Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Systems Corporation et al DC CAFC

Ameranth, Inc. has filed its first original complaint in nearly seven years, targeting Olo (1:20-cv-00518) over its food delivery platform (Olo Digital Ordering). The plaintiff pleads at length details concerning that accused system’s integration with delivery services such as Door Dash, Uber Eats, Waitr, and others; with messaging services Google Assistant and Facebook Messenger; and with hosting services provided by Amazon. A new Ameranth patent—generally related to interacting with “hospitality software” through an “intelligent automated assistant” on a remote device—makes its litigation debut in Ameranth’s recent complaint, which attaches an expert declaration that purportedly demonstrates “that the technologies described and claimed in [that] patent were non-conventional at the time of the invention in 2005 and contain at least three inventive concepts that enhance computer technology”. Ameranth’s last original complaint, filed in August 2013 against Booking Holdings (f/k/a Priceline Group) (OpenTable), contained no such detail—which is no surprise, given the effect that June 2014’s Alice decision has had on Ameranth’s campaign in particular and on patent litigation more generally.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw 54 petitions for AIA review brought against NPEs in May, up from 20 such petitions filed in April. May PTAB filings included a resurgence in petitions against publicly traded NPEs, including Acacia Research Corporation; Pendrell Corporation; Quest Patent Research Corporation; VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.; Xperi Corporation (f/k/a Tessera Holding Corporation); and Wi-LAN Inc. (WiLAN) (which was renamed to Quarterhill Inc. on June 1). A variety of private litigants were also hit by PTAB petitions in May, including Blackbird Tech LLC, Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd., General Patent Corporation, Realtime Data LLC, and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited.

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) cancellation of claims from three software menu patents (6,384,850; 6,871,325; 6,982,733) under Alice, asserted by Ameranth, Inc. against Apple and numerous other defendants (2015-1703, 2015-1704, 2015-1792, 2015-1793). In an opinion issued on November 29, the court also reversed the Board’s decision to uphold certain claims from the ‘733 patent, finding that these claims were also directed to unpatentable subject matter. The decision resulted from appeals in three covered business method (CBM) reviews (CBM2014-00013, CBM2014-00015, CBM2014-00016) filed by Apple and over 20 other companies.