Kaldren LLC v. Cigna Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kaldren LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cigna Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC; TOLER LAW GROUP, Group
• Case Identification: Kaldren LLC v. Cigna Corporation, 1:17-cv-01160, D. Del., 08/17/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant’s infringing conduct within or directed at parties in the State of Delaware, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b).
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of 2D bar code products infringes patents related to methods for variably formatting digital data into a two-dimensional pattern for storage and retrieval.
• Technical Context: The technology involves encoding digital data into dense, two-dimensional symbols, akin to modern QR codes, to bridge physical media with digital information systems using common hardware like printers and scanners.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of the same patent family, with the later-issued patent claiming priority to the application that led to the first. The complaint notes that the patent assignments have been duly recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,820,807 - "Variable Formatting of Digital Data into a Pattern"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,820,807, titled “Variable Formatting of Digital Data into a Pattern,” issued November 23, 2004 (Compl. ¶7; ’807 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the failure of prior art technologies to effectively integrate the digital environment of computers with the visual environment of written media, noting that methods like standard bar codes were severely limited in data capacity and other 2D codes were not optimized for use with off-the-shelf personal computers and peripherals (’807 Patent, col. 1:36-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a flexible method for formatting digital data into a 2D pattern where parameters such as the size of data "spots" and the "cells" containing them can be varied to optimize data density and decoding reliability for any given printer and scanner combination. A key feature is the use of a "metasector," a header region within the pattern that contains information about the specific formatting used, which in turn enables the efficient decoding of the main body of data (’807 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:31-41; FIG. 8).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to increase the density and reliability of data stored on physical substrates, thereby making it practical to link paper documents to large digital files or computer functions using common office hardware (’807 Patent, col. 1:44-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 12 and 20 (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 12 (method for providing information):
  • encoding digital data onto a substrate into a 2D pattern comprising a metasector (containing encoding information) and a main body of data;
  • providing the substrate to a user;
  • the user utilizing a scanner to produce an image; and
  • decoding the image by first decoding the metasector to determine the encoding process, then using that information to decode the main body of data.
• Independent Claim 20 (method for retrieving an information resource):
  • scanning a machine readable indicia comprising digital data formatted into a 2D pattern;
  • extracting an address of an information resource from the indicia; and
  • retrieving the information resource for presentation to a user.
• The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶17).

---

U.S. Patent No. 8,281,999 - "Variable Formatting of Digital Data into a Pattern"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,281,999, titled “Variable Formatting of Digital Data into a Pattern,” issued October 9, 2012 (Compl. ¶8; ’999 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same technology family, this patent addresses the same problem: prior art methods for placing machine-readable data on paper were inefficient and lacked the flexibility to work well across the varied quality of consumer-grade printers and scanners (’999 Patent, col. 1:40-2:68).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system that achieves a "pyramid gain of knowledge" by using a "landmark" to find a "metasector," which contains parameters (e.g., spot size, cell dimensions) that then enable the reliable decoding of a larger, higher-density main body of data. This allows the system to be optimized for specific hardware combinations (’999 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-5:53).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention sought to create a robust and efficient link between physical documents and digital data or functions, overcoming the rigidity and low data density of previous systems (’999 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 (communication system):
  • processing means for decoding a machine-readable 2D code to derive contact information;
  • communicating means for communicating using the derived contact information; and
  • networking means for communicating with other computers, where the code also contains data for such communication.
• Independent Claim 8 (communication system):
  • processing means for decoding a machine-readable 2D code to derive contact information;
  • imaging means for imaging the code, whereby the processing means decodes the image; and
  • communicating means for communicating using the derived contact information.
• The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Cigna's "accused 2D bar code product" ("Accused Product") (Compl. ¶14, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Cigna has used, and continues to use, one or more products incorporating 2D bar codes (Compl. ¶13, ¶20). Visual depictions of the Accused Product are referenced in the complaint's exhibits. For example, the complaint states the Accused Product is "shown in Exhibit 3" (Compl. ¶14, Ex. 3). Another visual of the Accused Product is referenced in "Exhibit 5" (Compl. ¶21, Ex. 5). Based on the infringement allegations for exemplary claims, the accused functionality for the ’807 Patent involves scanning a 2D pattern, extracting an address, and retrieving an information resource (Compl. ¶18). For the ’999 Patent, the accused functionality involves a system with processing means, imaging means, and communicating means that uses contact information derived from the 2D code (Compl. ¶26). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product’s specific market context or commercial importance beyond its use by the Defendant.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶17, ¶24). The following summarizes the narrative infringement theories provided in the complaint.

