Tiare Technology v. Dine Brands Global: Dismissed With Prejudice After 496 Days
Tiare Technology, Inc. asserted US9202244B2 — a patron service system and method patent — against restaurant group Dine Brands Global, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. After 496 days of litigation, the parties filed an agreed motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Agreed dismissal ends E.D. Tex. patron-service patent dispute
Tiare Technology, Inc. filed Case No. 2:22-cv-00490 in the Eastern District of Texas on 23 December 2022, asserting infringement of US9202244B2 — a patent covering a patron service system and method — against Dine Brands Global, Inc., the parent company of restaurant brands including Applebee’s and IHOP. A companion case, No. 2:22-cv-00488, was filed concurrently, suggesting a coordinated multi-case enforcement strategy by Tiare against related entities or product lines.
The litigation concluded on 2 May 2024 when the parties filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court granted the motion, dismissing all of Tiare’s infringement claims and all of Dine Brands’ counterclaims with prejudice across both case numbers. Neither party recovered costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees, a mutual cost-bearing arrangement that is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation.
The 496-day duration and the simultaneous closure of two related cases suggest the parties likely engaged in substantive licensing or settlement negotiations before reaching a mutual exit. The precise financial terms — including whether any licensing agreement was reached — are not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice designation means Tiare cannot re-assert the same claims against Dine Brands based on the same patent and products, a material restriction on future enforcement.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 496 days
496 days — above the median for E.D. Tex. patent cases that settle pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) agreed dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, it permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. Here, both parties jointly requested the order, indicating mutual agreement to end the dispute on these terms rather than a unilateral withdrawal by the plaintiff.
Permanent bar on re-filingTiare cannot re-assert US9202244B2 against Dine Brands
The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future infringement action by Tiare Technology against Dine Brands Global on the same patent and accused products in both case numbers. The patent itself remains in force and enforceable against other parties, but Dine Brands has effectively secured permanent protection from this specific plaintiff on these claims. Whether Tiare received any licensing consideration is not reflected in the public docket.
Claims extinguished as to Dine BrandsDine Brands exits litigation with no fee award and no merits finding
Dine Brands Global avoids any infringement finding on the public record, which is significant for its operational and reputational position. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means it did not recover its litigation spend despite defending across two cases. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 suggests neither party sought to characterise the case as exceptional — consistent with a negotiated commercial exit rather than litigation-driven capitulation.
No infringement finding on recordSettlement signal: what the agreed exit suggests about case value
Agreed dismissals with mutual cost-bearing in E.D. Tex. patent cases typically signal a private licensing or settlement agreement that neither party is required to disclose. The simultaneous closure of two companion cases reinforces this inference. For competitors in the restaurant technology and digital ordering sector, the resolution suggests US9202244B2 carries sufficient assertive value to motivate negotiation, while the patent’s scope over patron service systems warrants ongoing FTO monitoring.
Private resolution inferredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tiare Technology, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9202244B2, patron service system technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dine Brands Global, Inc. | Company | Dine Brands Global, Inc. — restaurant franchisor operating Applebee’s and IHOP brandsSearch 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 | James David Tuck | Attorney | Counsel for Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason E. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joel Siegel | Attorney | Counsel for Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Anne Kickel | Attorney | Counsel for Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victor Calvin Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dentons US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vorys Sayer Seymour & Pease LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dine Brands Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order mirrors the parties’ agreed motion without independent merits analysis, which is standard for Rule 41(a)(2) agreed dismissals. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative term: it converts the agreed exit into a final judgment for res judicata purposes, permanently extinguishing Tiare’s claims against Dine Brands and Dine Brands’ counterclaims against Tiare across both case numbers. The mutual cost-bearing clause reinforces that no party emerged as a litigation victor on the docket.
US9202244B2 — Patron Service System and Method
US9202244B2, filed under application number US13/073368, covers a patron service system and method — technology directed at how customers interact with service systems in hospitality and restaurant environments, likely encompassing digital ordering, table-side service requests, or patron-facing communication platforms. The patent’s grant date and application lineage place it in an era of rapid expansion in restaurant technology and mobile-enabled guest experience platforms.
For a franchisor of the scale of Dine Brands — operating thousands of Applebee’s and IHOP locations — any patent covering patron service infrastructure carries material exposure across its franchisee network. The assertion of this patent against a major restaurant group signals that Tiare views the technology as broadly applicable to modern hospitality operations. Competitors in digital ordering, kiosk systems, and table management software should evaluate their product architectures against the claims of US9202244B2.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9202244B2?
Any company developing or deploying patron service systems, digital ordering platforms, tableside communication tools, or hospitality guest experience technology should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US9202244B2. The patent’s assertion against a major restaurant franchisor demonstrates active enforcement intent, and the with-prejudice dismissal confirms the patent survived litigation without a validity finding adverse to Tiare. The risk is live for all parties outside the Dine Brands settlement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9202244B2 against your product architecture, surface prior art relevant to validity challenges, and identify prosecution history estoppel that may narrow claim scope. Eureka also monitors for continuation applications and related family members that could extend the enforcement footprint of this patent family beyond the granted US9202244B2.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9202244B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: patron service and restaurant-tech IP in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving patron service system patents and restaurant technology assertions in the Eastern District of Texas, benchmarked against this Tiare Technology dispute.
What this case signals for the restaurant-tech and patron service IP landscape
A with-prejudice agreed dismissal across two E.D. Tex. cases signals a resolved dispute — but the underlying patent remains live and enforceable.
US9202244B2 remains enforceable against all other market participants
The dismissal only bars Tiare’s claims against Dine Brands. Any hospitality technology company, digital ordering platform, or restaurant franchisor operating a patron service system should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. Tiare’s willingness to litigate two simultaneous cases suggests an organised assertion programme.
E.D. Tex. remains the venue of choice for patent assertion entities
Filing two companion cases in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with a deliberate forum strategy. Patent holders in this space are likely to continue selecting E.D. Tex. for its patentee-friendly procedural posture and experienced patent judiciary. Defendants should factor venue challenge options early in case strategy.
Tiare v Dine — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means Tiare Technology is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Dine Brands Global based on US9202244B2 and the accused patron service products. It is a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, entered by the court upon the parties’ agreed Rule 41(a)(2) motion filed on or around 2 May 2024.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes Tiare’s claims against Dine Brands Global. US9202244B2 remains a granted, in-force patent enforceable against any other party. No invalidity finding was entered on the public record, meaning the patent’s claims retain their presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
The public record does not specify the rationale, but simultaneously filing two cases — Nos. 2:22-cv-00490 and 2:22-cv-00488 — against a single corporate family is consistent with targeting distinct accused products or corporate entities within the same group. This structure can also increase litigation pressure, which may be a factor in motivating settlement negotiations.
No. The agreed dismissal order expressly states that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Neither party pursued a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a court to find the case ‘exceptional.’ The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is typical of negotiated commercial resolutions.
US9202244B2 is directed to a patron service system and method, covering technology related to how patrons interact with service systems in hospitality and restaurant environments. This may encompass digital ordering, table-side service requests, or patron-facing communication platforms. The patent’s application number is US13/073368. Companies operating in restaurant technology and digital hospitality should review its claim scope for FTO purposes.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.