DCT

5:26-cv-00084

Fall Line Patents LLC v. Macys Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:26-cv-00084, E.D. Tex., 09/30/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in the district, including making the accused mobile app available for sale and use, and because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Macy's Mobile App, in conjunction with its servers, infringes a patent related to methods for managing data, specifically by creating and executing location-specific questionnaires on remote computing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses platform-independent data collection on mobile devices, particularly for creating and deploying questionnaires that can adapt to a device's location and operate despite intermittent network connectivity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent has a significant history. It alleges that the sole asserted independent claim (Claim 7) survived an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. It also references a prior case, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe's Kitchen Inc, in which a court allegedly denied a motion to dismiss based on patent eligibility and later granted Fall Line's motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These prior findings, while not binding on the current case, are presented to suggest the patent's resilience to validity challenges.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-19 '748 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-27 '748 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-25 Order in Zoe's Kitchen case denying motion to dismiss cited
2022-12-19 IPR Certificate for IPR2019-00610 Issued (Claim 7 found patentable)
2023-06-29 Order in Zoe's Kitchen case granting SJ of validity under §101 cited
2023-08-22 IPR Certificate for IPR2018-00043 Issued (Claims 16-18 cancelled)
2026-09-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - "System and Method for Data Management"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 ("System and Method for Data Management"), issued September 27, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the early 2000s, developing software for the fragmented handheld computer market was challenging Compl. ¶22 Applications often had to be custom-written and compiled for each specific device and operating system, making them costly and difficult to update Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶24 ’748 Patent, col. 2:55-60 Furthermore, these devices often had intermittent or low-bandwidth network connections, complicating real-time data transfer '748 Patent, col. 4:1-4
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system using "device-indifferent tokens" to create portable questionnaires '748 Patent, col. 15:52-54 A questionnaire is designed on a central server and then transmitted as a set of tokens to various remote devices Compl. ¶25 This allows a single application to run on different hardware without being recompiled for each one '748 Patent, col. 5:15-20 The system is "loosely networked," meaning it can store collected data on the device if a network connection is unavailable and transmit it later when connectivity is restored '748 Patent, col. 5:7-13 A key feature is the use of an integrated GPS to automatically collect location data and customize or trigger the questionnaire based on the device's specific location Compl. ¶27 ’748 Patent, col. 10:55-58
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for creating scalable, cross-platform data collection applications that could function reliably in the field, overcoming common issues of hardware incompatibility and unreliable network access Compl. ¶25

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of independent Claim 7 '748 Patent, col. 15:46-16:2
  • The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
    • (a) Designing a questionnaire customized for a particular location with branching logic on a first computer, where at least one question requests location information.
    • (b) Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with an integrated GPS.
    • (c) Executing the questionnaire on the device when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
    • (d) Using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response to the questionnaire while it is executing.
    • (e) Automatically transferring collected responses in real-time via the "loose network" to a central computer.
    • (f) Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Macy's Mobile App" operating "in conjunction with Macy's servers" Compl. ¶11

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is used to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" Compl. ¶11 The complaint does not provide specific details, screenshots, or other evidence describing the technical operation of the Macy's Mobile App. The allegations are framed in conclusory terms that mirror the language of the patent claims.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation that the Macy's Mobile App and servers perform the patented method Compl. ¶11 but does not map specific product features to claim elements. The following chart summarizes the allegations by mapping the single infringement allegation to each element of the asserted claim.

  • '748 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) designing a questionnaire including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having branching logic... The complaint alleges that the accused system is used to create and execute a location-specific questionnaire. ¶11 col. 8:40-54
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; The complaint alleges the system involves a mobile app, which implies transfer to a remote device. ¶11 col. 9:1-5
(c) when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire...collecting responses from the user; The complaint alleges the system executes a location-specific questionnaire to collect user responses. ¶11 col. 10:27-35
(d) while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response... The complaint alleges the execution of a "location-specific" questionnaire, implying the use of location data. ¶11 col. 10:55-58
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; The complaint alleges the app operates in conjunction with servers, implying data transfer. ¶11 col. 5:7-13
(f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer... The complaint alleges a system of a mobile app and servers, which is consistent with internet-based data availability. ¶11 col. 10:11-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides no specific evidence demonstrating how the Macy's Mobile App functions. A central issue will be whether discovery reveals that the app actually performs each of the specific steps of Claim 7, such as using "branching logic," operating as a "loosely networked" system, and using GPS data "as a response."
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether the Macy's app merely uses location services for generic functions (e.g., a store locator) or if it truly executes "questionnaires" whose content or logic is "customized for a particular location" as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "questionnaire ... customized for a particular location"
    • Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is critical. The case may hinge on whether the Macy's app presents users with questionnaires whose content is substantively altered based on location (a narrow interpretation) or if simply triggering a standard set of questions at a specific location is sufficient (a broad interpretation).
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any questionnaire initiated because of a device's presence at a location is, by definition, "customized for" that location.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary example describes a "mystery shopper" scenario where the questions are directly related to the experience at a specific establishment, suggesting the content itself is location-dependent '748 Patent, col. 10:35-54 The claim also requires "designing a questionnaire...customized for a particular location," which may suggest the design itself incorporates location-specific content.
  • The Term: "loosely networked"
    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent defines it as a system tolerant of intermittent network connections that can store data locally and transmit it when a connection is restored '748 Patent, col. 5:3-13 The dispute will likely be whether the accused app’s architecture matches this specific definition or if it uses standard mobile OS-level caching, which a defendant might argue is technologically distinct.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any modern mobile application that caches data for later upload fits the patent's functional description.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent presents "loosely networked" as a specific solution to problems in the prior art '748 Patent, col. 4:1-17 A defendant could argue this implies a specific architectural choice beyond the default behavior of modern apps and operating systems.
  • The Term: "using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response"
    • Context and Importance: This term's construction will be pivotal, as it requires a specific technical action. The question is whether automatically attaching GPS coordinates as metadata to a set of user answers meets this limitation, or if it requires the GPS data to be formally entered as a "response" within the data structure of the questionnaire itself.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff could argue that if the location information is collected and transmitted along with the user's answers as part of the same data packet, it functionally serves "as a response."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "as a response to said executing questionnaire" may be interpreted to mean the location data populates a field within the questionnaire, akin to a user-entered answer. A defendant may argue that simply time-stamping or geotagging a data submission is a different, non-infringing function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Macy's encourages and provides instructions for customers to use the app in an infringing manner Compl. ¶16 It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the app has features "specially designed" for infringement with no substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶17
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported recklessness and a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which the complaint characterizes as willful blindness Compl. ¶¶18-19

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

  1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. A primary hurdle for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the Macy's Mobile App technically operates in the specific manner recited by each step of Claim 7. The case will depend on the facts of how the accused app is actually designed and functions.
  2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The dispute may turn on the construction of "questionnaire customized for a particular location." Does the accused app merely use location to trigger a generic interaction, or does it deliver questionnaires with substantively different content based on the user's location, as the patent's "mystery shopper" embodiment suggests?
  3. A Technical Question of Function: A core technical issue will be whether the accused app uses GPS data "as a response to said executing questionnaire" as required by Claim 7(d). The court will have to determine if attaching location metadata to a data submission is the same as automatically providing location information as a response within the questionnaire's framework.