14 September 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of three patents — US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — all directed to mobile-ordering application technology. The accused product was Chili’s mobile-ordering application, widely deployed across the casual-dining chain’s locations.
On 8 November 2024, the court granted the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The dismissal with prejudice is legally significant: Tiare Technology cannot reassert the same claims against Chili’s in any future proceeding. The court’s order also directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, a structure consistent with a privately negotiated settlement in which financial terms are not disclosed on the public docket.
The 421-day duration from filing to closure suggests the matter progressed through initial pleadings and likely some discovery or claim-construction activity before resolution. The agreed, prejudicial nature of the dismissal — and the silence on financial terms — is typical of confidential licensing settlements in patent assertion cases, though the public record does not confirm whether a licence was granted. What drove the resolution, and on what terms, remains outside the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 421 days
421 days — slightly above the median for E.D. Tex. patent cases resolving before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars all future reassertion
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Tiare Technology cannot re-file these specific claims against Chili’s in any court. This is a stronger procedural endpoint than a dismissal without prejudice, which would leave open the possibility of refiling. The agreed nature of the motion signals that both parties consented to this permanent closure.
Permanent bar on re-filingTiare Technology forfeits right to re-sue — suggests negotiated value obtained
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Tiare Technology surrendered any future litigation leverage over these three patents against Chili’s. Patent holders typically only accept a prejudicial dismissal when they have received something of value — most commonly a licensing fee or a covenant not to sue. The public record is silent on whether a licence was executed, but the structure of the dismissal is consistent with a privately settled monetary resolution.
Likely confidential licenceChili’s secures permanent peace from these three patents
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Chili’s certainty: Tiare Technology’s three asserted mobile-ordering patents cannot be deployed against it again in this jurisdiction or any other. However, the patents themselves remain in force and could be asserted against other restaurant technology operators or mobile-ordering platform providers. Chili’s bears its own legal costs, suggesting no fee-shifting victory was pursued or obtained.
Patent risk neutralised for Chili’sMobile-ordering IP remains live risk for the broader restaurant tech sector
The resolution leaves all three Tiare Technology patents valid and enforceable against third parties. Competitors to Chili’s and vendors supplying mobile-ordering infrastructure to the hospitality sector should treat this outcome as a signal that these patents are actively asserted. The Eastern District of Texas continues to be a favoured venue for patent assertion, and the relatively short time to resolution suggests the patents may have sufficient claim breadth to motivate early settlement.
Live risk for restaurant techFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tiare Technology, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of three mobile-ordering application patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chili’s, Inc. | Company | Chili’s, Inc. — national casual-dining restaurant chain operating mobile-ordering technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian J. Hurt | Attorney | Counsel for Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty William Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Ellsworth Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason E. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Chili’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Anne Kickel | Attorney | Counsel for Chili’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vorys Sayer Seymour & Pease LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chili’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The agreed dismissal order is terse by design — courts grant such motions without substantive analysis when both parties consent. The phrase ‘the Lead Case has been resolved’ in the motion language strongly suggests a private settlement, though the court makes no finding on infringement or validity. The with-prejudice standard means the dismissal carries res judicata weight between these parties: no claim arising from the same patents and same accused product can be re-litigated. The cost-bearing clause — each party pays its own fees — is neutral and does not indicate a prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11195224B2, US10157414B2 & US8682729B2 — mobile-ordering application technology
The three asserted patents — US11195224B2 (App. No. 16/217798), US10157414B2 (App. No. 15/820195), and US8682729B2 (App. No. 13/543193) — form a multi-generational family directed to mobile-ordering application technology in the restaurant context. The earliest application number (13/543193) suggests foundational filing activity that predates widespread deployment of restaurant mobile-ordering platforms, with the family extending through continuation or continuation-in-part filings to cover evolved implementations.
This three-patent portfolio covering mobile-ordering infrastructure represents a meaningful assertion risk for the hospitality and restaurant technology sector. As QSR and casual-dining operators increasingly rely on first-party mobile applications to drive loyalty, upsell, and operational efficiency, the claim perimeter of a portfolio with generational depth becomes commercially significant. The fact that Tiare Technology successfully brought Chili’s — a major national operator — to a with-prejudice settlement suggests the patents carry sufficient claim breadth to create real litigation exposure for comparable deployments.
Should you run an FTO search against US11195224B2, US10157414B2 & US8682729B2?
Any company operating a mobile-ordering application in the restaurant, hospitality, or food-service sector should treat this three-patent portfolio as an active enforcement risk. Tiare Technology has demonstrated willingness to assert these patents against a major national restaurant chain in E.D. Texas. Third-party mobile-ordering platform vendors, POS-integrated ordering providers, and restaurant groups deploying proprietary ordering apps are all plausible assertion targets. An FTO review is particularly urgent for any product launch or feature update involving customer-facing mobile ordering or table-side payment flows.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim landscapes of US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — identifying which claim elements are most likely to read on a given product architecture, surfacing relevant prior art that may support an IPR petition, and flagging prosecution history estoppel that could limit claim scope. R&D and product teams can use Eureka to identify design-around opportunities before committing to a mobile-ordering feature roadmap, reducing downstream litigation exposure in a venue — E.D. Texas — that has historically been plaintiff-friendly.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11195224B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile-ordering patent cases in E.D. Texas and beyond
Explore related patent infringement cases involving mobile-ordering application technology asserted in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the restaurant technology IP landscape
Three mobile-ordering patents, one of the nation’s largest casual-dining chains, and a quietly resolved E.D. Texas dispute — the implications extend well beyond Chili’s.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for asserting restaurant-tech patents
Tiare Technology’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with broader patent assertion strategy — the court’s established patent docket, predictable scheduling orders, and plaintiff-friendly reputation make it a rational selection for NPE-style enforcement. Restaurant technology operators with nationwide deployments should factor this venue risk into their IP posture.
With-prejudice dismissals signal likely settlement, not litigation victory
When both parties agree to a prejudicial dismissal with each side bearing costs, it typically suggests a private financial resolution rather than a defendant win on the merits. Competitors facing similar assertions from Tiare Technology should note that these patents survived to a negotiated outcome — meaning they were not invalidated or found non-infringing through litigation.
Tiare v Chili’s — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 8 November 2024 pursuant to an agreed motion filed by both parties. All claims asserted by Tiare Technology against Chili’s were permanently dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The public record does not disclose the financial terms of any underlying resolution.
Tiare Technology asserted three patents: US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2, all directed to mobile-ordering application technology. The patents correspond to application numbers 16/217798, 15/820195, and 13/543193 respectively, forming a multi-generational portfolio covering mobile-ordering systems and methods in the restaurant context.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits and bars Tiare Technology from filing any future lawsuit against Chili’s based on the same patents and accused mobile-ordering product. It does not, however, affect the enforceability of these patents against any other third party.
No. The agreed dismissal with prejudice makes no finding as to the validity or invalidity of US11195224B2, US10157414B2, or US8682729B2. The patents remain in force and are enforceable against any party other than Chili’s. Companies operating comparable mobile-ordering applications should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
The Eastern District of Texas is one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States and is historically favoured by patent assertion entities due to its established patent procedures, experienced judiciary, and relatively plaintiff-friendly reputation. The choice of E.D. Texas for a mobile-ordering patent case against a national restaurant chain is consistent with broader NPE enforcement strategy in this jurisdiction.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.