Galatea Technology LLC v. Popl Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Galatea Technology LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Popl Co (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-04910, C.D. Cal., 06/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is registered to do business in California, has transacted business in the District, and maintains its primary place of business within the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s server-side method for setting up its Popl digital business cards infringes a patent related to associating data with Near Field Communication (NFC) chips for devices with restricted writing capabilities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue provides a server-based workaround for mobile operating systems that restrict third-party applications from directly writing data to or reading unique hardware identifiers from NFC chips.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that Defendant has been on notice of the patent and its alleged infringement since at least December 14, 2022.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-10-20	’796 Patent Priority Date
2022-08-30	’796 Patent Issued
2022-12-14	Alleged Pre-Suit Notice of Infringement to Popl
2023-06-21	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,429,796 - “Method and Apparatus for Virtually Writing to a NFC Chip,” issued August 30, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a limitation in certain mobile operating systems, such as Apple's iOS, which prevent third-party applications from directly writing data to NFC chips or reading the chip's unique, hard-coded serial number (Compl., Ex. 1, '796 Patent, col. 1:48-58). This makes it difficult for developers to create a persistent link between a specific physical NFC tag and unique data for users of these restricted devices.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based method to circumvent this restriction. A remote server receives the serial number of an NFC component (presumably read by a device without such OS restrictions). The server then generates a "permanent unique ID" based on that serial number and stores this ID in a database, associating it with a user-friendly name. Finally, the server prepares and sends a standardized NDEF message containing this unique ID, which a restricted device can read. The restricted device then uses this ID to communicate with the server to store or retrieve the associated data, effectively "virtually" writing to the chip by using the server as an intermediary ('796 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This server-centric architecture provided a method for enabling applications to uniquely identify and associate data with specific NFC-enabled objects, even when used with popular but technically restrictive mobile platforms ('796 Patent, col. 1:41-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
• Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for communicating with an NFC device that has an operating system "manufactured without a capability of writing to the NFC writable component," which includes the following key steps:
  • receiving, by a remote server, a serial number of the NFC writable component;
  • generating, by the remote server, a permanent unique ID for the NFC writable component based on the serial number;
  • storing, by the remote server, the permanent unique ID with a name for the NFC writable component; and
  • preparing and sending, by the remote server, a NDEF message to the NFC device that includes the permanent unique ID and information to be shared.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Popl server which performs a method claimed by the '796 Patent during the set up process of Popl Digital Business Cards including, but not limited to, the Popl Card and/or Popl Dot" (collectively "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Popl server performs the patented method as part of the setup for its digital business card products (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operations of the Popl server or its architecture. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the products' market position or commercial success.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit 2" but does not include the exhibit in the filing (Compl. ¶12). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible from the complaint alone. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Popl server directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the '796 Patent by performing the claimed method steps during the setup process for its digital business card products (Compl. ¶¶10, 12). The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations mapping the operation of the Popl server to the individual limitations of Claim 1.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute will likely concern the actual operation of the Popl server. The case may turn on what evidence emerges from discovery regarding whether the Popl server's setup process involves: (1) receiving the specific hardware serial number of a Popl Card or Dot; (2) generating an identifier that is "based on" that serial number; and (3) whether that identifier can be characterized as "permanent."
  • Scope Questions: The preamble of Claim 1 recites an NFC device with "an operating system that is manufactured without a capability of writing to the NFC writable component." The parties may dispute whether this preamble language is a limiting condition on the server-side method claim. If it is found to be limiting, a question arises as to how Plaintiff would prove this condition is met for the end-users of the accused system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "permanent unique ID"

• Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the invention's mechanism for creating a persistent link. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the identifier used in Popl's system meets the "permanent" requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its system identifiers are editable, revocable, or otherwise not "permanent," thus falling outside the claim's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "permanent." Plaintiff may argue it should be interpreted in the context of the problem being solved, meaning an ID that persists in the server's database for as long as the association with the NFC chip is needed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that "permanent" implies immutability. The specification's suggestion of using a hash function on the serial number to generate the ID could support a narrower reading, as a hash function consistently produces the same output for a given input, suggesting an unchangeable identifier ('796 Patent, col. 7:3-6).

• The Term: "operating system that is manufactured without a capability of writing to the NFC writable component"

• Context and Importance: This preamble language describes the environment in which the invention is intended to operate. Its construction is critical because it could be interpreted as a necessary condition for infringement to occur.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue this phrase should be interpreted functionally, in light of the patent's background, to mean an OS that lacks a publicly available API for developers to write to NFC chips, as described for iOS ('796 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue for a literal reading, suggesting that if the operating system possesses any such capability, even if private or undocumented, the condition is not met. This could also be a basis for an indefiniteness argument, as OS capabilities change over time with software updates.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Popl induces infringement by encouraging and instructing its customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner, with knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶13). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Popl's components are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on Popl's alleged continued infringement after receiving written notice of the '796 Patent from Plaintiff on or around December 14, 2022 (Compl. ¶13).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does discovery show that the accused Popl server performs the specific steps recited in Claim 1? In particular, does it receive the hardware serial number of an NFC chip and generate a "permanent unique ID" based upon it, or does it use an alternative method to link data to its physical products?
• A central issue of claim construction will be the interpretation of the preamble language "an operating system that is manufactured without a capability of writing." The court will likely need to decide if this phrase is a binding limitation on the server-side method and, if so, what level of proof is required to satisfy it.
• The dispute may also hinge on the definitional scope of the term "permanent unique ID." The outcome could depend on whether the identifier employed by the Popl system is determined to be "permanent" in the manner required by the claim, or if its characteristics (e.g., being user-editable or temporary) place it outside the patent's scope.