Scanning Tech Innovations LLC v. Aldelo LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Aldelo, LP (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SML AVVOCATI P.C.
• Case Identification: 4:20-cv-02663, N.D. Cal., 04/16/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant is deemed to reside in the district, conducts business there, and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s restaurant point-of-sale (POS) systems infringe a patent related to using a mobile device to check a local database to determine if information about an article of commerce is available over a network, without needing to be connected to that network at the time of the check.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for providing users with instant feedback on product information availability, aiming to solve latency and connectivity issues inherent in mobile network environments, particularly within retail and hospitality sectors.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is the result of a long chain of continuation applications and is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint's body and sole infringement count focus exclusively on U.S. Patent No. 9,934,528. However, the prayer for relief seeks an injunction against infringement of a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,239,158, raising a question of a potential drafting error.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,934,528 - "Systems and Methods for Indicating the Existence of Accessible Information Pertaining to Articles of Commerce," issued April 3, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the user frustration that arises when attempting to use a mobile device to scan a product's barcode to get more information, only to find after a delay—due to connecting to a network—that no information is available (’528 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a mobile device first downloads and stores a "look-up table" locally (’528 Patent, col. 2:40-42). This table associates product identifiers (like UPCs) with an "information link indicator," which is a simple flag indicating whether or not detailed information is accessible over a communication network (’528 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-19). When a user scans a product, the device checks the local table—without needing an active internet connection—and can immediately inform the user whether online information exists, saving the user's time and avoiding frustration (’528 Patent, col. 2:10-15).
• Technical Importance: This approach decouples the act of checking for information availability from the act of retrieving it, addressing the unreliability and latency of mobile internet connections prevalent at the time of the invention.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "at least Claim 1" of the ’528 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A system comprising a mobile device with a portable handheld housing, a communication interface, a signal processor, and a visual input device (e.g., a scanner).
  • Digital files associated with the mobile device.
  • A server with a database storing a "look-up table."
  • The look-up table containing symbologies (e.g., barcodes) linked to articles of commerce and "information link indicators."
  • Each indicator configured as a "status signal" showing the existence or absence of a link to network-accessible information.
  • The system operates by scanning an item, and the signal processor checks the local look-up table to determine if a link exists, with this check being performed "without accessing the communication network."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the phrasing "one or more claims, including at least Claim 1" suggests this possibility (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant's "Xera POS point-of-sale system, app, and any similar products" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Xera POS system as an integrated solution for restaurants that runs on devices such as iPads and all-in-one desktops (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). Its relevant functionality includes managing menu items and tracking inventory. A screenshot from the Xera POS interface shows menu items like "Crab Cake" and "Sea Scallops" displayed alongside their availability status, such as "80 Available" or "Out of Stock" (Compl. ¶15; p. 5). The complaint alleges the system can be used with a barcode scanner and can operate in an "offline mode" (Compl. ¶17, ¶18, ¶26). The marketing materials cited describe it as a "true mobility and true restaurant POS application" that "seamlessly works online & offline" (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'528 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "information" indicated by the accused product (an internal inventory count like "80 Available") constitutes "a link to information... via the communication network" as required by the claim. The patent specification appears to frame this "link" as pointing to external, online content about a product, not an internal stock level.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system functions "without accessing the communication network" based on marketing claims of an "offline mode" (Compl. ¶26). A key factual question will be what specific functions the Xera POS system actually performs offline and whether that operation matches the patent's specific method of checking a locally-stored table to determine the existence of a network-accessible link. The complaint does not detail the technical architecture of the offline mode.
  • Scope Questions: Another question may be whether the accused POS terminal, which can be a desktop-style "All-in-One" unit (Compl. ¶17), qualifies as a "mobile device" with a "portable handheld housing" as claimed. While it can run on an iPad, the complaint also accuses hardware that may be perceived as stationary.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a link to information... via the communication network"

• Context and Importance: This term is the object of the patent’s offline check. Its definition is critical because the accused product's "information" is an inventory count (e.g., "80 Available"), whereas the patent's context suggests a link to external, descriptive content. The case may turn on whether an internal stock number can be construed as a "link to information via the communication network."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "information" is not explicitly defined or limited in the claim itself. The specification mentions that the downloaded information could describe "certain details about the respective article," which might arguably include inventory status (col. 4:61-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and summary consistently frame the problem as needing to connect to the "Internet" or a "network" to get information (col. 2:1-15). The solution is to provide an "offline access to immediately determine if product information is available" online (col. 2:11-14). This context suggests the "link" points to information external to the local system, accessible over a wide-area network.

• The Term: "mobile device"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples and figures depict consumer-grade, handheld devices like smartphones, while the accused instrumentality includes commercial, all-in-one POS terminals that may be effectively stationary.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not impose a size, weight, or use-case limitation on the term. The specification lists "portable digital devices" but this is not presented as an exhaustive list (col. 1:35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to "on the go" consumers and provides examples like "Windows™ Pocket PC devices," "mobile phone devices," and the "Sony PSP™" (col. 1:35-46; col. 2:10). Figure 1A depicts a device that strongly resembles a smartphone from that era. This could support an interpretation limited to consumer-centric, highly portable devices.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. It contains no specific factual allegations regarding inducement or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement. It lacks specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or conduct rising to the level of egregious behavior typically required for such a claim.

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

• A core issue will be one of functional scope: Does the accused POS system's function—displaying an internal inventory count (e.g., "80 Available")—meet the claim requirement of indicating the "existence or absence of a link to information... via the communication network"? The case may depend on whether an internal data point is equivalent to a link to external, network-accessible content as described in the patent's specification.
• A second key question will be one of definitional interpretation: Can the term "mobile device", which the patent illustrates with consumer-oriented smartphones and portable media players, be construed to read on a commercial, all-in-one desktop POS terminal as alleged in the complaint?
• Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What is the specific architecture of the accused product's "offline mode"? The infringement allegation hinges on the system performing the claimed lookup "without accessing the communication network," and the court will require technical evidence of how the accused system operates, beyond the marketing materials cited in the complaint.