Tiare Technology, Inc. v. Dunkin Donuts, LLC
Infringement action filed 23 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 11 Dec 2023, with US9202244B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9202244B2
- Application no.
- US13/073368
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-00489
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Dec 2022 – 11 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 353 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Patron service system and method
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Patron service system and method
A method provides for using a portable patron unit in a venue or in a vicinity of the venue. The method includes wirelessly connecting the patron unit to be in communication with the venue, and providing at least one display on the patron unit enabling a patron to place a patron order for at least one item or service provided by the venue. The method also includes displaying the patron order and a location of the patron unit on the patron unit and at least one portable staff unit, and updating a status of the patron order, and a location of the patron unit when the patron moves to a different location, on both the patron unit and the at least one staff unit. The method further includes indicating that the at least one item or service ordered has been completed on both the patron unit and the at least one staff unit when the at least one item or service ordered has been provided to the patron.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 1 Dec 2015
- Earliest priority
- 23 Sep 2002
- Est. expiry
- 19 Sep 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WERBITT, JULIE M.
- Classification
- G06Q30/00H04L29/08H04W88/02H04W4/00H04L29/06G06Q50/12G06Q20/20G06Q30/06G06Q50/00G06Q30/02H04W4/02G08B5/36H04L12/28H04L12/56H04W4/029
- Prosecution counsel
- FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
- Examiner
- AN, IG T
Parties of record
Tiare Technology, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06Q30/00H04L29/08H04W88/02H04W4/00
- Counsel
- Christian J. Hurt · William Ellsworth Davis III
- Firm
- The Davis Firm PC
Dunkin Donuts, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Adam Bertram Ahnhut · Katherine Donald · Robert L. Lee
- Firm
- Alston & Bird LLP, Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta), Alston & Bird LLP (Dallas)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christian J. Hurt | Tiare Technology, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| William Ellsworth Davis III | Tiare Technology, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Adam Bertram Ahnhut | Dunkin Donuts, LLC | Defendant |
| Katherine Donald | Dunkin Donuts, LLC | Defendant |
| Robert L. Lee | Dunkin Donuts, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc. (“Tiare”) and Defendant Dunkin’ Donuts LLC’s (“Dunkin”) Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) Between Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc. and Defendant Dunkin’ Donuts LLC (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 140). In the Motion, the parties represent that the abovecaptioned member case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned member case with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, xpenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned member case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Case 2:22-cv-00489 · E.D. Tex. · closed 11 December 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:22-cv-00489?
2:22-cv-00489 is a patent infringement action brought by Tiare Technology, Inc. against Dunkin Donuts, LLC, filed on 23 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 11 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-00489?
US9202244B2 (“Patron service system and method”), assigned to TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Patron service system and method.
How was case 2:22-cv-00489 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc. (“Tiare”) and Defendant Dunkin’ Donuts LLC’s (“Dunkin”) Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) Between Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc. and Defendant Dunkin’ Donuts LLC (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 140). In the Motion, the parties represent that the abovecaptioned member case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned member case with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:22-cv-00489 take?
353 calendar days, from filing on 23 Dec 2022 to closure on 11 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00489?
Christian J. Hurt and William Ellsworth Davis III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Tiare Technology. Adam Bertram Ahnhut, Katherine Donald and Robert L. Lee appear for defendant Dunkin Donuts.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00489 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.