In a negotiated exit from patent litigation, Tiare Technology, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc. — along with three affiliated Papa Murphy’s entities — jointly moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in Case No. 2:23-cv-00417 before the Texas Eastern District Court. Filed on September 14, 2023, and closed on August 7, 2024, after 328 days, the case centered on alleged infringement of three U.S. patents covering mobile-ordering application technology: US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2. The agreed dismissal, granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), left each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

This case is part of a broader series of consolidated patent actions filed by Tiare Technology in the Eastern District of Texas — a venue long favored by patent plaintiffs — and its resolution signals the strategic complexity of asserting multi-patent portfolios against franchise-based retail defendants. IP professionals and patent attorneys active in mobile commerce, restaurant technology, and software-implemented ordering systems should closely examine the patents at issue, as parallel proceedings in the consolidated lead case (No. 2:23-cv-412) remain active, preserving live dispute risk across the technology landscape.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The three patents at issue — US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — collectively cover systems and methods for enabling customers to place orders through mobile applications, encompassing the workflows, interfaces, and data-processing logic that underpin mobile commerce ordering platforms. These patents describe inventions that allow users to browse menus, configure orders, and submit purchase requests digitally through a smartphone or tablet interface, with back-end processing to relay and fulfill those orders. Real-world applications include the kind of app-based ordering systems routinely deployed by quick-service restaurant chains to accept customer orders via iOS and Android applications.

• • US11195224B2
• • US10157414B2
• • US8682729B2

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: The Davis Firm PC (lead: Christian J. Hurt)
Defendant Counsel: Alston & Bird LLP; Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta); Alston & Bird LLP (Dallas) (lead: Adam Bertram Ahnhut)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed on September 14, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas — a jurisdiction consistently favored by patent plaintiffs due to its historically plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, experienced patent judges, and well-established local patent rules that impose structured timelines on claim construction and discovery. As a first-instance district court action, this proceeding was the initial trial-level forum for resolving the infringement dispute, meaning no appellate or inter partes review record had been established at the time of resolution. Notably, this member case was part of a larger consolidated series anchored by Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-412, indicating that Tiare Technology pursued a coordinated multi-defendant litigation campaign across related entities.

The case closed on August 7, 2024, after 328 days — a duration consistent with an early-stage resolution, likely reached during or shortly after the discovery phase and before any claim construction hearing or trial. The basis of termination — a joint agreed motion to dismiss with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2) — strongly suggests the parties reached a private settlement or licensing arrangement, though no financial terms were disclosed in the public record. Each side was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, a standard provision in agreed dismissals that avoids further satellite litigation over fee-shifting. The Clerk was directed to close this member case while keeping the Lead Case open, reflecting that disputes with other defendants in the consolidated matter remain unresolved.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Court granted the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), dismissing all of Tiare Technology’s infringement claims against the Papa Murphy’s defendants and all counterclaims asserted by the Papa Murphy’s defendants against Tiare Technology, each with prejudice. No damages were adjudicated, no injunctive relief was ordered, and no liability finding was made on the merits. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and Member Case No. 2:23-cv-417 was formally closed.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The following analysis examines the legal grounds and procedural context underlying the infringement action and its dismissal with prejudice.

• Tiare Technology asserted infringement of three mobile-ordering patents — US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — against Papa Murphy’s and its affiliated entities, alleging that the defendants’ mobile-ordering application constituted unauthorized use of patented technology.
• The case was resolved by an agreed motion under FRCP 41(a)(2), which requires court approval for dismissal after an answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed; the court’s grant confirms that procedural prerequisites were satisfied and no prejudice to the defendant warranted denial.
• Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning Tiare Technology cannot re-assert the same claims against the same Papa Murphy’s entities in a future proceeding based on the same patents and accused products.
• The mutual dismissal of counterclaims — which likely included invalidity and non-infringement defenses — means no court ruling on patent validity or claim scope was issued, preserving uncertainty regarding the patents’ enforceability against other defendants in the consolidated series.

Legal Significance

1. Because the dismissal was with prejudice on both sides and no merits ruling was issued, the patents-in-suit — US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — remain presumptively valid and enforceable against defendants in the still-open Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-412 and any future targets.
2. The agreed dismissal structure, with each party bearing its own fees, avoids triggering an ‘exceptional case’ fee-shifting analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a strategically important outcome for Tiare as a patent assertion entity that could face heightened scrutiny in fee motions if litigation conduct were examined.
3. The consolidation of this case into a multi-defendant series in the Eastern District of Texas illustrates the continued viability of coordinated patent campaigns in that venue, and the resolution of this member case does not set any claim construction or validity precedent that would bind the remaining defendants in the consolidated proceeding.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When representing defendants in multi-party consolidated patent actions, negotiate separate agreed dismissals early if client-specific business considerations — such as franchise liability exposure or insurance coverage — favor a clean exit, even without a formal invalidity ruling.
• The mutual dismissal with prejudice forecloses re-assertion of these patents against Papa Murphy’s entities, but practitioners should confirm that all affiliated entities (Holdings, International, Marketing Services, Company Stores) are expressly named in the dismissal order to avoid future scope disputes.
• Monitor the Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-412 for claim construction orders and validity rulings that could affect the strength of the remaining patents and inform licensing negotiations with other defendants or potential targets.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house teams at quick-service restaurant chains and mobile-ordering platform providers should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against Tiare Technology’s active portfolio, particularly US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2, given the ongoing Lead Case and the potential for Tiare to pursue additional defendants.
• Track the consolidated proceedings in Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-412 through PACER for any claim construction rulings or summary judgment decisions that could define the scope of the asserted mobile-ordering patents and affect licensing exposure across the restaurant technology sector.

For R&D Teams:

• Engineering and product teams developing or upgrading mobile-ordering applications for food service, retail, or hospitality should audit their app architecture against the claims of US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2, as these patents broadly cover mobile-ordering workflows and remain active.
• Consider design-around strategies that document independent development of ordering interface logic and back-end data routing, creating a paper trail that supports non-infringement positions and potential design-around arguments if litigation risk materializes.