DCT
1:23-cv-00218
ThroughTEK Co Ltd v. Reolink Innovation Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
- Defendant: Reolink Innovation Inc. (Delaware), Reolink Innovation Co., Ltd (China), et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: O & Kelly, O'Rourke
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00218, D. Del., 02/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ sales and offers for sale within the district and, for Defendant Reolink China, its status as a non-U.S. resident.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ network cameras and network video recorders infringe a patent related to a simplified method for establishing a peer-to-peer (P2P) network connection by scanning an image pattern, such as a QR code.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the setup process for Internet of Things (IoT) devices, replacing cumbersome manual entry of device identifiers with a simple image scan to streamline the user experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter regarding the patent-in-suit to Defendant Reolink USA on August 12, 2022, to which Defendant Reolink China responded on November 2, 2022, denying infringement. Plaintiff also alleges sending infringement notices to Defendant Amazon on two occasions in late 2022. These allegations may form the basis for claims of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-04-16 | U.S. RE47,842 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-02-04 | U.S. RE47,842 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-08-12 | Cease-and-desist letter sent to Defendant Reolink USA |
| 2022-10-28 | First notice of infringement sent to Defendant Amazon |
| 2022-11-02 | Defendant Reolink China responds to cease-and-desist letter |
| 2022-11-03 | Second notice of infringement sent to Defendant Amazon |
| 2023-02-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,842 - "System and Method of Identifying Networked Device for Establishing a P2P Connection"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,842, "System and Method of Identifying Networked Device for Establishing a P2P Connection," issued February 4, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of connecting consumer devices (e.g., a smartphone) to networked equipment (e.g., a security camera) as potentially "complicated and cumbersome" due to the need to manually input lengthy identification codes. (’842 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a streamlined method where a networked device is physically marked with an "image pattern" (such as a barcode or QR code) that encodes its unique identification. A user employs a terminal device, like a smartphone, to capture this image. The terminal device then sends a connection request to a central network server, which uses the identification from the captured image to locate the networked device on the internet and facilitate a direct P2P connection between the terminal and networked devices. (’842 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-19).
- Technical Importance: This approach significantly simplifies the initial setup and configuration of IoT devices, a critical factor for market adoption in consumer electronics where user-friendliness is a key differentiator. (’842 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 12 (a method claim) (Compl. ¶33).
- Independent claim 12, recited in the complaint, requires the following essential method steps:
- Connecting a first networked monitoring device to a network server through the Internet.
- Registering a first identification of the monitoring device into a list on the server.
- Providing an image pattern comprising the first identification, where the pattern is attached to the monitoring device.
- Generating a connection request signal with a terminal device by capturing the image pattern and transmitting the signal to the network server.
- The server identifying the monitoring device from its list using the signal, obtaining its IP address, and transmitting "hole-punching messages" to establish a P2P connection, wherein the monitoring device itself does not capture an image pattern from the terminal device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Defendants' "network monitoring devices," including but not limited to the "Argus series IP Camera, PoE Camera, and network video recorders (NVR)," as well as the associated software application ("App") used to operate them (Compl. ¶¶28, 31, 33).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused cameras and NVRs feature a QR code on the physical device (Compl. ¶¶35-36). To set up and connect to a device, a user utilizes the Reolink App on a smartphone or other terminal device to scan this QR code. This scan initiates a process that establishes a P2P connection, allowing the user to monitor the camera's feed (Compl. ¶¶33, 34). The complaint alleges these products are sold through major U.S. retailers, including Amazon, Home Depot, and Walmart, suggesting broad commercial distribution (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement theory centers on the allegation that the setup process for Defendants' cameras and NVRs practices the method claimed in the ’842 Patent. The complaint references Figure 1 from the patent, which illustrates a system comprising a network monitoring device (20), a terminal device (30), and a network server (10) communicating to establish a connection (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 1).
