Aml Ip LLC v. Chick-fil-A, Inc.

In a case emblematic of broad assertion campaigns by non-practicing entities (NPEs), Aml Ip LLC has sued the major fast-food chain Chick-fil-A, Inc., for patent infringement. The plaintiff, Aml Ip LLC, is a patent assertion entity that has filed numerous lawsuits against a wide range of companies, particularly in the retail and e-commerce sectors. The defendant, Chick-fil-A, is one of the largest fast-food chains in the United States, specializing in chicken sandwiches and known for its significant revenue and large number of restaurant locations. The lawsuit targets Chick-fil-A's e-commerce and mobile ordering systems, which customers use to purchase food and other products. This case is part of a larger litigation campaign by Aml Ip, which has asserted patents against numerous other retail and food service companies.

The core of the dispute is U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, titled "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Electronic Commerce Transactions Using Electronic Tokens." This patent, which has an application date in 2000, generally covers systems for handling online transactions using electronic tokens issued by a vendor, eliminating the need for a third-party like a bank to process the transaction. Aml Ip alleges that Chick-fil-A's online and in-app purchasing systems, which allow customers to place and pay for orders digitally, infringe upon the claims of the '838 patent. This patent has been criticized by some as an example of an overly broad "do it on a computer" patent that may be vulnerable to invalidity challenges under the Supreme Court's Alice decision.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue that became the nation's top patent court under Judge Alan D. Albright, who was known for procedures seen as favorable to patent holders. Judge Albright actively encouraged patent plaintiffs to file in his court, leading to a massive concentration of patent cases in the district. However, following criticism, the court in 2022 began randomly assigning patent cases filed in the Waco division among a dozen judges to distribute the caseload more evenly. More recently, in 2026, Judge Albright announced he would be stepping down from the bench. The case's presence in this district remains notable due to the court's established expertise and specialized local rules for patent litigation, even as the dynamics of the venue are shifting. The lawsuit is significant as it represents the continued targeting of successful operating companies across various industries by patent assertion entities wielding broad e-commerce patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Aml Ip LLC and Chick-fil-A, Inc. remains in its early stages. Specific details regarding the case's progression are limited, as substantive court orders and detailed docket entries are not widely available in public sources. However, the initial steps and the broader context of the litigation campaign provide insight into its likely trajectory.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2024)

• Complaint (2024-11-18): Aml Ip LLC, represented by Ramey LLP, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Chick-fil-A, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00327). The complaint alleges that Chick-fil-A's mobile ordering and payment systems infringe on U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, which covers a "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Electronic Commerce Transactions Using Electronic Tokens." This filing was part of a broader assertion campaign by Aml Ip, which simultaneously sued other major retailers like Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone on the same day over the same patent.

• Answer and Counterclaims: There is no publicly available information regarding Chick-fil-A's answer to the complaint or any counterclaims it may have filed. In typical patent litigation, a defendant's answer would be due within a few weeks or months of the complaint, often followed by counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidity.

Pre-Trial Motions and Proceedings

• Motions to Dismiss or Transfer: No substantive motions to dismiss (for example, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the Supreme Court's Alice decision) or motions to transfer venue have been publicly reported in this case. Given that the '838 patent has been characterized as a broad e-commerce patent potentially vulnerable to an Alice challenge, such a motion would be a standard defensive strategy.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records does not indicate that Chick-fil-A or any other defendant has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition to challenge the validity of the '838 patent. Filing an IPR is a common tactic for defendants in patent litigation, as it can lead to a stay of the district court case and offers a specialized forum to argue invalidity. The absence of a public filing to date does not preclude a future one.

Current Status and Likely Outcome

• Active Status: The case is officially designated as "Active." However, the lack of public filings on the docket since the initial complaint suggests that the parties may be engaged in early-stage discussions or that the case is proceeding slowly through initial scheduling conferences.

