Coding Tech LLC v. Biogen Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Biogen, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00544, D. Del., 04/23/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of QR codes in promotional media to direct consumers to a website infringes a patent related to providing mobile services via code patterns.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the use of camera-equipped mobile devices to scan optically readable codes (such as QR codes) to bridge physical advertisements with online digital content.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a series of applications tracing back to a PCT application filed in 2004, indicating a long history of prosecution for this technology family. No other procedural events are 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 September 24, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience for consumers who see an advertisement with a website URL and must manually remember or write down the address to visit the site later (’159 Patent, col. 1:43-50). It also notes a demand for more convenient ways to access services like calling a taxi or getting travel information via a mobile device without needing to know a specific phone number or web address (’159 Patent, col. 1:51-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes 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) (’159 Patent, Abstract). The terminal's processor then decodes this pattern to extract information, such as a URL, and automatically sends a request to a server, which in turn provides content back to the user's device (’159 Patent, col. 2:40-51; FIG. 5). This creates a direct and automated link from a physical object to online content or services.
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to solve the "last mile" problem between physical media and the mobile internet, making it easier for users to act on advertisements and for companies to drive online engagement from offline materials (’159 Patent, col. 1:20-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's promotional activities, specifically the use of code patterns in connection with promotional media for its "SPARK Video Contest" (Compl. ¶13-14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant distributes promotional media, such as a flyer, that includes a QR code (Compl. ¶14). A screenshot of this flyer is provided as evidence (Compl. p. 3). When a user with a smartphone scans this QR code, the phone's camera captures an image, the phone's processor decodes the QR code to identify a URL, and the phone's web browser sends a request to a server associated with that URL (Compl. ¶15-18). In response, the server delivers a webpage with promotional information about the "SPARK Video Contest" to the user's smartphone (Compl. ¶19). The complaint provides screenshots illustrating this entire process, from scanning to viewing the final webpage (Compl. pp. 4-8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’159 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory appears to rely on the ordinary operation of a standard smartphone scanning a standard QR code to access a standard website. A central question may be whether the term "server" as used in Claim 1, when read in light of the patent's specification, is limited to the specific "service provider server" architecture detailed in several embodiments (e.g., ’159 Patent, FIG. 1, item 130), or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any third-party web server, such as the one hosting Defendant's promotional content.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement "at least through internal testing" (Compl. ¶13), suggesting a potential lack of complete information about Defendant's back-end systems. An evidentiary question may arise regarding the nature of the "content information" provided by the server and whether it aligns with the technical descriptions in the patent, or if it is simply a standard webpage.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "server"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "server" is critical because Claim 1 requires transmitting a request "to a server" and receiving content "from the server." The accused system involves a user's terminal interacting with what appears to be a standard web server. The defense may argue that the patent's disclosure limits this term to the more specialized "service provider server" (e.g., '159 Patent, FIG. 1, 130) that performs analytical and routing functions beyond simply hosting content, potentially creating a non-infringement argument.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the generic term "server" without further qualification. The patent also distinguishes between a "service provider server" and a "Web server," suggesting "server" could encompass either (’159 Patent, col. 8:38-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many of the detailed embodiments describe a system where a "service provider server" acts as an intermediary that analyzes code information and fetches content from other web servers (’159 Patent, col. 8:55-63; FIG. 6). This context may be used to argue that the claimed "server" must be capable of performing these intermediary functions.

The Term: "code pattern"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the object that is photographed and decoded. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if its scope is limited to the specific examples in the specification or covers any optically scannable code.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "code pattern" is used generically in the claim. The abstract refers broadly to providing a service "with the use of a code pattern."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of "code pattern" as "barcode" and clarifies that this includes one-dimensional barcodes and two-dimensional barcodes like a "QR code" (’159 Patent, col. 11:1-8). An argument could be made that the term is limited to these conventional barcode formats.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead indirect infringement or allege the elements of knowledge and intent required for such a claim. The infringement count is asserted generally under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶9).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope versus ubiquitous technology: Can the method steps of Claim 1, which describe the fundamental process of scanning a QR code with a smartphone, be asserted against the use of standard, publicly available technology? The outcome may depend heavily on whether the term "server" is construed broadly to read on any web server or is limited by the specification to a more specialized intermediary system.
• A key legal and factual question will be one of divided infringement: The user performs several steps of the claimed method on their terminal, while the defendant "provides content" and controls the server. The case will likely require an analysis of whether the defendant directs or controls the user's actions sufficiently to be held liable for direct infringement under a single-entity theory, or if the plaintiff will need to amend its pleadings to pursue a theory of indirect infringement.