DCT
1:25-cv-00576
Scanavert LLC v. Innit Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ScanAvert LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Innit, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby & Geddes
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00576, D. Del., 05/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is thus deemed to reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Shopwell mobile application infringes patents related to systems and methods for determining food and medicine compatibility against a user's health profile.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using mobile devices to scan products and receive real-time alerts by cross-referencing product data with personal dietary profiles stored on a remote server, a key function in the growing mobile health and personalized nutrition market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventor engaged in an interview with the patent examiner during prosecution to demonstrate a commercial embodiment and overcome prior art rejections. The complaint also alleges that Defendant's predecessor-in-interest (Shopwell) had pre-suit knowledge of the patents as early as November 2015 and that Plaintiff offered Defendant a license in March 2022, which did not result in an agreement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-10-17 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents |
| 2010-09-28 | U.S. Patent No. 7,805,319 Issued |
| ~2010-10-01 | Accused Shopwell App Launched (approx.) |
| 2011-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,060,383 Issued |
| 2017-01-01 | Innit, Inc. Acquires Shopwell |
| 2025-05-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,805,319 - "Systems and methods for a consumer to determine food/medicine interactions," issued September 28, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty and complexity for consumers, particularly those with allergies, medical conditions, or other dietary restrictions, to effectively check product labels for harmful ingredients at the point of sale. It notes that labels can be hard to read, use synonymous terms, and may not list sub-ingredients, and that prior systems lacked a real-time, automated, and user-friendly way to perform these checks on non-specialized devices. (’319 Patent, col. 2:6-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server system where a user can employ a device like a mobile phone or PDA to scan a product's barcode. This information is sent over the internet to a remote system, which compares the product's ingredients against a pre-established user profile containing the user's specific health information (e.g., allergies, prescriptions). The system then sends an alert back to the user's device if an incompatibility is detected. (’319 Patent, col. 2:57-67; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology enabled a real-time, interactive, and personalized dietary check in a retail environment using increasingly common handheld devices, moving beyond static databases or systems requiring specialized hardware. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges inducement of claim 15. (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 59).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim) requires the steps of:
- Populating a database that correlates product identifiers with ingredients.
- Creating and maintaining a user profile with health information via the Internet.
- Scanning a first product with a hand-held communication device.
- Capturing and transmitting the first product identifier in real-time to the database.
- Comparing, in real-time, the user profile to the first product's ingredients.
- Transmitting, in real-time, the results to the hand-held device to output an alert if the product contains a harmful or recommended ingredient.
- Repeating the scanning, capturing, transmitting, comparing, and alerting steps for a second product.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,060,383 - "Systems and methods for a consumer to determine food/medicine interactions," issued November 15, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’319 Patent, the ’383 Patent addresses the same technical problems related to the difficulty of manually checking product labels for harmful ingredients. (’383 Patent, col. 2:5-49).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same client-server architecture as the ’319 Patent. The key distinction is that the asserted claim is a system claim directed to the apparatus itself, rather than a method claim. (’383 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-50).
- Technical Importance: As with the parent patent, this technology provided the framework for personalized, real-time health and safety checks using general-purpose mobile devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges inducement of claim 15. (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 81).
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) requires a system comprising a memory and a processor executing program code, with the code configured to perform a series of functions that mirror the method steps of the ’319 Patent's claim 1. Key elements include:
- Code to populate a database correlating product identifiers with ingredients.
- Code to create and maintain a user profile via the Internet.
- Code to capture, in real-time, a first product identifier from a scan by a hand-held device.
- Code to transmit the identifier to the database.
- Code to compare the user profile to the product's ingredients.
- Code to transmit results to the hand-held device for an alert.