• ’807 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Cigna's use of its Accused Product directly infringes at least claims 12, 20, and 21 of the ’807 Patent (Compl. ¶14). For Claim 20, the complaint outlines a theory where the accused method comprises "scanning a machine readable indicia comprising digital data values formatted into a two dimensional pattern; extracting an address of the information resource from the machine readable indicia; and retrieving the information resource for presentation to a user" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not provide a specific narrative theory for independent claim 12.

• ’999 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Cigna's use of its Accused Product directly infringes at least claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the ’999 Patent (Compl. ¶21). For Claim 8, the complaint alleges the Accused Product is a communication system comprising "processing means for decoding a machine-readable code... imaging means for imaging a machine-readable code... and communicating means for communicating where said communicating means communicates using the contact information derived from the processing means" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint does not provide a specific narrative theory for independent claim 1.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are framed at a high level without identifying a specific Cigna product by name. A central point of contention may be establishing the precise technical operation of the Accused Product and whether it performs the functions recited in the asserted claims. For instance, what evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Product "extract[s] an address" as required by claim 20 of the ’807 Patent?
  • Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): The asserted independent claims of the ’999 Patent are drafted in means-plus-function format. A key legal question will be claim construction, specifically identifying the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification that perform the claimed functions of "processing means," "imaging means," and "communicating means." Infringement will depend on whether the Accused Product contains those specific structures or their legal equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "information resource" (’807 Patent, Claim 20)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the scope of claim 20, as infringement requires retrieving such a "resource." Whether this term covers a broad range of digital content or is limited to specific types of files will be a central issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the underlying data source broadly as "computer files or other digital data" (’807 Patent, FIG. 1) and states that the invention can be used to communicate and store "documents, software, graphics, etc." (’807 Patent, col. 6:55-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments described in the specification often point to specific, self-contained files, such as a database of new store locations or an executable file that launches an application (’807 Patent, FIG. 9, FIG. 10). This could support an argument that the term requires more than simply retrieving text from a URL.

• The Term: "processing means for decoding" (’999 Patent, Claims 1 and 8)

• Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the scope of this term is not its plain meaning but is instead limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. The construction of this term will define the specific algorithm(s) an accused product must use to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the "structure" is a general-purpose computer programmed to perform the decoding function, giving the term broader scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific, multi-step algorithm for decoding: finding a landmark, using it to find and decode a metasector, and then using the metasector's parameters to decode the main data body (’999 Patent, FIG. 17; col. 27:32-32:67). Practitioners may focus on whether this detailed algorithm constitutes the required "structure," which would significantly narrow the claim's scope to systems performing these particular steps.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that "Since at least the date that Cigna was served with a copy of this Complaint, Cigna has known that its Accused Product directly infringes" the ’999 Patent (Compl. ¶25). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary linkage: can the plaintiff's generalized allegations against an "accused 2D bar code product" be tied to a specific Cigna system, and does the technical evidence show that this system performs the specific functions recited in the patents, such as extracting an "address" and retrieving an "information resource"?
• The disposition of the claims for the ’999 Patent will likely depend on a question of structural correspondence: under the rules for means-plus-function claiming, are the structures within Cigna's accused system the same as or equivalent to the specific decoding algorithms (e.g., the landmark-metasector-data process) disclosed in the patent specification?
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: will terms like "information resource" and "contact information" be interpreted broadly to cover modern web-based data like URLs and IP addresses, or will they be construed more narrowly in line with the specific file-based and personal contact examples described in the patent's embodiments?