Bootler LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bootler, LLC d/b/a FoodBoss (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Vedder Price P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03660, N.D. Ill., 09/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Google, LLC maintaining regular and established places of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Google Food" service infringes two patents related to aggregating and presenting data from multiple food delivery services, and further alleges that Defendant has engaged in monopolization and restraint of trade in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the online food delivery aggregation market, which allows consumers to compare prices, fees, and delivery times from various third-party services for a single restaurant in a unified interface.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an amended complaint that adds patent infringement claims to a pre-existing suit focused on antitrust violations. The complaint notes that U.S. Patent 11,037,090 was the subject of a Certificate of Correction issued on April 23, 2024. The complaint also references a separate lawsuit filed against Google in Florida regarding allegedly similar anticompetitive practices.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-11-01	Priority Date for '683 and '090 Patents
2017-01-01	Plaintiff FoodBoss began operations
2019-10-15	U.S. Patent 10,445,683 Issued
2021-06-15	U.S. Patent 11,037,090 Issued
2022-03-08	Left Field Holdings I, LLC v. Google LLC lawsuit filed
2022-08-31	E-mail cited from third-party provider declining partnership
2023-10-02	Alleged date of Google's awareness of patent infringement
2024-04-23	Certificate of Correction for '090 Patent Issued
2025-09-25	Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

For the purposes of this report, the Amended Complaint for Monopolization and Restraint of Trade (Doc. #54) is cited as "Compl." and its attached Exhibit A, the Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Monopolization and Restraint of Trade (Doc. #54-1), is cited as "Patent Am. Compl."

U.S. Patent No. 10,445,683 - "Methods, Systems and Program Products for Aggregating and Presenting Service Data from Multiple Sources Over a Network" (Issued Oct. 15, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, consumers could order food from various online delivery services, but there was no convenient way to compare options for the same restaurant across different services Patent Am. Compl. ¶13 This was due to significant price discrepancies between services and the use of different, incompatible data formats, which made direct comparison of menu items difficult or impossible '683 Patent, col. 3:25-47
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system to solve this problem by creating a food delivery meta-search engine. The system acquires "source data" (e.g., menus, prices) from multiple delivery service computers, maps the data to a standardized format, links the data to common restaurants, and identifies common menu items across services to create "master menu items." This aggregated information is combined into a master data set and stored in a searchable database, allowing a user to see a unified, comparable view of their options '683 Patent, abstract '683 Patent, col. 4:9-25 Figure 1 illustrates the overall system architecture, showing data acquisition, warehousing, and delivery to a user's browser '683 Patent, Fig. 1
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled price transparency and comprehensive choice for consumers in the fragmented online food delivery market by aggregating otherwise siloed information Patent Am. Compl. ¶12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 11 (system), and 14 (apparatus) (Patent Am. Compl. ¶¶36; Patent Am. Compl. ¶38; Patent Am. Compl. ¶39).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires:
  • Acquiring source data from multiple delivery service computers in various formats.
  • Mapping the acquired data to a predetermined format.
  • Linking the formatted data to common restaurants using identifier data.
  • Identifying common menu items and associating them with a "master menu item."
  • Combining the linked data and master menu items into a "master data set."
  • Importing the master data set into a "searchable aggregated data structure."
  • Storing this structure in a database accessible to the processor.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Patent Am. Compl. ¶36

U.S. Patent No. 11,037,090 - "Methods, Systems and Program Products for Aggregating and Presenting Service Data from Multiple Sources Over a Network" (Issued June 15, 2021)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '683 patent, the '090 patent addresses the same technical challenge: the lack of a convenient method for consumers to search and compare menu items and prices from the same restaurant across multiple, disparate online delivery services '090 Patent, col. 3:35-49
• The Patented Solution: The '090 patent claims a system comprising specific functional modules to implement the aggregation solution. It describes a "data acquisition and processing module" that uses an Application Programming Interface (API) or web scraping to get data, a "mapping module" to standardize it, a "linking module" to perform record linkage, and a "menu combining module" to create a master data set from multiple source menus '090 Patent, col. 5:6-20 '090 Patent, col. 6:3-24 This modular architecture provides a more detailed implementation for the aggregation process.
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a structured system for creating and maintaining a unified, comparable database from numerous incompatible data sources, which is foundational for any meta-search service in this market Patent Am. Compl. ¶12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (system) Patent Am. Compl. ¶40
• Independent Claim 12 (System) requires:
  • A "data acquisition and processing module" with a processor and memory to acquire source data and provide a master data set.
  • A "website database" accessible to the processor to receive updated data from the master data set.
  • The data acquisition module further comprises either an "application programming interface" to interface with delivery computers or an "extraction module" for scraping data.
  • A "mapping module" to convert raw files to a standardized format.
  • A "linking module" to perform record linkage on the formatted data.
  • A "menu combining module" to combine source menus into the master data set.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Patent Am. Compl. ¶52

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Google Food" service, including its consumer-facing search interface and its associated developer pages (the "Accused Products/Services") Patent Am. Compl. ¶17

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Google Food is a comparative restaurant delivery search platform that allows consumers to search for restaurants and view menus and ordering options from multiple third-party delivery services (e.g., DoorDash, Grubhub, UberEats) Compl. ¶¶12-13 A screenshot in the complaint shows that when a user searches for food, Google presents an integrated map-based feature called "Places" above other organic search results, which displays restaurant options Compl. ¶26 Another screenshot illustrates that upon selecting a restaurant, the user is presented with ordering options from various delivery providers, including estimated fees and wait times Compl. ¶28 For the back end, the complaint alleges Google provides a developer site with instructions and APIs for restaurants and delivery services to integrate their data feeds (e.g., menus, locations, service hours) into Google's system (Patent Am. Compl. ¶¶18; Patent Am. Compl. ¶23). The complaint asserts that Google's dominance in general search makes inclusion in Google Food a "must have" for delivery providers and restaurants Compl. ¶53

