DCT
2:19-cv-00187
Coding Tech LLC v. Blue Diamond Almond Growers
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Blue Diamond Almond Growers (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00187, E.D. Cal., 01/30/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business and residing within the Eastern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of QR codes on product packaging to direct consumers to its website infringes a patent related to methods and systems for accessing mobile services by scanning a code pattern.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns using a camera-equipped mobile device to scan a machine-readable code, thereby automating the process of accessing linked online content, a practice now common in consumer marketing and advertising.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. The asserted patent is the result of a chain of continuation applications originating from a PCT application filed in 2004, which itself claims priority to applications from 2003.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-07 | '159 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-09-24 | '159 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-01-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 - "Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-Pattern"
(Issued September 24, 2013; Compl. ¶8)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience and potential for error when consumers manually type website URLs from physical advertisements or packaging into a mobile device ('159 Patent, col. 1:44-50; Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a user terminal with a camera obtains a "photographic image" of a "code pattern" (e.g., a QR code). The terminal's processor then decodes this pattern to extract "code information" (e.g., a URL), transmits a request to a server using that information, and receives content in response, thereby streamlining the link between a physical object and online information ('159 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: The described technology offered a more seamless way for marketers to direct consumers from physical media to digital content at a time when camera-equipped mobile terminals were becoming widespread ('159 Patent, col. 1:28-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16 (Compl. ¶16).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method for providing content, with the key steps being:
- obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal;
- processing the image to extract the code pattern;
- decoding the code pattern into code information;
- transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; and
- receiving content information from the server.
- Independent Claim 8 recites a user terminal (an apparatus) comprising a camera, a processor (with an image processor and decoder), and a transceiver configured to perform the transmitting and receiving steps.
- Independent Claim 15 recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with program code that, when executed, implements the method of Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 16 recites a method similar to Claim 1 but requires extracting "characteristic information" from a photographic image, rather than extracting a "code pattern" and decoding it into "code information."
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶16, 25, 28, 38, 41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint alleges infringement through a "method of providing content" that utilizes a "code pattern (e.g., a QR code) by a user terminal (e.g., a smartphone)" (Compl. ¶19). The accused instrumentality is thus the end-to-end process involving Defendant's product packaging, the QR code printed on it, the user's smartphone, and Defendant's server which hosts the linked website (Compl. ¶¶15, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
Defendant places QR codes on its product packaging that, when scanned by a consumer's smartphone, direct the user's web browser to Defendant's website (Compl. ¶¶19-24). The complaint provides a visual depicting Defendant's product packaging with a QR code alongside a screenshot of the resulting webpage on a smartphone (Compl. ¶19, p. 4). This functionality is alleged to be practiced by Defendant "at least in internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
'159 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal; | A user terminal (e.g., smartphone) obtains a photographic image of a QR code on Defendant's product. | ¶20 | col. 38:35-38 |
| processing, by a processor of the user terminal, the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image; | A smartphone processor processes the image to extract the QR code pattern. | ¶21 | col. 38:39-42 |
| decoding the extracted code pattern by the processor of the user terminal into code information; | The smartphone processor decodes the QR code into code information, such as the URL of Defendant's website. The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the "QR-Code -> Scan -> Decode -> Action" process (Compl. ¶22, p. 5). | ¶22 | col. 38:43-45 |
| transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; | The smartphone transmits an HTTP request message to Defendant's server based on the decoded URL. | ¶23 | col. 38:46-48 |
| and receiving content information from the server in response to the content information request message. | The smartphone receives webpage content from Defendant's server in response to the request. | ¶24 | col. 38:49-52 |
'159 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 8)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a camera configured to obtain a photographic image of a code pattern; | A user terminal, such as a smartphone, uses its camera to obtain an image of the QR code. | ¶34 | col. 39:9-12 |
| a processor comprising: an image processor configured to process the photographic image... and a decoder configured to decode the extracted code pattern into code information; | A smartphone's processor is alleged to perform the image processing and decoding functions to extract a URL from the QR code. | ¶¶35, 36 | col. 39:13-18 |
| and a transceiver configured to (i) transmit a content information request message to a server... and (ii) receive content information from the server... | A smartphone's wireless transceiver (e.g., FDD-LTE/TDD-LTE/CDMA/EDGE) transmits the web request and receives the webpage content. This is supported by a screenshot of iPhone 7 technical specifications (Compl. ¶37, p. 7). | ¶37 | col. 39:19-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The asserted claims are directed at actions performed by a "user terminal" (Claim 1) or the "user terminal" itself (Claim 8). A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant, a food producer, directly infringes all claim limitations through its alleged "internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19), or whether liability hinges on a theory of indirect infringement based on the actions of end-consumers scanning the QR codes.
- Technical Questions: Independent claim 16 requires extracting "characteristic information" from a photographic image, whereas Claim 1 requires extracting and decoding a "code pattern" into "code information." The complaint appears to treat a URL derived from a QR code as satisfying both (Compl. ¶¶22, 57). A point of contention may arise over whether "characteristic information" has a distinct technical meaning from "code information" that is not met by the accused process.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term for Construction: "code pattern"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in most independent claims and its construction is fundamental to the scope of the patent. The central infringement question is whether a standard, publicly used QR code that links to a website falls within the definition of "code pattern" as used in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will likely determine whether the patent reads on a ubiquitous marketing practice.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists "a one-dimensional barcode, and a PDF-417 code, a QR code and a data matrix" as examples of a "barcode 60," which is used interchangeably with "code pattern" ('159 Patent, col. 11:1-14). This could support a construction that covers the accused QR codes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and description frequently depict the "code pattern" as part of a system involving a specific "service provider server" that mediates access to content, rather than a simple direct link to a public web server ('159 Patent, Fig. 1, col. 8:41-49). A party might argue that the term implies a code intended for use within such a proprietary or mediated system.
Term for Construction: "characteristic information"
- Context and Importance: This term is used in independent claim 16, which is asserted in the complaint. Its definition relative to "code information" (from Claim 1) is critical. If construed differently, infringement of Claim 16 would require different proof. The complaint's allegations for Claim 16 treat the URL as the "characteristic information," suggesting it views the terms as synonymous in this context (Compl. ¶57).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition for "characteristic information," which could support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any data extracted from an image, including a URL.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The decision to use a different term from "code information" in a separate independent claim creates a presumption of different scope. A party could argue that "characteristic information" refers to features of the image itself (e.g., image recognition of a logo or object) rather than data decoded from a structured format like a QR code. Claim 16 recites extracting "characteristic information from the photographic image," which is textually distinct from Claim 1's steps of extracting a "code pattern" and "decoding" it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory and induced infringement, stating Defendant provides a "user terminal designed to capture certain code pattern information" (Compl. ¶15). The factual basis appears to be Defendant's placement of QR codes on products with instructions such as "scan the code below," which allegedly causes or encourages consumers to perform the infringing method (Compl. ¶19, p. 4).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged "upon information and belief," claiming Defendant had knowledge of the '159 Patent (Compl. ¶58). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support this knowledge, such as a pre-suit notification letter.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central liability question will be one of agency and action: Can Plaintiff prove that the Defendant, Blue Diamond, directly performed every step of the asserted method claims through "internal use and testing," or must it rely on proving indirect infringement based on the actions of its customers? The resolution of this issue will frame the entire case.
- A key issue for claim construction will be one of definitional scope: Will the term "code pattern" be construed broadly to cover any standard QR code linking to a public website, or will it be limited to codes used within the more specific server-mediated system described in the patent's embodiments? The outcome of this question will determine whether a common marketing practice falls within the patent's reach.