• High Likelihood of Settlement: The most probable outcome for this case is a settlement and dismissal. Aml Ip LLC is a non-practicing entity (NPE), and its business model typically revolves around securing licensing fees through litigation or the threat of it. Other lawsuits filed by Aml Ip have resolved through settlement. For instance, in a separate case over the same patent, AML IP, LLC v. Orveon Global US LLC, the parties reached a settlement just 168 days after the complaint was filed. Chick-fil-A itself has a history of settling patent disputes, including a data management patent case brought by another NPE, Fall Line Patents, which was dismissed with prejudice after 298 days. These patterns suggest that both parties may be economically motivated to resolve the matter before incurring the significant costs of discovery, claim construction, and trial.

In summary, while the lawsuit is officially ongoing, there have been no major, publicly documented legal developments since its filing in late 2024. The history of the plaintiff and the typical dynamics of NPE litigation strongly suggest the case will likely conclude with a confidential settlement and dismissal before any substantive court rulings are issued.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on the complaint filed in this case and the consistent representation of Aml Ip LLC in its broader litigation campaign, the counsel for the plaintiff is the intellectual property firm Ramey LLP. While the specific docket may not be publicly available to list every attorney who has filed an appearance, the firm's public announcements and litigation patterns identify the key counsel.

William "Bill" P. Ramey III

• Role: Lead Counsel (Managing Partner)
• Firm: Ramey LLP
• Office Location: Houston, Texas
• Note: Ramey is a prolific patent assertion attorney who founded his firm in 2011 and has since represented plaintiffs in hundreds of patent infringement cases, making his firm one of the most active in the nation for filing such lawsuits. He has faced multiple judicial sanctions for litigation conduct in other cases.

Other potential attorneys from Ramey LLP

While not explicitly named on a publicly accessible appearance form for this specific case, attorneys Jeffrey E. Kubiak (Partner) and Susan Kalra have been named alongside William Ramey in other litigation and judicial sanctions, indicating their active roles in the firm's patent cases. Given the firm's business model, it is likely they are involved in managing Aml Ip's litigation campaign.

There is no indication of separate local counsel in the publicly available documents. Ramey LLP, being based in Houston, is within the state of Texas and its attorneys are licensed to practice in the Western District. No in-house counsel for Aml Ip LLC has been identified, which is typical for a non-practicing entity whose legal representation is externally managed by its litigation firm. Filings in the case are not sealed, but detailed docket information beyond the initial complaint is not widely available.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Chick-fil-A, Inc. in the public docket for case number 7:24-cv-00327. The case is in its early stages, and the defendant's response to the complaint, which would include the formal appearance of counsel, is not yet publicly documented.

However, based on the company's past litigation patterns and its relationships with major law firms, the following provides information on its in-house legal team and likely outside counsel.

In-House Counsel

Chick-fil-A maintains a robust in-house legal department at its Atlanta, Georgia headquarters that manages the company's litigation and intellectual property matters.

• Lynette Smith
  • Role: Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
  • Firm: Chick-fil-A, Inc.
  • Office Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Note: Smith oversees the company's entire legal department and is a member of its Executive Committee, providing strategic legal counsel across the business.

Likely Outside Counsel

While not yet appeared in this case, Chick-fil-A has previously retained counsel from several major law firms with strong patent litigation practices for other matters. It is common for a defendant of this size to engage national counsel with deep subject matter expertise.

• Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP: This firm has a long-standing relationship with Chick-fil-A, particularly on trademark matters, and has a significant food and beverage industry practice. Their extensive intellectual property litigation group makes them a potential candidate for defending this patent case.
• DLA Piper: As a large global law firm with a significant food and beverage practice and a robust patent litigation group, DLA Piper is another likely choice for a sophisticated client like Chick-fil-A.
• Jones Day: This firm represented Chick-fil-A in a 2025 patent infringement case involving remote ordering technology, which was resolved quickly. Their prior engagement on a similar technological subject matter suggests they could be retained again.

Formal appearances of outside counsel are expected to be filed on the court's docket in the coming weeks or months. Until then, the specific attorneys representing Chick-fil-A in this litigation remain unconfirmed.