DCT
1:19-cv-02366
Coding Tech LLC v. China Unionpay USA LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: China Unionpay (USA), LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02366, D. Del., 12/27/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s UnionPay Mobile Payment application, which utilizes QR codes for transactions, infringes a patent related to methods for providing mobile services using code patterns.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using a mobile device's camera to scan a machine-readable code, such as a QR code, to initiate a financial transaction, a foundational process in modern point-of-sale mobile payment systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a series of prior applications, indicating a lengthy prosecution history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-07 | '008 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-01-19 | '008 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-06-10 | UnionPay App Update Date (as alleged in complaint) |
| 2019-12-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,240,008 - "Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-pattern"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,240,008, "Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-pattern," issued January 19, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience and inefficiency of manually entering information from the physical world into a mobile device, such as typing a website URL from a magazine advertisement or inputting billing details from a paper bill. ('008 Patent, col. 1:43-67). It also notes the difficulty travelers may have in explaining their location to call a taxi service. ('008 Patent, col. 2:5-13).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user employs a mobile terminal with a camera to photograph a "code-pattern" (e.g., a barcode or QR code). The terminal decodes the pattern to extract embedded information, such as a URL or transaction data, and uses this information to connect to a service provider server to receive content or execute a service, like processing a payment. ('008 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-59).
- Technical Importance: This system creates a direct and convenient bridge between physical media (advertisements, products, locations) and digital services, reducing the need for manual user input and simplifying access to a variety of mobile services. ('008 Patent, col. 2:27-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 9. (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent claim 9, a terminal claim, are:
- A camera configured to capture a code pattern image having billing information;
- A processor configured to analyze the code pattern image to obtain code information corresponding to the code pattern image;
- The processor further configured for obtaining user information and billing information corresponding to the code information in reference of a billing database;
- Wherein payment of a bill is processed based on the billing information and user information.
- The complaint’s use of "including at least Claim 9" suggests a reservation of the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "UnionPay Mobile Payment app, and any other similar products and services controlled by Defendant" ("Product"). (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Product is a mobile payment application that allows users to make purchases by scanning QR codes. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). In the "Push Mode" described, a customer uses their smartphone to scan a QR code presented by a merchant, which initiates payment. (Compl. ¶16). A screenshot from a press article suggests the service launched in the U.S. and was expected to expand to 5,000 merchants. (Compl. ¶14). The screenshot provided in paragraph 15 of the complaint depicts a user pointing a smartphone at a merchant's point-of-sale display showing a UnionPay QR code. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'008 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a camera configured to capture a code pattern image having billing information; | The Product utilizes a smartphone's camera to capture a QR code that has embedded billing information, such as the total purchase amount. | ¶14, ¶15 | col. 39:13-15 |
| and a processor configured to analyze the code pattern image to obtain code information corresponding to the code pattern image | The smartphone's processor analyzes the captured QR code image to obtain decoded code information. A provided screenshot shows a phone actively scanning a QR code to initiate a payment. | ¶16 | col. 39:16-20 |
| obtaining user information and billing information corresponding to the code information in reference of billing database, | The processor obtains the user's account and payment information and the billing information (total purchase amount) by referencing a billing database associated with the user's account. | ¶16 | col. 39:18-20 |
| wherein payment of a bill is processed based on the billing information and user information. | Payment is processed based on the billing information (total purchase amount) and user information (the smartphone user's payment and account information). | ¶17 | col. 39:21-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question may be how the accused Product actually obtains "billing information." The complaint alleges that the QR code itself has the billing information (Compl. ¶15) but also that the processor obtains billing information "in reference of a billing database" (Compl. ¶16). This raises the question of whether the billing information is extracted directly from the code or retrieved from a database lookup. Evidence of the system's precise data flow will be critical.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the meaning of "obtaining... billing information... in reference of billing database." Does this require the billing information (e.g., purchase amount) to be retrieved from the database, or is it sufficient for the information to be received from the QR code and then validated or processed with reference to the database? The former interpretation could present a challenge to the infringement allegation if the purchase amount is embedded solely in the QR code.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "obtaining... in reference of billing database"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the infringement analysis. The defendant may argue that its system obtains billing information (the purchase amount) directly from the QR code, not from a database, and only obtains user information from a database. Whether this process meets the claim limitation will depend on how "in reference of" is construed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the most likely point of non-infringement argument based on the technical functionality described in the complaint.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification includes a flowchart (Fig. 35) showing a step of "COMPARE RECEIVED BILLING INFORMATION WITH INFORMATION STORED IN BILLING DATABASE" (S3550). A party could argue this shows that "in reference of" includes comparing information received from a code against a database, not just sourcing information from it. ('008 Patent, Fig. 35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "obtaining user information and billing information... in reference of billing database." A party could argue the plain meaning requires both types of information to be obtained via the database reference. The specification's description for the same flowchart states a user terminal will "extract billing information" from the code (S3520), suggesting the billing information is obtained prior to any database interaction. ('008 Patent, Fig. 35).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patent and intent to cause infringement by third parties.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement or plead any facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the phrase "obtaining... billing information... in reference of billing database" require that the billing information (e.g., purchase amount) is retrieved from the database, or can the limitation be met if the billing information is contained in the QR code and simply processed in a transaction that also references a database for other data, such as user account details?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what is the precise data flow within the accused UnionPay system? Does the system retrieve the transaction amount from the QR code itself, as the complaint suggests in some paragraphs, or does it use information from the code as a key to look up the transaction amount in a database? The plaintiff's ability to prove the latter may be dispositive.