Coding Tech LLC v. Colgate Palmolive Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00164, D. Del., 01/31/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed to be a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of QR codes on product packaging to direct consumers to informational websites infringes a patent related to providing mobile services using code patterns.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using camera-equipped mobile devices to scan optical codes (e.g., QR codes) to automatically access online content, a common practice for bridging physical product marketing with digital information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. The asserted patent claims priority through a chain of applications to a Korean patent application filed in 2003.

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 addresses the inconvenience and low likelihood of a consumer manually typing a URL from a physical advertisement into a device to visit a website (’159 Patent, col. 1:43-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a user employs a mobile terminal with a camera to take a photograph of a code pattern (e.g., a barcode or QR code). The terminal's processor then decodes the image to obtain code information, such as a URL, and automatically transmits a request to a server to retrieve corresponding content, thereby streamlining access to online information from a physical source (’159 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-51).
• Technical Importance: This approach makes physical media interactive by creating a seamless link to digital content, aiming to more effectively induce consumers who see an advertisement to visit the associated website (’159 Patent, col. 1:47-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method performed by a user terminal, comprising the essential elements 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 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 request message.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's system of incorporating code patterns, such as QR codes, on its promotional media and product packaging (e.g., Colgate toothpaste) (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that when a consumer uses a smartphone to scan the QR code on a Colgate product, the device is directed to a website containing promotional and product information (Compl. ¶14). This process allegedly involves the consumer's smartphone camera capturing an image of the code, an application (such as the "SmartLabel" app) processing and decoding the image to extract a URL, sending an HTTP request to Defendant's server, and receiving a webpage in response (Compl. ¶¶15-19). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "SmartLabel" app page on the Google Play store, which lists "Scanbuy, Inc." as the developer (Compl. p. 4). A screenshot from a promotional video shows a user scanning a QR code on a Colgate package to view product ingredients on their phone (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'159 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites two distinct, sequential steps: (1) "processing... to extract the code pattern from the photographic image" and (2) "decoding the extracted code pattern." A central technical question will be whether the accused software performs these as two separate and identifiable operations, or as a single, integrated decoding function. The complaint alleges them separately but does not provide detailed evidence to distinguish the two functions (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
• Scope Questions: The asserted claim is for a method performed "by a user terminal." The infringement allegations describe actions taken by an end-user's smartphone (Compl. ¶¶15-19). This raises the question of the legal theory for holding Colgate-Palmolive directly liable for a method performed, at least in part, by a third-party consumer. The complaint alleges infringement based on Colgate's "internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶14), which may be the factual basis for its direct infringement theory.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "processing... to extract the code pattern from the photographic image"
• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because it represents a specific step that must be proven to occur before the separate "decoding" step. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that it is either indistinct from the subsequent decoding step (rendering it redundant) or that the accused system does not perform this function as a discrete operation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification frequently describes the entire process of analyzing an image and obtaining information as a function of the "decoder" (e.g., '159 Patent, col. 10:20-22: "The decoder 13 functions to analyze digital image data... and extract code information"). This language could support an interpretation where "processing" and "decoding" are integrated functions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 and its dependent claims explicitly lists "processing... to extract the code pattern" and "decoding" as separate, sequential limitations ('159 Patent, col. 38:39-42). An argument for a narrower construction would emphasize that this structure requires two distinct, non-overlapping actions to be performed by the user terminal's processor.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include specific counts for induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that the infringement was willful and does not plead facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the ’159 Patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused system perform the two distinct steps of (1) "processing the photographic image... to extract the code pattern" and then (2) "decoding the extracted code pattern," as sequentially required by Claim 1? The case may depend on evidence showing a functional and temporal separation between these two alleged software operations.
• A key legal question will be the theory of liability: Given that the method of Claim 1 is performed on an end-user's device, the case will turn on the viability of Plaintiff's direct infringement theory against Colgate-Palmolive, which the complaint appears to base on the defendant's alleged "internal use and testing" of the claimed method.