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'683 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
acquiring, by a processor, source data from a plurality of delivery service computers...	Google Food acquires restaurant and menu data from its delivery service partners through data feeds provided via its developer site and APIs.	¶23	col. 5:6-10
mapping, by the processor, the acquired source data according to a predetermined data format...	Google requires partners to structure their data feeds according to its "relational inventory schema," which serves as the predetermined data format.	¶27	col. 5:11-20
linking, by the processor, the formatted data to common restaurants based on restaurant identifier data...	The relational inventory schema allegedly links data by restaurant, service, and menu items, enabling Google to associate multiple delivery services with a single common restaurant.	¶¶29-30	col. 5:21-27
identifying... common menu items among the source menu items... and, for each identified common menu item, associating the source menu items with a master menu item	Google Food permits searching by common menu item (e.g., "Chilean sea bass"), which allegedly requires identifying and associating common items to create a master item.	¶¶19; ¶31	col. 5:28-34
combining, by the processor, the linked data and the master menu items into a master data set	The complaint alleges that the process of ingesting, mapping, and linking data from multiple sources necessarily combines it into a master data set.	¶32	col. 5:35-37
importing the master data set... into the searchable aggregated data structure	The complaint alleges that the resulting combined data is imported into a structure that is searchable by consumers through the Google Food interface.	¶33	col. 5:38-41
storing the searchable aggregated data structure in a database accessible to the processor	The complaint alleges that Google stores this aggregated data in a database to power the Google Food service.	¶34	col. 5:42-44

'090 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a system for providing an interactive food or beverage ordering service accessible by a user computing device...	Google Food is described as an interactive service accessible via web browser that allows users to order food or beverages.	¶40	col. 5:30-33
a data acquisition and processing module... to acquire source data from a plurality of delivery service computers and provide a master data set of formatted data...	Google's developer site and backend systems allegedly function as this module, acquiring partner data feeds to create a master data set.	¶41	col. 5:30-49
...wherein the data acquisition and processing module further comprises: an application programming interface... or; an extraction module configured to extract the source data... as raw files by scraping data...	The complaint alleges Google's developer site explicitly requires partners to "integrate with Google systems and APIs," satisfying the API limitation.	¶¶43-44	col. 6:3-9
a mapping module configured to convert the raw files to a standardized format to provide formatted data	Google's requirement that partners use its "relational inventory schema" allegedly functions as this mapping module to standardize incoming data. A screenshot details this integration process.	¶¶46-47	col. 6:10-14
a linking module configured to perform record linkage on the formatted data according to the identification data...	The complaint alleges that Google's system links data by restaurant, service, and menu items to uniquely identify sources, thereby performing record linkage.	¶¶48-49	col. 6:15-20
a menu combining module configured to combine multiple source menus from linked sources into the master data set	The ability of Google Food to present a searchable, aggregated menu is alleged to be evidence of a menu combining module that creates a master data set.	¶50	col. 6:21-24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Google's aggregation of data from partners into its "relational inventory schema" meets the specific claim requirements of "identifying... common menu items" and "associating" them with a "master menu item." The defense may argue that Google's system merely links to and displays distinct offerings from partners, rather than creating a canonical "master menu item" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on screenshots of Google's user interface and developer documentation to support its infringement theory (Patent Am. Compl. ¶¶23; Patent Am. Compl. ¶29). A key factual dispute will be whether the actual, underlying technical operation of Google's backend systems performs the specific data processing steps (e.g., mapping, linking, combining) as required by the claims, or if there is a mismatch between the patent's prescribed method and Google's implementation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "master menu item"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and is central to the claimed invention's data normalization process '683 Patent, cl. 1 '090 Patent, cl. 1 The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether Google's system, which aggregates data from multiple delivery services, can be said to create a "master menu item". Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the boundary between merely linking to disparate data sources and creating the specific, unified data object required by the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "master menu item... contains references to the identified identical menu items in that set" '683 Patent, col. 5:32-34 Plaintiff may argue this language supports a broader definition where a "master menu item" is a relational construct that simply groups or links to the underlying source items, without requiring the creation of a new, separate data object.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a "menu combining module" that provides "master menu information, where each menu item can reference multiple source menu items" '683 Patent, col. 13:17-20 It further explains that "the master item name could be the name of one of the linked source menu items... a modification of such a name, or could be generated" '683 Patent, col. 13:9-12 Defendant may argue this suggests a "master menu item" is a distinct, canonical data object with its own attributes, a narrower definition that its system may not meet.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces infringement by providing Google Food to end-users with instructions on how to use the service in an infringing manner Patent Am. Compl. ¶53 It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the Accused Products/Services are especially made or adapted for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use Patent Am. Compl. ¶¶129-130
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Google's purported knowledge of the Asserted Patents and its infringement since at least October 2, 2023, a date prior to the filing of the amended complaint Patent Am. Compl. ¶59

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This dispute appears to center on the specific nature of data aggregation and normalization. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the term "master menu item", as defined in the patent, be construed to cover Google's method of aggregating and presenting different delivery options for the same food item? Or does the patent require the creation of a distinct, canonical data object that is fundamentally different from what the accused Google Food service provides?

2. A secondary question will be one of evidentiary proof: Assuming a claim construction is adopted, does the evidence from Google's developer documentation and the functionality of the Google Food platform demonstrate that Google's backend systems actually perform the specific, multi-step process of acquiring, mapping, linking, identifying, and combining data as recited in the asserted claims?