Aml Ip LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

In a notable case unfolding in a prominent patent litigation venue, Aml Ip LLC has sued Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, Aml Ip LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE), also known as a patent assertion entity, which acquires patents to generate revenue through litigation and licensing rather than producing its own products. The defendant, Chipotle, is a major operator of fast-casual restaurants known for its significant investments in digital and restaurant technology, including mobile ordering, a customer loyalty program, and advanced kitchen management systems. This lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by Aml Ip LLC, which has filed similar suits against numerous other companies in the retail and e-commerce sectors.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, which describes a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." Aml Ip alleges that Chipotle's online and mobile app-based ordering and payment systems—which allow customers to place orders, pay, and use rewards—infringe upon the '838 patent's claims. This patent has been the subject of public scrutiny; in 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized it as an example of an abstract "do it on a computer" style patent that should be ineligible for protection.

The case (7:24-cv-00291) is proceeding in the Western District of Texas, a court that has attracted a high volume of patent cases, making it a focal point of patent litigation in the United States. Historically, plaintiffs filed in the Waco division to ensure their case would be heard by Judge Alan Albright, who was known for plaintiff-friendly procedures and a reluctance to transfer cases. However, a 2022 standing order now mandates the random assignment of patent cases filed in Waco to a dozen judges across the district, a change intended to curb this type of judge-shopping. The case's notability arises from the plaintiff's pattern as a serial asserter, the high-profile nature of the defendant, and its venue in a district central to ongoing national debates about patent litigation reform.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 4, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Aml Ip LLC and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. remains active, but specific details regarding its legal developments are not available in publicly accessible records or legal news reporting. The case docket (7:24-cv-00291) shows the suit is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

While a detailed chronological history is not publicly available without direct access to court records like PACER, the typical progression of such a case would involve the following stages. The current status indicates the litigation has not been dismissed or reached a final public resolution.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (Late 2024 – Early 2025)

• Complaint (2024-10-25): Aml Ip LLC filed its original complaint, accusing Chipotle's online and mobile ordering systems of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, which relates to conducting e-commerce with electronic tokens.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Following the complaint, Chipotle's legal counsel would have been required to file an Answer, responding to the allegations. Typically, a defendant in a patent case also files counterclaims, often seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid and/or not infringed. No public record or news of Chipotle's specific response is available.

A Second, Shorter Lawsuit (2025)

Public litigation data reveals that Aml Ip LLC filed a second, separate lawsuit against Chipotle on the same patent (Case No. 7:25-cv-00065) on February 10, 2025. This case was closed shortly thereafter on July 2, 2025. The reason for this duplicate filing and its quick closure is not clear from available information, but it may have been a procedural issue, a refiling, or it was consolidated with the original case.

Pre-Trial and Discovery Phase (Ongoing)

Given that the original case has been active for over 18 months, it has likely progressed through several key pre-trial stages:

• Motions to Dismiss or Transfer: Defendants in patent cases often file early motions to dismiss (for example, arguing the patent claims ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101) or motions to transfer the case to a more convenient venue. There have been no reports of such motions or any corresponding rulings in this case.
• Claim Construction (Markman Hearing): A central event in any patent case is the Markman hearing, where the judge determines the legal scope of the patent's claims. This process involves detailed briefing from both parties. No Markman order or hearing schedule has been publicly reported.
• Fact and Expert Discovery: During this period, both parties would be engaged in exchanging documents, written questions (interrogatories), and conducting depositions of fact and expert witnesses.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (None Identified)

A common strategy for defendants in patent litigation is to challenge the patent's validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through an Inter Partes Review (IPR). A search of PTAB records does not indicate that Chipotle has filed an IPR petition against the '838 patent. The absence of an IPR could be a strategic decision, potentially indicating an early focus on other defenses in district court or a preference for settlement negotiations.

Outcome and Current Posture

As of May 2026, there has been no publicly announced settlement, trial, or final judgment in the primary (7:24-cv-00291) case. The "active" status suggests the parties are likely engaged in pre-trial proceedings, discovery, or potentially confidential settlement discussions. The lack of major public rulings can sometimes indicate a case is proceeding on a standard track without contentious disputes that generate published opinions, or that the parties are focused on resolving the matter out of court. This aligns with a common pattern where patent assertion entities file suits against numerous defendants, many of which end in confidential settlements before reaching trial.

While a formal notice of appearance for Aml Ip LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 7:24-cv-00291, was not publicly available through web search, counsel for the plaintiff can be identified with high confidence based on the complaint filed in a subsequent, nearly identical case and a consistent pattern of representation in Aml Ip's broader litigation campaign.

Aml Ip LLC is consistently represented by attorneys from Ramey LLP in its lawsuits asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838. This includes a complaint filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. in the same court (Case 7:25-cv-00065) and numerous other suits against defendants in the restaurant and retail sectors. Attorneys from Berger & Hipskind LLP and Daignault Iyer LLP are also frequently involved in patent monetization campaigns, though their direct involvement in this specific case is not confirmed by available documents.

Based on filings in these parallel cases, the likely counsel for Aml Ip LLC are:

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: William P. Ramey III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Note: As managing partner of a boutique intellectual property firm, William Ramey frequently represents patent assertion entities in litigation campaigns across the country.

• Name: Daniel P. Hipskind

  • Role: Of Counsel / Co-Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills, CA)
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation and has represented clients in federal courts in Texas and other key patent jurisdictions.

• Name: Ronald M. Daignault

  • Role: Of Counsel / Co-Counsel
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP (Vienna, VA)
  • Note: With extensive experience in IP litigation, he often represents patent owners in monetization efforts and has been involved in numerous high-stakes patent disputes.

This information is based on the established pattern of representation across Aml Ip LLC's litigation campaign. The precise roles may vary, and additional local counsel may appear on the docket as the case progresses. No filings confirming counsel were sealed; rather, they were not available through the general web searches performed.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., has not been identified on the public docket for Aml Ip LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 7:24-cv-00291. Searches for the case docket have yielded conflicting information, with at least one litigation data service listing a different defendant under the same case number. Therefore, no attorneys have officially made an appearance in this specific matter.

However, an analysis of Chipotle's representation in other recent and similar patent litigation provides a strong indication of the outside counsel the company is likely to retain.

Likely Outside Counsel

Based on their role in a recent, similar patent case, the following firm and attorney are likely to represent Chipotle.

Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.

Fish & Richardson is a top-tier intellectual property and patent litigation firm with a significant presence in Texas and is frequently hired by major corporations for high-stakes patent disputes. The firm has handled more district court patent cases than any other firm in the last five years and has deep experience in the Western District of Texas.

• Neil J. McNabnay, Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: McNabnay served as lead counsel for Chipotle in Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., another patent infringement case filed by a non-practicing entity in the Eastern District of Texas, which was resolved in 2024. His practice focuses on complex patent litigation across various technologies.

Other experienced patent litigators at the firm's Austin office, such as David Hoffman, have extensive experience in the Western District of Texas, the venue for the current case.

In-House Counsel

The litigation would be managed by Chipotle's in-house legal team.

• Ilene Eskenazi, Chief Legal and Human Resources Officer

  • Role: Eskenazi is the top legal officer at Chipotle, responsible for overseeing all legal and compliance matters for the company. She assumed the role in January 2026.
  • Firm & Office: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Newport Beach, California.

• Roger Theodoredis, Former Chief Legal Officer

  • Role: Theodoredis was the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel at Chipotle from 2018 until transitioning to an advisory role in January 2026. He likely managed the company's litigation strategy during the period the Aml Ip lawsuit was filed.