- Code to perform the same capture, transmit, compare, and alert functions for a second product.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant Innit's "Shopwell app" and its associated backend servers, databases, and services, which are part of Innit's "Food Intelligence Platform." (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 40, 67).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Shopwell app allows users to create a personal "Food Profile" with information about allergies, dietary restrictions, and health goals. (Compl. ¶ 49). Users can then use their smartphone's camera to scan product barcodes in-store. The app then displays a personalized "match score" and provides "Avoid!" alerts for ingredients that conflict with the user's profile, such as gluten or wheat. (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 53). A screenshot from Innit's website shows a granola bar being evaluated, receiving an "Excellent match" score of 98 while also generating an "Avoid!" alert for gluten, wheat, and added sugar. (Compl. p. 16). The complaint alleges the app is marketed to "health-conscious consumers" to help them make "smart choices at the grocery store." (Compl. ¶ 38).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'319 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) populating, by a programmable device, a database, that correlates at least... a first product identifier corresponding to at least one ingredients of a first product... | The Innit/Shopwell database is allegedly populated with product information, including ingredients, which are correlated with product identifiers like barcodes. (Compl. ¶ 48). | ¶48 | col. 4:51-54 |
| b) creating and maintaining via the Internet utilizing a web-based mechanism, at least a first user profile, comprising user health information for a plurality of users; | The Shopwell app allegedly allows users to create and maintain profiles over the Internet with health information such as allergies and dietary restrictions. (Compl. ¶ 49). | ¶49 | col. 2:63-65 |
| c) scanning a first product by at least one hand-held communication device, wherein the first product includes indicia associated with the first product identifier; | The Shopwell app allegedly uses a smartphone (a hand-held communication device) to scan a product's barcode (indicia). (Compl. ¶ 50). | ¶50 | col. 4:23-27 |
| d) capturing, in real-time, the first product identifier; | The app allegedly captures the product's barcode information in real-time upon scanning. (Compl. ¶ 50). | ¶50 | col. 2:41-46 |
| e) transmitting, in real-time, the first product identifier from the at least one hand-held communication device to the database; | The app allegedly transmits the captured barcode information over the internet to Innit's remote servers and database. (Compl. ¶ 51). | ¶51 | col. 4:30-42 |
| f) comparing, in real-time, the first user profile to the first product identifier corresponding to the at least one ingredients of the first product obtained from the database; | Innit's servers allegedly compare the user's profile information (e.g., allergies) with the scanned product's ingredients retrieved from the database. (Compl. ¶ 52). | ¶52 | col. 5:32-48 |
| g) transmitting, in real-time... the results of the comparison... wherein the results are used to: (1) output an alert when the first product... includes a harmful ingredient; and (2) output an alert when the first product... includes a recommended ingredient; | The app allegedly displays results on the user's device, including "Avoid!" alerts for harmful ingredients and a "match score" indicating recommended products. (Compl. ¶ 53). | ¶53 | col. 3:4-9 |
| h) - l) [Scanning, capturing, transmitting, comparing, and transmitting results for a second product] | The complaint alleges the app is capable of performing the same sequence of steps for subsequent products. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-57). | ¶¶54-57 | col. 12:28-40 |
'383 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) a memory having at least one region for storing computer executable program code; and 2) a processor for executing the program code... | Innit's backend servers, which host the Shopwell services, are alleged to contain memory and processors to store and execute the app's code. (Compl. ¶¶ 68-69). | ¶¶68-69 | col. 9:8-11 |
| a) code to populate... a database... | The system allegedly includes code that populates the Innit/Shopwell database with product and ingredient information. (Compl. ¶ 70). | ¶70 | col. 4:51-54 |
| b) code to create and maintain... at least a first user profile... | The system allegedly includes code that enables users to create and maintain personal health profiles through the app's interface. (Compl. ¶ 71). | ¶71 | col. 2:63-65 |
| c) code to capture, in real-time, a first product identifier received by scanning a first product by at least one hand-held communication device... | The Shopwell app allegedly contains code that uses the smartphone's camera to capture barcode information in real-time. (Compl. ¶ 72). | ¶72 | col. 4:23-27 |
| d) code to transmit, in real-time, the first product identifier... to the database; | The app allegedly includes code to transmit the captured product identifier over the internet to Innit's remote database. (Compl. ¶ 73). | ¶73 | col. 4:30-42 |
| e) code to compare, in real-time, the first user profile to the first product identifier... | The backend system allegedly includes code to compare the user's profile against the scanned product's data. (Compl. ¶ 74). | ¶74 | col. 5:32-48 |
| f) code to transmit, in real-time... the results of the comparison... to output an alert... | The system allegedly includes code to transmit results to the user's device, which are used to display alerts (e.g., "Avoid!") and match scores. (Compl. ¶ 75). | ¶75 | col. 3:4-9 |
| g) - j) [Code to capture, transmit, compare, and transmit results for a second product] | The complaint alleges the system includes code to perform the same functions for a second scanned product. (Compl. ¶¶ 76-79). | ¶¶76-79 | col. 12:52-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the interpretation of "real-time." The patent defines this as happening "at once or essentially instantaneously," in contrast to a process taking hours. (’319 Patent, col. 2:41-46). The court may need to determine if the sequence of operations in the accused client-server architecture, which involves multiple network transmissions, meets this definition.
