Aml Ip LLC v. McDonald's Corp.

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broad, ongoing assertion campaign by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against the e-commerce and digital payment systems of major consumer-facing companies. The plaintiff, Aml Ip LLC, is a patent assertion entity that holds and enforces e-commerce patents; it does not produce goods or services. The entity is associated with the Texas-based monetization firm Dynamic IP Deals (DynaIP) and has filed dozens of similar lawsuits against a wide range of retailers and food service companies. The defendant is McDonald's Corp., the global fast-food giant, which operates a vast network of restaurants and has heavily invested in digital ordering and payment technology. The lawsuit targets McDonald's digital commerce infrastructure, including its mobile app and in-store ordering kiosks, which allow customers to place orders and make payments electronically.

The case centers on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, titled "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Electronic Commerce Transactions Using Electronic Tokens." The patent, which dates to an application filed in 2000, generally describes a system for purchasing and using electronic currency or tokens for online transactions, aiming to give vendors control over their own digital currency. Notably, this patent was featured by the Electronic Frontier Foundation as a "Stupid Patent of the Month," which argued it is an example of an abstract idea ineligible for patenting under the Supreme Court's Alice decision. Aml Ip LLC has asserted this same patent, or a related one from the same family, in numerous other lawsuits against companies such as MOD Pizza, Costco, Dillard's, and Big Lots.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the case is situated in a venue famous for its high volume of patent litigation. For years, the district's Waco division was the nation's top patent venue, driven by Judge Alan Albright, who attracted plaintiffs with his patent-friendly procedures and reluctance to transfer cases. However, a 2022 standing order mandated the random assignment of patent cases filed in Waco, ending the guarantee that a case would be assigned to Judge Albright. This lawsuit was filed in the Midland/Odessa division (denoted by the '7:' in the case number), a strategic choice that may be intended to navigate the district's shifting landscape, particularly with the recent news that Judge Albright will be stepping down from the bench in August 2026. The case's notability stems from its place within a large-scale NPE campaign targeting foundational e-commerce technology used across the retail and restaurant industries, and its filing in a district undergoing significant procedural changes.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the current posture of the Aml Ip LLC v. McDonald's Corp. litigation as of May 4, 2026.

Overview & Current Posture

Aml Ip LLC ("Aml Ip"), a Texas-based entity, filed a patent infringement suit against McDonald's Corp. ("McDonald's") on October 25, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case, 7:24-cv-00293, asserts that McDonald's e-commerce platforms infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838.

As of the current date, the case remains active. However, detailed public records of specific legal proceedings beyond the initial filing are limited. The summary below is based on available information and the typical progression of such patent cases.

Chronological Developments

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024)

• 2024-10-25: Complaint Filed. Aml Ip filed its complaint alleging that McDonald's systems for online and mobile ordering and payment processing infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838. Aml Ip is represented by Ramey LLP, a firm known for representing patent assertion entities.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Specific docket entries for McDonald's answer and any potential counterclaims (such as for non-infringement or patent invalidity) are not available through general web searches. Typically, a defendant's response would have been filed in late 2024 or early 2025, assuming no extensions. It is standard practice for defendants in such cases to deny infringement and assert that the patent is invalid.

Pre-trial Motions & Scheduling (2025 - Present)

• At this stage of the litigation, approximately 18 months after filing, it is likely that the parties have engaged in initial discovery and may have filed or are preparing to file substantive motions. However, no specific rulings or pending motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay the case are publicly reported.
• Given the nature of the patent, which covers a method of conducting e-commerce with electronic tokens, a key early motion from McDonald's would likely be a motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing the patent is invalid for claiming an abstract idea under the Supreme Court's Alice v. CLS Bank framework. The '838 patent has faced public criticism on these grounds. No such motion or a ruling on it has been reported in public sources.
• The case is proceeding in the Western District of Texas, a venue known for its specialized patent rules and, until a 2022 policy change, for cases being predominantly heard by Judge Alan Albright. The judge assigned to this specific case is not identified in the available search results.

Claim Construction (Markman Stage)

• There is no public record of a Markman hearing or claim construction order in this case. In a typical patent case timeline, claim construction proceedings would likely be underway or have recently concluded by this point. The court's interpretation of key patent claim terms would be a critical development, setting the scope of the patent for all future proceedings, including summary judgment and trial.

Disposition

• The case remains active and ongoing. No settlement, dismissal, or final judgment has been publicly reported.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no evidence of McDonald's Corp. having filed an inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant challenge against U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838. Such a filing is a common defensive strategy to challenge the validity of an asserted patent outside of the district court litigation.

Litigation Context

Aml Ip LLC has been identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes referred to as a "patent troll," which holds patents for the purpose of litigation rather than producing goods or services. Aml Ip has filed dozens of similar lawsuits asserting the '838 patent against companies in various sectors, including retail and airlines. The '838 patent, titled "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Electronic Commerce Transactions Using Electronic Tokens," dates to an application filed in 2000 and has been criticized by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation as claiming a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The outcome of this case may be influenced by the broader legal challenges to the patent's validity.

Based on available information, counsel for the plaintiff Aml Ip LLC appears to be from the law firm Ramey LLP. While the specific attorneys who have filed a notice of appearance in the Aml Ip LLC v. McDonald's Corp. case have not been individually identified in public records as of today's date, the consistent pattern of representation in parallel cases strongly indicates the following counsel.

Plaintiff's Counsel (Anticipated)

Name: William P. Ramey III
Role: Lead Counsel
Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
Note on Experience: William "Bill" Ramey is the founding partner of Ramey LLP and has filed hundreds of patent infringement lawsuits on behalf of various patent-holding entities across the country, with a significant number of cases in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas. His firm frequently represents Aml Ip LLC in its litigation campaigns involving U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838.

Firm Profile: Ramey LLP

Ramey LLP is a Houston-based intellectual property law firm that has represented Aml Ip LLC in numerous patent infringement lawsuits in the Western District of Texas. The firm has filed suits on behalf of Aml Ip against other major companies such as Schlotzsky's, United Supermarkets, Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, and Dunkin' Brands, all asserting infringement of the same patent at issue in the McDonald's case, U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838. This established relationship makes it highly probable that Ramey LLP is leading the litigation against McDonald's Corp.

As of May 4, 2026, specific filings for Aml Ip LLC v. McDonald's Corp., 7:24-cv-00293, that would explicitly name all attorneys of record are not available through public web searches. The identification of counsel is based on the firm's own press releases and documented litigation history representing the plaintiff in similar matters.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel of record for the defendant, McDonald's Corp., in Aml Ip LLC v. McDonald's Corp., 7:24-cv-00293, has not yet been publicly identified in available online records.

A thorough search of court record databases, legal news outlets, and other public sources did not reveal a notice of appearance or any other filing that names the attorneys representing the defendant in this specific patent infringement case.

This lack of information could be due to several factors:

• Delayed Filing: McDonald's Corp. may have been granted an extension to respond to the complaint, and its counsel has not yet formally appeared on the docket.
• Sealed Filings: Initial filings containing counsel information could be under seal.
• Lag in Database Updates: Publicly accessible legal databases and news sources may not have been updated with the most recent docket activities.

Information on law firms that have represented McDonald's in other recent patent litigation has been noted, but there is currently no basis to confirm their involvement in this specific matter. Similarly, while McDonald's maintains an in-house legal department that oversees intellectual property litigation, the specific in-house attorneys assigned to this case are not yet known.

This section will be updated as soon as counsel for the defendant makes a formal appearance on the public docket.