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., 09/29/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants having transacted business within the Eastern District of Texas, including making the accused Supercuts Mobile App available to residents. The complaint also alleges that Supercuts maintains regular and established places of business in the district, citing specific store locations.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Supercuts Mobile App and associated server infrastructure, which allow customers to find and check in to salon locations, infringe a patent related to location-aware data management on remote computing devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for developing and deploying data collection applications across diverse mobile devices, particularly in environments with unreliable network connectivity, a common challenge in the development of modern mobile software.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously the subject of litigation against a different defendant, which resulted in a court order denying a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility grounds and a subsequent order granting summary judgment of the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, the asserted claim in this case, Claim 7, has survived an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, while other claims of the patent were cancelled in related IPRs. The survival of the asserted claim through both judicial and administrative validity challenges may be a significant factor in this case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-08-19	Earliest Priority Date for '748 Patent
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 Issued
2017-10-06	IPR2018-00043 Filed against '748 Patent
2019-01-22	IPR2019-00610 Filed against '748 Patent
2023-06-29	Order in prior litigation granting summary judgment of § 101 validity for '748 Patent
2026-09-29	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - "System and Method for Data Management" (issued Sep. 27, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenges of creating software for mobile data collection in the early 2000s Compl. ¶22 These included software compatibility issues across different handheld devices, which often required custom, device-specific programming (Compl. ¶22; ’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2), and the problem of intermittent or unavailable network connections in the field, which hindered real-time data transfer Compl. ¶22 ’748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:2
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses "device indifferent tokens" to create a single, cross-platform "questionnaire" Compl. ¶25 ’748 Patent, col. 14:17-19 This tokenized questionnaire can be executed on various remote devices without needing to be recompiled for each one ’748 Patent, col. 5:13-22 The system is also designed for "loosely networked" environments, where it can store data locally on the device if a network is unavailable and transmit it later when a connection is restored ’748 Patent, abstract ’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce development costs and complexity for mobile applications while improving the reliability of field data collection in environments with poor or sporadic connectivity.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 Compl. ¶12
• The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
  • Designing a questionnaire on a first computer that is customized for a particular location, includes branching logic, and requests location-identifying information.
  • Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" that has an integral GPS.
  • Executing the questionnaire on the remote computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
  • Using the GPS to automatically provide location-identifying information as a response while the questionnaire is executing.
  • Automatically transferring collected responses in real-time over the loose network to a central computer.
  • Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "Supercuts Mobile App" operating "in conjunction with Supercuts servers" Compl. ¶11

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Supercuts Mobile App is used to direct customers to salon locations and allows them to check in Compl. ¶6 This system is alleged to "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" Compl. ¶11 The complaint asserts this functionality is provided to individuals throughout the district, suggesting it is a primary customer-facing tool for the business Compl. ¶¶5-7

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in 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 creates a "location-specific questionnaire" for its mobile app. The complaint does not specify the details of the design process or the alleged branching logic.	¶11	col. 14:46-53
(b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto	Supercuts allegedly "provides, supplies, [and] distributes" its mobile app to end-user devices, which function as the "loosely networked computer."	¶11	col. 14:54-58
(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	The app is allegedly executed by customers to "check in for... Supercuts locations," which constitutes executing the questionnaire to collect user responses.	¶6; ¶11	col. 14:59-62
(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 system allegedly collects "location-specific information." The complaint implies that the app uses the device's GPS to identify the user's location as part of the check-in process.	¶8	col. 14:62-65
(e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer	The app works "in conjunction with Supercuts servers" to "collect responses from users," implying data is transferred from the mobile device to the servers.	¶11	col. 15:1-4
(f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e)	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, though a server-based system for collecting user data implies the data is made available to the system operator.	N/A	col. 15:5-7

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the "check-in" process of the Supercuts app qualifies as a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" as those terms are used in the patent. The complaint alleges the functionality exists but does not provide specific examples of the questions or logic Compl. ¶11
  • Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the accused app uses GPS to "automatically provide said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire," as required by element (d). The analysis will need to distinguish between using GPS simply to find nearby locations versus using it to populate a data field within the claimed "questionnaire."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "questionnaire customized for a particular location"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining if the accused check-in functionality falls within the scope of the claims. The dispute may turn on whether a standard form used at a specific location is "customized for" that location.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses "creating questionnaires that are customized for particular locations" without necessarily requiring the content to change dynamically (e.g., a standardized inspection form for a specific factory) ’748 Patent, col. 10:59-61 This could support an argument that any questionnaire intended for a specific site is "customized."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "customized" could be interpreted to require that the questionnaire's content or structure is specifically tailored to or altered by the particular location, not merely designated for use there. The claim's linkage of "customized for a location" with a question that "requests location identifying information" may suggest a more active form of customization (’748 Patent, col. 14:46-53).

• The Term: "loosely networked computer"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required network architecture. Whether a modern smartphone running a standard app meets this definition will be a key point of analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explicitly defines "loosely networked" as a system "tolerant of intermittent network connections" where, if a connection is unavailable, "the information is temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored" ’748 Patent, col. 5:3-12 This general description appears to align with the standard behavior of many modern mobile applications.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term implies a specific software architecture beyond the default store-and-forward capabilities of a modern operating system. The specification contrasts this approach with prior art systems, suggesting it is a specific, inventive feature of the operating system described in the patent ’748 Patent, col. 4:3-17

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendants encourage and instruct customers to use the accused app in an infringing manner through advertising and user guides Compl. ¶16 It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the app has "special features" with no substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶17
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on a theory of willful blindness, claiming Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" Compl. ¶18 The complaint further alleges that Defendants' conduct was "objectively reckless" Compl. ¶19

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

This litigation will likely focus on the interpretation of the patent's claims relative to the functionality of a modern mobile application. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "questionnaire", which the patent describes in the context of detailed, multi-step data entry with branching logic, be construed to cover the relatively simple location-finding and "check-in" functionality of the accused consumer-facing app?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the Supercuts app use GPS data specifically "as a response" to a question within the alleged questionnaire, as required by Claim 7, or does it use location services for a distinct, non-infringing purpose, such as populating a map of nearby stores?

3. A significant procedural question will be the impact of prior proceedings: How will the fact that asserted Claim 7 has already been affirmed as patentable over an inter partes review and found valid under § 101 in separate federal court litigation influence the current case's trajectory, particularly regarding validity defenses and settlement leverage?