Multimodal LLC v. Scansys Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Scansys, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: Multimodal LLC v. Scansys, Inc., 1:23-cv-00828, D. Del., 08/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and an alleged established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to object-recognition locks that use an object's surface texture as a key.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns biometric and object-based security systems, using optical scanning to replace traditional mechanical keys or numeric codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of knowledge and willfulness are based solely on the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763 - "Object-recognition lock"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763, “Object-recognition lock,” issued May 16, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to overcome the limitations of conventional security locks. Traditional keys can be lost or stolen, and hidden spare keys are insecure; combination locks require memorization and can be "picked" (’763 Patent, col. 1:26-46). Existing pattern-recognition systems, such as retinal scanners, are described as expensive and limited in the types of patterns they can identify (’763 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a lock system that uses a scanner to analyze the unique "micro-textured surface" of a common object, such as a rock, a piece of wood, or a body part like a palm (’763 Patent, col. 5:18-24). The system generates an image signal from the scan, compares it to a pre-stored reference texture, and actuates the lock if the two textures match (’763 Patent, col. 2:33-38). This allows nearly any object with a distinct surface texture to function as a unique, un-copyable key. The overall system is depicted in FIG. 1, showing a scanner (12) coupled to a controller (16) and a lock assembly (20).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a cost-effective and flexible alternative to both traditional locks and high-end biometric systems by enabling the use of ordinary, non-manufactured objects as security tokens.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’763 patent without specifying which ones, instead referring to "Exemplary '763 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s independent claims include method claim 1 and apparatus claim 13.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
  • scanning an object for at least one surface texture
  • generating at least one image signal indicative of the surface texture
  • comparing the surface texture with a reference texture
  • actuating the lock if the surface texture matches the reference texture
  • wherein the comparison occurs at a "micro-level" where feature depths are in a range of 5 to 500 microns
• Independent Claim 13 (Apparatus) Elements:
  • a scanner generating an image signal indicative of a surface texture
  • a controller that determines the surface texture from the image signal and compares it to a reference texture
  • a lock assembly operable by the controller when the surface texture matches the reference texture
  • wherein the controller combines the image signal with another image signal to determine the surface texture

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external document, Exhibit 2, which is not included in the filing (Compl. ¶17). The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. Due to the absence of the claim charts and any specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations in the complaint's text, a detailed infringement analysis based on the provided documents is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

Assuming the case proceeds, the dispute may center on several technical and evidentiary questions.

• Technical Question: A primary question will be whether the accused products, once identified, actually perform scanning that captures an object's "surface texture" and whether that comparison operates at the claimed "micro-level" range of 5 to 500 microns (’763 Patent, col. 8:1-3). Evidence will be needed to show that the accused devices are sensitive to features at this specific microscopic scale.
• Scope Question: The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused technology, which is not described, falls within the patent's definition of comparing "surface texture." The patent describes this in terms of "variations in the height and/or depth of various features" such as "ridges and valleys" on a "micro-textured surface" (’763 Patent, col. 2:38-41, col. 4:5-9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "surface texture"

• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the invention and appears in every independent claim. The patent's validity and infringement analyses will depend on its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition determines whether the patent is limited to scanning naturally irregular surfaces (like a rock or a palm, as described in the specification) or if it can also read on manufactured or more regular patterns.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "any suitable object 14 having a micro-textured surface 32 may be used," listing examples that "include but are not limited to a rock or stone, a body part (e.g., an elbow, palm, or finger), wood, metal, or plastic objects" (’763 Patent, col. 5:18-24). This broad list could support an interpretation covering a wide variety of surface types.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes "micro-textured surface" and describes it as comprising "very small ridges and valleys" at a "micro-level" (’763 Patent, col. 4:5-16). The abstract refers to a "surface texture of an object," and the examples provided are of objects with irregular, naturally occurring patterns. This could support a narrower construction limited to such non-uniform surfaces, as opposed to engineered patterns.

The Term: "comparing the at least one surface texture ... with a reference texture at a micro-level in which depths of features ... are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns"

• Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 provides a specific, quantitative boundary for the invention. It is not merely a descriptive term but a precise numerical range. The infringement case for this claim will require evidence that the accused systems operate within this exact range.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this is an exemplary range, though the claim language ("are in a range") is typically interpreted as limiting.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language of the claim itself is explicitly limiting. The specification supports this by stating the surface texture involves "variations in the height and/or depth of various features on the surface at a micro-level (e.g., generally in the size range of 5 microns (µm) to 500 µm)" (’763 Patent, col. 2:38-41). This explicit definition in both the specification and the claim itself strongly suggests the numbers are requirements, not suggestions.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’763 patent (Compl. ¶14). It is also alleged that Defendant sells its products to customers for infringing uses (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on knowledge obtained via the complaint itself. It alleges that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Defendant has had "actual knowledge" and has "knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15). This frames the willfulness claim as arising from post-filing conduct.

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

1. A Threshold Procedural Question: Given that the complaint fails to identify any specific accused products or provide factual infringement allegations beyond incorporating an unfiled exhibit, a central initial question is whether the pleading meets the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
2. An Evidentiary Question of Scale: The case will likely turn on an evidentiary question of technical proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused products, once identified, actually measure and compare surface features within the specific 5-to-500-micron depth range recited in claims like claim 1?
3. A Definitional Question of Scope: A core issue will be one of claim scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "surface texture"? The resolution will determine whether the patent is confined to the irregular, natural surfaces emphasized in the patent's examples or if it can extend to other types of surfaces, which may be critical depending on the nature of the accused technology.