Coding Tech LLC v. Delta Air Lines Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coding Technolgies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson LLP
• Case Identification: 6:17-cv-01762, M.D. Fla., 10/11/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of QR codes to direct customers' mobile devices to online content infringes a patent related to methods for providing mobile services via code patterns.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a camera-equipped mobile terminal to scan a machine-readable code, which automates the process of retrieving associated digital content from a server.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, post-grant proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 - Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-Pattern

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159, issued September 24, 2013. (Compl. ¶8; ’159 Patent, p.1).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience for mobile device users of manually remembering and typing in website URLs found in physical advertisements, such as those in newspapers or magazines. (’159 Patent, col. 1:36-52). It also notes the difficulty travelers may face in obtaining location-specific information or summoning services like a taxi without a convenient method. (’159 Patent, col. 1:53-col. 2:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user terminal equipped with a camera captures an image of a "code pattern" (e.g., a barcode or QR code). The terminal's processor decodes this pattern to extract embedded "code information," such as a URL. Based on this information, the terminal sends a request to a server and receives corresponding content, thereby streamlining the connection between a physical object and online information. (’159 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5; col. 10:25-41).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a more seamless bridge between physical-world marketing or information displays and the digital content accessible on increasingly prevalent camera-equipped mobile devices. (’159 Patent, col. 1:20-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 8 (user terminal), 15 (non-transitory medium), and 16 (method). (Compl. ¶¶17, 31, 45, 52).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the core steps of:
  • obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal;
  • processing the image to extract the code pattern;
  • decoding the code pattern into code information;
  • transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; and
  • receiving content information from the server. (’159 Patent, col. 38:6-23).
• Independent Claim 8 recites a user terminal apparatus comprising a camera, a processor (with an image processor and decoder), and a transceiver configured to perform the transmitting and receiving steps. (’159 Patent, col. 39:8-23).
• Independent Claim 15 recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with program code that, when executed, implements the method steps of claim 1. (’159 Patent, col. 40:15-32).
• Independent Claim 16 recites a method similar to claim 1 but uses the term "characteristic information" instead of "code pattern" and "code information." (’159 Patent, col. 40:33-46).
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 and reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is a method of providing content practiced by Defendant through its use of QR codes, as well as the systems that enable it. (Compl. ¶¶15, 19). The complaint specifically identifies a QR code on Defendant's "skyteam.com/globalmeetings" webpage, which is scanned by a user terminal, such as an Apple iPhone 7, to access web content from Defendant's server. (Compl. ¶¶19-24, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant provides QR codes that users can scan with a smartphone. The complaint includes a screenshot from the skyteam.com website with a QR code and the instruction "For more details on how to get started, scan the QR code below." (Compl. ¶19, p. 5). The alleged functionality involves a user's smartphone camera capturing the QR code, a processor decoding it to reveal a URL, the phone transmitting an HTTP request to Defendant's server, and the server responding by delivering a webpage to the user's device. (Compl. ¶¶20-24). A visual diagram in the complaint depicts this four-step process as "QR-Code," "Scan," "Decode," and "Action." (Compl. ¶24, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’159 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The use of "characteristic information" in independent claim 16, as opposed to "code information" in independent claim 1, raises a potential claim construction dispute. A court will have to determine if these terms are synonymous, as the complaint implies (Compl. ¶¶56-57), or if claim differentiation requires them to have distinct meanings.
• Technical Questions: A primary question concerns direct infringement liability for the asserted method claims. The alleged infringing acts are split between Defendant (providing the QR code and server) and its customers (operating the user terminal to scan the code). The complaint alleges that Defendant itself performs the method "at least in internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19, ¶20), which may be an attempt to plead around the divided infringement issue. Whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant directs or controls its users sufficiently to be held liable for their actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) will be a key question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "characteristic information"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 16, while the patent’s other independent claims use the terms "code pattern" and "code information". The complaint alleges that the URL extracted from the QR code constitutes this "characteristic information." (Compl. ¶¶56-57). The construction of this term is critical because if it is interpreted to mean something different from the URL data encoded in the QR code, infringement of claim 16 may be more difficult to establish.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader interpretation, likely the Plaintiff, may contend that in the context of the invention, the URL is the primary "characteristic" of the code being scanned, making the terms functionally equivalent. The patent's summary section introduces the method of claim 16 by referring to extracting "characteristic information from the photographic image," which parallels the extraction of "code information" in other embodiments. (’159 Patent, col. 2:50-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower interpretation may invoke the doctrine of claim differentiation, noting that the patentee's choice to use a different term in a separate independent claim implies a different meaning. The specification does not explicitly define "characteristic information," creating ambiguity that could support an argument that it requires more than just decoding the data payload of the QR code.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces and contributes to infringement. (Compl. ¶15). The factual basis for inducement may be that Defendant provides QR codes along with explicit instructions to "scan the QR code" (Compl. p. 5), thereby encouraging users to perform the patented method on their personal devices.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful based on the allegation, made "upon information and belief," that Defendant has known of the ’159 Patent. (Compl. ¶58). The complaint does not provide specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A central legal issue will be one of attribution for direct infringement: can the actions of Defendant's customers using their own smartphones be attributed to Defendant to satisfy all limitations of the asserted method claims, or must Plaintiff's case rely on theories of indirect infringement?
• A key claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: does the term "characteristic information" in claim 16 require something different than the "code information" recited in claim 1, and if so, does the accused process extract this distinct information?
• An early procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint's definition of the "Accused Products" as a "user terminal" (Compl. ¶15) used by Defendant, exemplified by a generic smartphone, provide adequate notice of the specific instrumentality accused of infringement?