DCT

1:25-cv-01480

NetMomentum LLC v. Bibliotheca LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01480, D. Del., 12/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and its maintenance of an established place of business within 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 when stacked or in close proximity to one another.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on RFID technology used for tracking objects, specifically addressing the technical challenge of reading multiple tags that are densely packed, which is a common scenario in library and inventory management systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2010-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 Issues
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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a significant limitation in conventional RFID technology: when tagged objects are stacked or placed in close proximity, the antennas of the outermost tags can act as a "Faraday shield," blocking the radio frequency signals from reaching the tags on the interior of the stack and preventing them from being read (’726 Patent, col. 2:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an RFID tag with a "semi-transparent" antenna that is designed to gather only some of the incoming RF energy while allowing most of the energy to pass through (’726 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by constructing the antenna from materials with specific electrical properties (e.g., higher sheet resistivity) that "minimally affect" the surrounding electromagnetic fields, thereby enabling communication with multiple tags in a dense assembly (’726 Patent, col. 2:62-col. 3:4; col. 5:11-22).
  • Technical Importance: This approach addresses the problem of signal blockage, suggesting a method for reliably reading entire stacks of tagged items—such as documents, library books, or poker chips—in a single pass (’726 Patent, col. 2:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," referencing an exhibit containing "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). Independent claim 1 is the broadest independent claim of the patent.
  • 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 specify whether dependent claims are asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in a set of claim charts (Exhibit 2) that was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and that its employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶¶11-12). Given that the defendant, Bibliotheca, LLC, is a known provider of RFID-based systems for libraries, the accused instrumentalities are presumably RFID tags and systems used for book and media tracking. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific product functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the pleading (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The complaint states that these charts compare the "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and alleges that the products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶13). In the absence of the referenced claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the proper construction of the phrase "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields" from claim 1. A central question will be whether this qualitative limitation requires a specific, measurable degree of RF transparency. The patent specification suggests that "at least about 50%, and preferably greater than about 90%, of the RF energy" passes through, which could inform the interpretation of this claim term (’726 Patent, col. 5:17-20).
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will likely concern whether the accused RFID tags, once identified, actually operate in the manner required by the claims. Plaintiff would need to present evidence, likely through expert testing and testimony, demonstrating that the Defendant's products possess the claimed "semi-transparent" antenna characteristics.

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 the patent—an antenna that allows RF energy to pass through it to reach other tags. The definition of this term is critical to the infringement dispute, as it will establish the boundary between the patented invention and conventional RFID technology.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses qualitative language, stating that "most of the energy in the RF wave does not couple into the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 2:66-67). This language could support a construction that is not tied to a specific numerical threshold.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 10 adds the limitation "wherein at least 50% of the RF energy striking the antenna passes through the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 8:9-10). A defendant may argue that this quantifies the meaning of "minimally affects" or, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, that the scope of claim 1 must be broader than, and distinct from, the 50% threshold of claim 10. The specification also links the inventive concept to physical properties, such as an antenna with a "sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" (’726 Patent, col. 8:61-63, claim 3).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), referencing Defendant’s acts of "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" accused products (Compl. ¶11). It does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement. The prayer for relief asks that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not plead the facts typically associated with a willfulness claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

Based on the complaint and the patent-in-suit, the resolution of this case may turn on two central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the qualitative claim limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? Whether this term is given a broad, functional meaning or is tied to the more quantitative physical properties described elsewhere in the patent (e.g., a 50% energy pass-through or specific sheet resistivity) will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual detail, a primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused, but as-yet-unidentified, Bibliotheca products actually exhibit the "semi-transparent" antenna behavior required by the asserted claims.