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the accused app’s functionality of providing a numerical "match score" and an "Avoid!" list based on user goals and preferences meets the claim limitation of an "alert when the first product... includes a harmful ingredient." The defense may argue that a preference-based scoring system is technically distinct from the binary safety alert system described in the patent's embodiments. The complaint provides a screenshot of a YouTube video showing match scores like "EXCELLENT," "GOOD," and "OKAY," which may raise questions about whether this constitutes the claimed "alert." (Compl. p. 23).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "real-time"
- Context and Importance: This term is recited in nearly every operative step of the asserted method claim and every operative "code to" element of the asserted system claim. Its construction is critical for determining whether the timing and sequence of the accused product's operations fall within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit definition: "the term 'real-time' is intended to refer to a process that happens at once or essentially instantaneously (as opposed to a process that is completed in parts or over an extended time period (wherein such extended time period comprises, for example, a time period of a few hours or overnight))." (’319 Patent, col. 2:41-46). Plaintiff may argue this broad definition covers any interaction that appears instantaneous to a user, as the Shopwell app allegedly does.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that, in the context of the overall disclosure, the term implies a more direct and less latent process than that of a modern, multi-layered cloud application. The patent figures depict a relatively simple client-firewall-server architecture, which could be argued to teach a more constrained meaning of "real-time" than what is technically occurring in the accused system. (’319 Patent, Fig. 1).
The Term: "harmful ingredient"
- Context and Importance: The claims require the output of an "alert" when a product includes a "harmful ingredient." The infringement analysis hinges on whether the information provided by the Shopwell app (e.g., an "Avoid!" notice for gluten) constitutes an alert for a "harmful ingredient" as understood in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a very broad definition in the context of an "unwanted ingredient": one that may "cause an allergic reaction, interfere with the effectiveness of a prescription drug, exacerbate symptoms associated with a chronic illness, and/or cause another undesired reaction." (’319 Patent, col. 1:20-23). This could encompass a wide range of substances beyond medically-defined allergens.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may point to the specific examples in the specification, such as tree-nut allergies or ingredients to be avoided for the Feingold Diet, to argue that the term implies a specific, pre-defined health hazard rather than a general dietary preference or "lifestyle goal," which the accused app also considers. (’319 Patent, col. 3:17-21; Compl. ¶ 47).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Innit induces infringement by providing the Shopwell app, along with instructions and promotional materials on its website and app marketplaces, which allegedly encourage and instruct end-users to perform the steps of the patented method. (Compl. ¶¶ 59-60, 81-82).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It claims that Shopwell (which Innit later acquired) was contacted about the Asserted Patents and its technology as early as November 2015. It further alleges that Innit was directly informed of the infringement and offered a license in March 2022, but continued its allegedly infringing activities. (Compl. ¶¶ 42-44, 62, 84).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "harmful ingredient", rooted in the patent's context of specific allergies and medical conditions, be construed to cover the broader set of dietary preferences, "lifestyle goals," and wellness-oriented avoidances used by the accused Shopwell app to generate its "Avoid!" list and match scores?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of temporal scope: does the accused system's multi-step process—scanning on a client device, transmission to a remote server, server-side processing, and transmission of results back to the client—operate "in real-time" as that term is defined and contextualized within the patent specification?
- The case will likely examine the issue of divided infringement: for the method claims of the ’319 Patent, a central question will be whether Defendant Innit directs or controls the actions of its users to the extent that all steps of the claimed method can be attributed to a single actor, or whether the user's actions are independent. For the system claims of the ’383 Patent, the focus will be on whether Innit "makes" or "uses" the entire claimed system, which comprises both its backend servers and the software operating on the user's hand-held device.