Coding Tech LLC v. BNSF Railway Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BNSF Railway Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01847, S.D. Tex., 08/25/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because acts of infringement are occurring in the district and Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of QR codes in its advertising media infringes a patent related to methods for providing mobile services by scanning a code pattern.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using camera-equipped mobile devices to scan two-dimensional barcodes (like QR codes) to automatically access online content, bridging physical advertisements with digital services.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a series of applications dating back to a PCT application filed in March 2004, which itself claims priority to Korean applications from 2003. No other procedural history is mentioned in the complaint.

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" (issued Sep. 24, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inconvenience for users of manually remembering and typing website URLs found in physical advertisements like newspapers or magazines into a mobile device (’159 Patent, col. 1:36-50). It also notes a demand for more convenient mobile services, such as calling a taxi without knowing the specific phone number or address (’159 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system where a user employs a camera-equipped mobile terminal to capture a photographic image of a "code pattern" (e.g., a QR code) (’159 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-50). The terminal’s processor then automatically extracts and decodes information from the code pattern, such as a URL, and uses it to send a request to a server to retrieve content, thereby seamlessly connecting the user from a physical object to a digital service (’159 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 2:41-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach automates the process of linking physical media to online content and services, reducing user friction and enabling a variety of interactive applications beyond simple web browsing (’159 Patent, col. 1:20-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16. The primary method and apparatus claims are 1 and 8.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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 of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image;
  • decoding the extracted code pattern by the processor of the user terminal 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 content information request message.
• Independent Claim 8 (Apparatus - User Terminal):
  • a camera configured to obtain a photographic image of a code pattern;
  • a processor comprising an image processor (to extract the code pattern from the image) and a decoder (to decode the pattern into code information); and
  • a transceiver configured to transmit a content information request to a server and receive content information from the server in response.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s methods and systems for using code patterns on its advertising media, specifically a QR code on the "BNSF Machinery Brochure" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant provides a QR code on its machinery brochure which, when scanned by a user's smartphone, directs the device to a BNSF webpage containing a promotional video (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The user's smartphone camera obtains an image of the code, a processor decodes it to extract a URL, an HTTP request is sent to Defendant's server, and the server returns the requested webpage and video content (Compl. ¶¶15-16).
• The complaint provides a screenshot from the BNSF brochure showing the QR code alongside text instructing users to scan it to "watch a video on how BNSF can help transport your machinery" (Compl. p. 3). This visual evidence depicts the accused functionality within a commercial advertising context (Compl. ¶14).
• The complaint does not provide detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance beyond its use in advertisement media.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification frequently describes the invention in the context of specific "mobile services" such as a "taxi call service," "personal contact information providing service," and "payment service" (’159 Patent, col. 1:24-27). A question for the court may be whether the term "method for providing mobile service" limits the scope of the claims to these types of transactional services, or if it broadly covers any use of a code pattern to link a mobile device to online content, such as the accused advertising video.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites two distinct steps: "processing the photographic image...to extract the code pattern" and "decoding the extracted code pattern...into code information." A technical question may arise as to whether standard QR code reader applications perform these as two sequentially distinct and identifiable functions as claimed, or as a single, integrated operation. The complaint alleges them as two separate steps but provides the same general description for both (Compl. ¶15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "code pattern"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the physical object that initiates the claimed process. Its construction is critical to determining the breadth of the invention, as it is the gateway to infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could either confine the patent to the specific service-oriented examples in the specification or allow it to cover any scannable code linking to online content.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the term includes "a one-dimensional barcode, and a PDF-417 code, a QR code and a data matrix" (’159 Patent, col. 11:1-4), suggesting it covers a wide range of standard optical codes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Method for Providing Mobile Service" and the background repeatedly frames the invention as a solution for specific services (’159 Patent, col. 1:20-27). A defendant could argue that a "code pattern" within the context of the patent must be one that contains information for initiating such a "service," not merely a link to passive advertising content.

• The Term: "content information"

• Context and Importance: This term defines what is received by the user terminal. The nature of this "information" is central to infringement, particularly given the accused product delivers a promotional video.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 explicitly defines the term as comprising "at least one of the following: image, sound, moving picture, and text data" (’159 Patent, col. 38:46-48). This language directly supports the allegation that receiving a video (moving picture and sound) and webpage (image and text) meets the limitation (Compl. ¶17).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that, in the context of the overall invention, "content information" should be construed as information that enables a "mobile service" (e.g., taxi dispatch data, contact data to be saved, a bill to be paid), rather than general-purpose media content that is merely consumed by the user.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent, which is framed around providing specific "mobile services" like taxi calling and payments, be construed to cover BNSF's more general use of a QR code for linking to promotional advertising content? The resolution will depend heavily on how the court interprets the term "mobile service" and its effect on the scope of the claims.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical precision: Does the accused system, which uses a standard smartphone QR reader, perform the discrete, sequential steps of (1) "processing" an image to "extract" a code pattern and then (2) "decoding" that extracted pattern, as separately required by Claim 1? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove these are two distinct technical operations in the accused system, rather than a single, undifferentiated function.