Fall Line Patents LLC v. Regis Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Regis Corporation (Minnesota) and Supercuts, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 5:26-cv-00089, E.D. Tex., 06/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Supercuts transacts business in the district, including making, using, and distributing the accused Supercuts Mobile App, and maintains regular and established places of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Supercuts Mobile App, used for customer check-ins at salon locations, infringes a patent related to location-aware data management on remote computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to systems for creating and deploying data collection applications (termed "questionnaires") across diverse mobile devices, particularly in environments with intermittent network connectivity, using location data to customize the application.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748, which has a significant post-issuance history. The sole asserted claim, Claim 7, was found patentable in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00610), while numerous other claims were cancelled in that and another IPR (IPR2018-00043). The complaint also references a prior case, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., where the patent family survived a Section 101 patent eligibility challenge.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-08-19	'748 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-27	'748 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-19	IPR Certificate Issued (Claim 7 found patentable)
2026-06-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of developing data collection applications for a wide variety of remote handheld computers, which often have different hardware, operating systems, and limited, unreliable network access Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶23 '748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2 Prior art methods often required creating separate, custom software for each device type, a process that was costly and made updates, even minor ones, difficult to implement across a fleet of devices Compl. ¶25 '748 Patent, col. 3:7-10
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses device-independent "tokens" to represent a "questionnaire" (or form) Compl. ¶26 '748 Patent, col. 9:26-32 This allows a single application to be designed and then executed on various remote devices without needing to be recompiled for each specific platform. The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store data locally if a network connection is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored '748 Patent, col. 5:2-12 A key feature is the use of an integrated GPS device to automatically collect location data, enabling the creation of questionnaires customized for specific locations and the execution of those questionnaires when a device is at that location '748 Patent, col. 10:25-27 '748 Patent, col. 10:55-65
• Technical Importance: The described solution aimed to create a universal, cross-platform framework for field data collection, reducing development overhead and enabling near-real-time data availability from mobile workers using heterogeneous devices Compl. ¶8 '748 Patent, col. 4:50-54

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the '748 Patent Compl. ¶12
• The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
  • A method for collecting survey data and making responses available online.
  • Designing a "questionnaire" on a first computer platform that is "customized for a particular location", has "branching logic", and includes a question requesting "location identifying information".
  • Automatically transferring the designed "questionnaire" to a "loosely networked computer" with an "integral GPS".
  • When the computer is at the "particular location", "executing" the "questionnaire" to collect user responses.
  • While executing, using the "GPS to automatically provide" the "location identifying information" as a response.
  • Automatically transferring the collected responses "in real time" over the "loose network" to a "central computer".
  • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Supercuts Mobile App, operating in conjunction with Supercuts servers Compl. ¶11

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused system allows Supercuts to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" Compl. ¶11 The Supercuts Mobile App is used by customers to find salon locations and to "check in" for service, which implies the app uses a customer's location to manage their place in a queue for a specific salon Compl. ¶6 The complaint frames this check-in process as the infringing "questionnaire" functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 7 but does not provide a detailed element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory. The following chart summarizes the likely infringement allegations based on the general statements in the complaint.

'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 on a first computer platform wherein at least one of said at least one questions requests location identifying information;	Supercuts allegedly designs the customer check-in process on its servers, which functions as a "questionnaire" that is customized for specific salon locations.	¶11	col. 14:50-54
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto;	Supercuts allegedly distributes the Supercuts Mobile App (the "questionnaire") to customers' smartphones, which are loosely networked computers with integral GPS.	¶11	col. 15:1-5
(c) when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire on said loosely networked computer, thereby collecting responses from the user;	A customer allegedly executes the check-in process on the mobile app when at a specific Supercuts salon to join the service queue.	¶11	col. 15:10-15
(d) while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire;	The app allegedly uses the smartphone's GPS to automatically determine and provide the customer's location as part of the check-in process.	¶11	col. 15:16-20
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; and,	The check-in data is allegedly transferred from the customer's app over a cellular or Wi-Fi network to Supercuts' central servers.	¶11	col. 15:21-25
(f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e).	Salon employees can allegedly view the customer check-in data via an interface connected to the central servers.	¶11	col. 15:26-29

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Question: A central dispute may arise over whether the Supercuts Mobile App's customer "check-in" function constitutes a "questionnaire" as the term is used in the patent. The patent's examples involve more detailed data collection tasks, such as a multi-step "mystery shopper" report '748 Patent, col. 10:41-11:21, which raises the question of whether a simple check-in process falls within the claim's scope.
• Technical Question: The infringement analysis may turn on what level of "customiz[ation] for a particular location" (Claim 7(a)) is required. The complaint does not detail how the check-in process is customized beyond being associated with a specific salon. A question for the court will be whether simply tailoring a check-in to a specific salon's queue is sufficient to meet this limitation.
• Factual Question: Claim 7(c) requires "executing said transferred questionnaire" when the device "is at said particular location." The complaint does not specify whether the Supercuts app requires a user to be physically present at a salon to check in. If the app permits remote check-in, it may raise a factual question as to whether this limitation is met.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire"
  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case hinges on construing this term to cover the accused app's check-in functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely determine whether the core infringing activity falls within the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "the terms 'program' and 'form' are used interchangeably with questionnaire" '748 Patent, col. 8:35-37 and describes it as a "series of questions or statements, each of which calls for a response" '748 Patent, col. 8:27-29 This could support an argument that any structured user input sequence qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed examples, such as the "mystery shopper" scenario, depict multi-part, conditional data gathering tasks far more complex than a typical service check-in '748 Patent, col. 10:41-11:21 This may support an argument that the term implies a more substantive survey or data-gathering instrument.
• The Term: "customized for a particular location"
  • Context and Importance: This term in Claim 7(a) is critical for infringement, as it requires more than a generic form. The degree of required customization will be a key point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's general description of creating questionnaires for collecting information in the field could support an argument that any questionnaire tied to a specific physical place (e.g., a form to check into a specific store) is "customized." '748 Patent, col. 1:15-24
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and detailed description repeatedly emphasize creating questionnaires that are "customized for particular locations" to collect location-specific data, suggesting the content of the questionnaire itself, not just its target, should be location-dependent '748 Patent, abstract '748 Patent, col. 10:25-27

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing the Supercuts Mobile App to its customers and distributing instructions and advertisements that encourage its use in an infringing manner Compl. ¶16 It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the app has special features designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶17
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the '748 Patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" Compl. ¶18 It further alleges willful blindness based on a purported policy of not reviewing third-party patents Compl. ¶19

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court's determination of several key issues:

• Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "questionnaire," which the patent illustrates with complex field data-gathering surveys, be construed to cover the customer "check-in" process of the Supercuts Mobile App?
• Impact of Prior Proceedings: A central strategic question is how the patent's extensive post-grant history will influence the litigation. The fact that asserted Claim 7 survived an inter partes review where other claims were cancelled could strengthen its presumption of validity and focus the dispute squarely on infringement.
• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question for infringement will be whether the plaintiff can prove that the accused check-in process meets specific technical limitations of Claim 7, such as being "customized for a particular location" in a manner contemplated by the patent and being executed only when the user is physically present at that location.