RE47,842 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) connecting a first networked monitoring device to a network server through the Internet, wherein the network server has a list of networked devices... | The accused Reolink cameras and NVRs are network monitoring devices that connect to Defendants' network servers over the Internet to enable remote access and P2P connections. | ¶¶27, 34 | col. 10:20-29 |
| (b) registering a first identification of the first networked monitoring device into the list of networked devices of the server; | Each Reolink device has a unique identifier, embedded in its QR code, which is registered with Defendants' servers. | ¶¶33, 35, 36 | col. 10:30-32 |
| (c) providing an image pattern comprising the first identification, wherein the image pattern is attached on the first networked monitoring device for establishing a P2P connection... | Defendants' cameras have a QR code attached to the device body for the purpose of setting up a P2P connection. The complaint provides a user manual page for the Argus Camera disclosing this feature (Compl. p. 9, ¶36). | ¶¶33, 35, 36 | col. 10:33-38 |
| (d) generating a connection request signal by a terminal device when the image pattern is captured...and transmitting the connection request signal to the network server... | A consumer uses the Reolink App on a terminal device (e.g., a phone) to scan the QR code on the camera, which generates and transmits a connection request to Defendants' servers. | ¶¶33, 34 | col. 10:39-44 |
| (e) identifying the first networked monitoring device in the list...to obtain the first identification...and obtain the corresponding IP address...wherein the network server respectively transmits hole-punching messages...to establish the P2P connection, and wherein the first networked monitoring device does not capture any image pattern... | Defendants' servers allegedly use the information from the scanned QR code to identify the specific camera, retrieve its IP address, and establish a P2P connection for monitoring. | ¶¶26, 33 | col. 10:45-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether Defendants' system uses the specific "hole-punching messages" recited in claim 12(e) to establish a P2P connection. The complaint alleges the use of the patented method generally but does not provide specific evidence of the underlying NAT traversal technique employed by the Reolink servers. The defense may argue that it uses an alternative, non-infringing method such as a TURN relay.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the negative limitation that "the first networked monitoring device does not capture any image pattern associated with the terminal device." While seemingly met by the accused products, this is an affirmative element of the claim that Plaintiff must prove is present in the accused method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "hole-punching messages"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 12 and refers to a specific technique for traversing network address translation (NAT) firewalls to establish a direct P2P connection. Infringement of this element will depend entirely on the technical implementation of Defendants' server infrastructure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be case-dispositive; if Defendants' system does not use a method that falls within the established definition of "hole-punching," the infringement claim may fail.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition, stating only that hole-punching is a technique "which is well known in the field" (’842 Patent, col. 5:59-61). Plaintiff may argue this language encompasses a range of functionally equivalent NAT traversal techniques that establish a direct communication channel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that referring to the technique as "well known" imports a specific, fixed technical meaning understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention (e.g., the classic UDP hole-punching algorithm). Evidence may show that other NAT traversal methods, like STUN or TURN, are technically distinct and would not be considered "hole-punching."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendants provide user manuals and an application that actively instruct consumers to perform the patented method of scanning a QR code to set up their devices (Compl. ¶¶35, 36, 52). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are used with consumers' phones to perform the patented method and are "solely for the purpose of practicing the patented method," an assertion which may be contested (Compl. ¶61).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' continued accused activities after receiving actual notice of the ’842 Patent through a cease-and-desist letter sent to Reolink in August 2022 (Compl. ¶¶37, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the evidence show that the accused Reolink system establishes P2P connections using the specific "hole-punching" technique as required by claim 12, or does it utilize a different, non-infringing network architecture, such as a server-based relay?
- A key legal battle may center on contributory infringement: Can Plaintiff successfully argue that the accused cameras and NVRs have no substantial non-infringing uses, or will Defendants demonstrate that the products' primary functions (e.g., video recording and streaming) are separable from the patented setup method?
- Finally, the case will present a question of knowledge and intent: Did Defendants' alleged conduct, particularly after receiving a cease-and-desist letter nearly six months before the suit was filed, rise to the level of willfulness required for enhanced damages?