Coding Tech LLC v. Primo Water Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Primo Water Corp (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01008, D. Del., 07/07/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of QR codes on its products to direct consumers to its website via their mobile devices infringes a patent related to providing mobile services through code patterns.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a camera on a mobile device to scan a code, which then automatically links the user to online content, a common method for bridging physical advertising with digital information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Plaintiff is the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in the patent-in-suit. No other procedural events such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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 addresses the inconvenience for consumers of manually remembering and typing website URLs from physical advertisements or guidebooks into a mobile device. (’159 Patent, col. 1:43-50). It also notes the difficulty for travelers in finding specific locations or services without readily available, detailed directions. (’159 Patent, col. 1:55-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user employs a camera-equipped mobile terminal to capture an image of a "code pattern" (e.g., a barcode). The terminal decodes this pattern to obtain information, such as a URL, and automatically sends a request to a server to retrieve and display related content, thereby streamlining access to information. (’159 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-51; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology provided a method to create a direct and automated link between physical media and digital content on mobile devices, simplifying user interaction and enhancing the effectiveness of mobile marketing. (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16. (Compl. ¶17, ¶31, ¶45, ¶52).
• 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 (User Terminal):
  • a camera configured to obtain a photographic image of a code pattern;
  • a processor comprising: an image processor configured to process the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image; and a decoder configured to decode the extracted code pattern into code information; and
  • a transceiver configured to (i) transmit a content information request message to a server based on the code information; and (ii) receive content information from the server in response to the content information request message.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the method and system used by *Coding Tech LLC v. Primo Water Corp* involving QR codes on its products and marketing materials. (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant provides QR codes on its products, such as on a water bottle sticker. (Compl. p. 4). When a consumer scans this QR code with a smartphone, the device's camera captures the code, an application decodes it into a URL for Defendant’s website, the phone transmits a request to Defendant's server, and the server returns webpage content to the phone. (Compl. ¶19-24). The complaint provides a four-step diagram illustrating this alleged process of "QR-Code -> Scan -> Decode -> Action." (Compl. p. 6). The complaint does not provide specific details on the market context or commercial importance of Defendant’s QR code campaigns.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,540,159 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant based on "internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19), a common pleading tactic. A potential issue is whether Defendant can be held liable for direct infringement of a method where key steps are performed by end-users on their personal devices. This raises questions of divided infringement. For the apparatus claim (Claim 8), a question exists as to whether a general-purpose smartphone, not made or sold by Defendant, qualifies as the claimed "user terminal" for which Defendant is directly liable.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on the functionality of standard smartphones and applications. A technical question is whether the generic processing and decoding functions of a third-party QR reader app on a smartphone meet the specific claim limitations of an "image processor configured to... extract" and a "decoder configured to decode," as those terms would be construed in light of the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "code pattern"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether the scope is broad enough to cover any standard QR code linking to a URL, as alleged by Plaintiff, or if it is limited to codes with specific characteristics or integrations into a particular system architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the term "barcode 60 includes... a QR code." (’159 Patent, col. 11:1-5). This provides direct support for the term reading on the accused QR codes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the code pattern as part of a comprehensive system involving a "service provider server" that performs analysis and provides various services beyond simple URL redirection. (’159 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:56-65). A party could argue the term should be limited to codes designed to function within such a specific, multi-service architecture.

The Term: "user terminal"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the apparatus claims (e.g., Claim 8). As Defendant does not manufacture or sell the smartphones used to scan its QR codes, the definition of "user terminal" is critical for determining liability. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of the apparatus claim hinges on whether an off-the-shelf smartphone meets the claim's specific structural and functional requirements.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the user terminal as a "mobile communication terminal, such as a mobile phone, a Personal Communications Service (PCS) and a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA)." (’159 Patent, col. 8:41-51). This language supports interpreting the term to include general-purpose smartphones.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 8 requires a processor with specifically "configured" sub-components (an "image processor" and a "decoder"). A party could argue that a general-purpose CPU in a standard smartphone running third-party software is not "configured" in the structural manner required by the claim, suggesting the need for a more specialized device or software integration.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect or induced infringement. Instead, it alleges direct infringement by Defendant through its own actions, including "at least in internal use and testing." (Compl. ¶19, ¶33). However, the underlying factual allegations—that Defendant provides QR codes with the knowledge and intent that consumers will scan them with their smartphones to access Defendant's website—could potentially support a theory of induced infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful based on purported knowledge of the ’159 Patent. (Compl. ¶58). The pleading does not state a factual basis for this alleged pre-suit knowledge, such as a notice letter or prior litigation.

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

• A core issue will be one of liability for third-party actions: Can the patentee hold the Defendant directly liable for infringement when the claimed method and apparatus rely on actions and devices (i.e., end-users scanning with their own smartphones) that are not under the Defendant’s direct control? The court’s treatment of the "internal use and testing" allegations will be a key indicator of the case’s direction.
• A second central question will be one of claim scope versus the prior art: The case will likely require the court to determine whether the patent claims are broad enough to cover the common practice of using a standard smartphone to scan a QR code that links to a website, while also being narrow enough to be considered novel and non-obvious over the state of the art that existed as of the patent's priority date.