DCT

1:25-cv-01479

NetMomentum LLC v. Avery Dennison Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01479, D. Del., 12/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a Delaware corporation, has an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to be readable even when stacked in close proximity.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses a known limitation in RFID systems where tags placed close together can shield each other from radio signals, preventing reliable identification of items in a stack or dense assembly.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-05-06 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726
2010-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 Issued
2025-12-08 Complaint Filed

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 ("Semi-transparent RFID tags"), issued May 11, 2010 (the "’726 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how conventional RFID tags interact strongly with radio frequency (RF) fields, causing tags in a stack to shield one another from the reader’s signal (’726 Patent, col. 2:25-41). The patent notes this problem makes it "impossible to read a stack of tagged items" such as poker chips or documents, as the outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield" for the inner ones (’726 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "semi-transparent" antenna that gathers only some of the incoming RF energy to power the tag's circuit, while allowing most of the RF wave to pass through to other tags nearby (’726 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by designing an antenna that "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 3:48-51). The specification suggests this can be accomplished by using materials with high sheet resistivity, such as conducting polymers or Indium Tin Oxide, to create a high-impedance antenna (’726 Patent, col. 4:65-67; col. 5:1-3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to enable reliable reading of entire stacks of RFID-tagged objects in a single pass, a capability of significant value in inventory management, logistics, and gaming applications (’726 Patent, col. 2:50-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" identified in an external chart (Exhibit 2), but does not specify any claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the invention:
  • 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but states these products are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint asserts that the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’726 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). No specific details regarding the functionality, operation, or market context of any accused product are provided in the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2" that purportedly compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The complaint's narrative infringement theory states that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" products that "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the functional limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields." The analysis will question what technical criteria or quantitative threshold is required to meet this limitation and whether the accused products, once identified, possess such characteristics.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory is conclusory (Compl. ¶13). A key question for the case will be what objective evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendant's products contain an "antenna" that performs the specific function of being "semi-transparent" to RF energy, as required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "minimally affects" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This functional term is the central inventive concept of Claim 1. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed to require a specific, measurable degree of RF transparency or if it is given a more qualitative meaning. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the boundary between the patented invention and prior art RFID technology.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 does not recite a specific numerical threshold for what constitutes a "minimal" effect, which could support a construction based on the ordinary meaning of the term relative to conventional, non-transparent RFID antennas.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides quantitative examples. It states that "at least about 50%, and preferably greater than about 90%, of the RF energy striking the antenna... is useable by another RF device" (’726 Patent, col. 5:18-22). Dependent Claim 10 also recites that "at least 50% of the RF energy striking the antenna passes through the antenna." A party could argue these passages define and limit the scope of "minimally affects."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had any pre-suit knowledge of the ’726 Patent. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint pleads no specific facts to support this request (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the functional limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? The case may turn on whether this term is defined by the quantitative examples in the specification (e.g., >50% RF energy pass-through) or by a more general, qualitative comparison to conventional RFID tags.
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any accused product to the patent's claims, a central question will be what technical evidence Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that Defendant’s accused RFID products actually operate in the manner required by the claims, particularly concerning the transparency of their antennas to RF energy.