DCT

1:25-cv-01478

NetMomentum LLC v. Alien Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01478, D. Del., 12/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and maintains an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) products infringe a patent related to "semi-transparent" RFID tags designed to function reliably when stacked or placed in close proximity to one another.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of RFID technology, which is widely used for automated tracking and identification in industries such as retail, logistics, and asset management.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-05-06 ’726 Patent Priority Date
2010-05-11 ’726 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 - "Semi-transparent RFID tags"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where conventional RFID tags, when stacked or placed close together (e.g., a stack of poker chips or documents), interfere with each other. The outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield," blocking the radio frequency signals from reaching the inner tags and "often prevent[ing] the tags from being read at all" ('726 Patent, col. 2:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an RF device with a "semi-transparent" antenna that is designed to "minimally affect[] the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna" ('726 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:49-53). Instead of absorbing or reflecting most of the RF energy, this antenna allows a significant portion of the energy to pass through, enabling a reader to communicate with an entire stack of tagged objects ('726 Patent, col. 5:12-24). The patent discloses achieving this effect through specific design choices, such as using materials with high sheet resistivity for the antenna ('726 Patent, col. 5:26-28). Figure 4 illustrates a cross-section of stacked objects (400) to which the technology applies.
  • Technical Importance: The technology purports to solve a fundamental limitation in RFID systems, enabling reliable inventory and tracking of densely packed items, a scenario the patent describes as previously considered "impossible to read" ('726 Patent, col. 2:40-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶13). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A Radio Frequency (RF) device, comprising:
    • a circuit; and
    • an antenna coupled to the circuit, wherein the antenna minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna even in the vicinity of the antenna.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," including "method claims," suggesting that method claims such as independent claim 18 may also be at issue (Compl. ¶11-12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges only that they "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits comparing the asserted claims to the accused products, but these exhibits were not provided (Compl. ¶13-14). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative infringement theory is conclusory, alleging that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges direct infringement occurs when Defendant's "employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint asserts that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and captures the core inventive concept of a "semi-transparent" antenna. The outcome of the case may turn on the scope afforded to this phrase, as it will define the boundary between the patented invention and prior art or non-infringing RFID tags.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose of the invention in functional terms, stating that "assemblies of objects carrying the RF devices can be formed while maintaining acceptable communications with the RF devices" ('726 Patent, col. 3:1-4). Plaintiff may argue this functional result, rather than a specific physical structure, defines the term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific physical characteristics to achieve the claimed effect. The specification states that "the antenna has a sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" and a total device impedance "greater than about 1000Ω" ('726 Patent, col. 3:7-10; col. 5:26-31). Furthermore, dependent claim 10 adds the limitation that "at least 50% of the RF energy striking the antenna passes through the antenna." A defendant may argue that these objective, measurable characteristics are necessary to meet the "minimally affects" limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the qualitative and functional claim term "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? Will its meaning be limited to the specific embodiments disclosing high sheet resistivity and high impedance, or will it be interpreted more broadly to cover any RFID antenna that allows for reading tags in a stack?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint lacks specific product details, discovery will focus on the technical operation of the accused RFID products. The case will likely depend on expert testimony and empirical RF testing to determine whether the accused antennas, in fact, "minimally affect" surrounding fields as required by the patent's claims.