ADIM8, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

On December 10, 2022, Adim8, LLC (“Adim8” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Brett T. Cooke of Brett T. Cooke Law Office, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., (“Defendant”), represented by Lance E. Wyatt, Jr., Neil J. McNabnay, and Rodeen Talebi of Fish & Richardson P.C., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged infringement of U.S. patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, with Alan D. Albright presiding.

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 8,107,940 (“the ’940 Patent”) and 8,787,895 (“the ’895 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ADVERTISING ON A MOBILE DEVICE” owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, "On a regular basis, digital applications display time indicators, such as hourglasses, rotating circles, and the like, that tell the user that the application is currently unavailable to the user because of processing, transferring data, or waiting or a remote server to complete a task. Adim8, LLC ‘makes this idle time an advertising opportunity using its patented technology. With Icon Advertising, standard idle indictor is replaced with customized animations of an advertiser’s logo, icon, or ad content. Instead of the consumer watching a spinning circle, the consumer sees the advertiser’s logo or animation.”

 The plaintiff further stated, “Adim8, LLC patented icon advertising technology is simple to integrate into any application with a proprietary easy-to-use application program interface (‘API’). The API allows developers to easily replace a software call to the standard waiting indicator with a call to the icon advertising function. There are no other changes to make. Icon advertising manages ad downloads, ad rotation, display statistics, and reporting information back to the hosting server. In addition to developing its patented technology, Adim8, LLC also produces creative content and compelling ad campaigns leveraging this exciting new technology.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one or more claims of the ’940 Patent, through, among other activities, making, using, and incorporating into Defendant’s website, icon advertising technology. The Defendant’s website (https://catering.chipotle.com/) advertises Chipotle goods and services and is viewable on a mobile device. The Defendant’s website displays a graphic advertisement that includes a time passage indicator.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one or more claims of the ’895 Patent, through, among other activities, making, using, and incorporating into Defendants’ website, icon advertising technology. Defendant actively induces infringement at least one or more claims of the ’895 Patent, through, among other activities, making, using, and incorporating into Defendant’s website, icon advertising technology.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “The electronic device is operable to substitute the graphic advertisement waiting indicator in lieu of a standard waiting indicator. The graphic advertisement waiting indicator is displayed whilst the Chipotle website loads pages or data onto the mobile device. The graphic advertisement waiting indicator is associated with an entity, product and/or service. The electronic device is operable to display the graphic advertisement waiting indicator during an idle time period. The graphic advertisement is animated.”

Plaintiff stated three claims for relief, including from alleged direct and induced infringement of the asserted patents.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.