Coding Tech LLC v. Foster Farms LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Foster Farms, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01912, D. Colo., 07/02/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of QR codes on its product packaging to link consumers to promotional websites infringes a patent relating to methods of using a mobile device to access online content via a code pattern.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a camera-equipped mobile device to scan a visual code, which automatically directs the device's browser to a specific web address, streamlining access to online information from physical media.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 - "Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-Pattern"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inconvenience and inefficiency of a user seeing a URL address in a physical advertisement and having to remember or write it down to manually enter it into a web browser later (’159 Patent, col. 1:43-50). This process creates a barrier to connecting consumers from physical media to online content (’159 Patent, col. 1:47-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system where a user can employ a camera-equipped mobile terminal to photograph a "code pattern" (e.g., a barcode or QR code) (’159 Patent, Abstract). The terminal then automatically processes the image, decodes the pattern to extract information such as a URL, and uses that information to request and receive content from a server, thereby seamlessly connecting the user to the online content (’159 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 2:41-50).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a more convenient method for linking physical-world objects and advertisements to online information, a process that became commercially significant with the widespread adoption of camera-equipped smartphones (’159 Patent, col. 2:27-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites the essential steps of:
  • obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal;
  • processing, by a processor of the user terminal, the photographic image to extract the code pattern;
  • decoding the extracted 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 in response to the request.
• Independent Claim 8 (Apparatus) recites the essential components of a user terminal for performing the claimed method, including:
  • a camera configured to obtain the photographic image;
  • a processor with an image processor and a decoder to extract and decode the code pattern; and
  • a transceiver to transmit the request and receive the content information.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10, as well as computer-readable medium claim 15 and method claim 16 (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is a promotional system and method involving QR codes placed on Defendant’s product packaging, such as "Foster Farms Simply Raised" chicken products, and on related promotional media (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The system functions by allowing a consumer to use a smartphone to scan a QR code printed on Defendant's product packaging (Compl. ¶14). The complaint includes a photograph of a Foster Farms chicken package displaying a QR code (Compl. ¶14, p. 3). Upon scanning the code, the user's device automatically navigates to a promotional website associated with the Defendant, identified in the complaint as featuring a character named "DORI" (Compl. ¶14). The website provides users with access to promotional information, including recipes and coupons (Compl. ¶14, p. 4). The complaint alleges this system provides content to consumers in connection with promotional media (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’159 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant (Compl. ¶13). However, the factual allegations describe actions performed by an end-user on their own device (e.g., obtaining an image, processing it). This raises the question of whether Defendant can be held directly liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for a method where it does not perform every step, or whether liability would depend on theories of divided or indirect infringement, which are not explicitly pleaded as separate counts.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a smartphone processor performs two discrete steps: first "extract[ing] the code pattern from the photographic image" and then "decod[ing] the extracted code pattern" (Compl. ¶¶16-17). It may become a point of contention whether a standard QR code reader performs two distinct technical steps as claimed or a single, integrated decoding operation. The complaint shows the result of a scan, including the decoded URL, but does not provide technical evidence to differentiate these alleged steps (Compl. ¶17, p. 7).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "code pattern"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the scope of all asserted claims. Its construction will determine what types of scannable codes are covered by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claims require a sequential process of first "extracting" the "code pattern" and then "decoding" it, which could be argued to be different from the single-step operation of some standard code readers.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "code pattern" and "barcode" interchangeably and lists examples including both one-dimensional and two-dimensional barcodes, such as a QR code (’159 Patent, col. 11:1-14). This could support a broad construction encompassing industry-standard QR codes like the one used by Defendant.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure separates the act of "extract[ing] the code pattern from the photographic image" from the subsequent act of "decoding the extracted code pattern." A party could argue this implies a specific type of code or process where extraction and decoding are distinct technical steps, potentially narrowing the term to exclude systems where these functions are integrated into a single operation (’159 Patent, cl. 1).

• The Term: "server"

• Context and Importance: The claims require interaction with a "server". The identity, location, and control of this "server" are critical to determining infringement, particularly in a distributed system where the end-user's device communicates over the internet. The complaint alleges requests are sent to "Defendant's server" (Compl. ¶18).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support giving it its plain and ordinary meaning: any computer that provides services to other computers over a network. The patent's abstract refers generally to transmitting a request "to a service provider server" (’159 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification and figures distinguish between a "service provider server (130)" and a plurality of "Web servers (150)" (’159 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:39-42). A party could argue that the claimed "server" must be the "service provider server" that performs the logic described in the patent, not just any third-party web server that hosts content. This distinction could become relevant if the accused QR code directs users to content hosted on a third-party content delivery network rather than a server directly controlled by the Defendant.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement, stating Defendant "has infringed and continues to infringe" by "using and/or incorporating code patterns" (Compl. ¶13). However, the underlying facts—Defendant providing a QR code on a product for an end-user to scan—could potentially support a later argument for induced infringement, though the complaint currently lacks specific allegations of intent required for such a claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement, nor does it plead any facts related to Defendant's pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the ’159 Patent.

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

• A central issue will be one of infringement liability: As the end-user and their smartphone appear to perform a majority of the claimed method steps, the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove Defendant is directly liable for the entire process under a theory of direction or control, or whether liability hinges on theories of divided or indirect infringement that are not explicitly pleaded in the complaint.
• A key evidentiary and claim construction question will be one of technical scope: Does the claim language requiring discrete steps of "extract[ing] the code pattern" and subsequently "decoding" it map onto the functionality of a standard smartphone QR code reader, or does it claim a more specific, multi-stage process that creates a technical distinction from the accused system?