OrderMagic LLC v. Hungerrush LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OrderMagic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: HungerRush, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:26-cv-2391, S.D. Tex., 03/25/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Southern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's remote ordering products infringe a patent related to an electronic menu and ordering system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic, table-side ordering systems for the restaurant and hospitality industry, which are designed to streamline order placement and payment processing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,475 - "Remote ordering system"

• Issued: November 9, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges with traditional restaurant ordering, which relies on waitstaff and can be slow and inefficient ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:21-34 It also notes that prior electronic menu solutions, such as those based on general-purpose tablet PCs, were often complex, expensive, fragile, and susceptible to damage from spilled liquids, a common hazard in a restaurant environment ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:35-62
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a purpose-built, durable remote ordering device intended to overcome the fragility and complexity of tablet PCs ʼ475 Patent, col. 2:13-18 The system, as described, features an electronic menu with a series of input devices, such as membrane switches or a touch screen, that correspond to menu items, and a transmitter to send orders to a remote receiver, such as in the kitchen ʼ475 Patent, abstract The design emphasizes durability, using features like a liquid-resistant barrier and components that are less power-intensive than a standard tablet computer ʼ475 Patent, col. 3:6-12 '475 Patent, col. 1:63-67 Figure 4 of the patent illustrates an embodiment with selection buttons flanking a central display screen.
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to make electronic table-side ordering more commercially viable by creating a dedicated, ruggedized device that was less costly and more reliable in a hospitality setting than adapting consumer-grade computers ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:35-40

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the '475 Patent are asserted, referring only to the "Exemplary '475 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶11 Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's system-level invention.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A system comprising a first customer menu apparatus and a second customer menu apparatus.
  • Each apparatus includes:
    • At least one display listing a plurality of items.
    • An input means for allowing a customer to select one of the items.
    • A feedback means for confirming selection of the item.
    • The feedback means includes a feedback display, and the input means includes a touch screen overlaying the feedback display.
  • The system is constructed and arranged to allow a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other via the first and second customer menu apparatuses.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name Compl. ¶11 It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶16 This exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement of one or more claims of the '475 Patent Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶15 However, the body of the complaint offers no narrative infringement theory. It states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the public filing Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of representative independent Claim 1 of the '475 Patent, several points of contention may arise during litigation.

• Scope Questions: A central question for a system claim like Claim 1 is whether the accused products constitute a "system" where a "first customer menu apparatus" and a "second customer menu apparatus" are "constructed and arranged to allow... a first customer and a second customer to communicate with each other" '475 Patent, claim 1 The case may turn on what level of "communication" is required. This raises the question of whether this limitation demands direct device-to-device user messaging or if it can be satisfied by two devices independently sending order data to a central server.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites both an "input means" and a distinct "feedback means," where the input means includes a "touch screen" and the feedback means includes a "feedback display" overlaid by that touch screen '475 Patent, claim 1 This structure raises the question of whether a single, integrated touch-screen interface in an accused product can be conceptually divided to meet these two separate limitations, or if the claim requires functionally or structurally distinct components for input versus feedback.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"communicate with each other" (['475 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:9))

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the scope of the claimed "system." Infringement of Claim 1 requires a showing that Defendant provides a system of at least two devices capable of such communication. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether standard client-server architectures fall within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests inter-menu communication for functions like sending messages or paying for items selected on other menus, which could support an argument that any data exchange between devices on the same network meets the limitation '475 Patent, col. 4:63-67
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies communication "with each other" to allow a "first customer and a second customer" to interact '475 Patent, claim 1 This phrasing may support a narrower construction requiring direct, user-facing messaging functionality between two specific devices, rather than simply routing data through a central point-of-sale system.

"feedback means for confirming selection of the item" (['475 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:9))

• Context and Importance: The patent claims this as a separate element from the "input means." How this term is construed will be important in determining whether a modern, integrated touch-screen device, which inherently provides visual feedback upon touch, infringes a claim that separates these functions.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's figures show a simple display that lists selected items and their prices, which could support an interpretation that any visual update on the screen after a selection is made constitutes the "feedback means" '475 Patent, Fig. 1 '475 Patent, col. 3:34-36
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites the "input means" and "feedback means" as two distinct limitations. This structure could support an argument that the claim requires more than the inherent visual response of a touch screen, suggesting a separate confirmation step, module, or display area dedicated to providing feedback.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that the Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers and end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the '475 Patent Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint itself Compl. ¶13 This allegation appears to form the basis for potential post-filing willful infringement or inducement, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded.

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

• A central issue will be one of system scope: does the claim requirement for two menu apparatuses to "communicate with each other" necessitate direct, user-to-user interaction between the devices, or is the limitation satisfied by two devices that independently communicate with a common back-end server?
• A key question of claim construction will be whether, on an integrated touch-screen device, the single user action of touching an item and seeing it appear on an order list can be separated to satisfy the distinct claim limitations of an "input means" and a separate "feedback means for confirming selection."
• An immediate evidentiary question will be the identity and technical operation of the "Exemplary Defendant Products," as the complaint provides no specific details, deferring all such information to an unprovided exhibit.