DCT
6:18-cv-01057
Coding Tech LLC v. Xymogen Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Xymogen, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson LLP
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-01057, M.D. Fla., 07/03/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a domestic corporation with its headquarters in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of QR codes on its product packaging to direct consumers to its websites infringes a patent related to methods for using a mobile device to access content from a code pattern.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates bridging the physical and digital worlds by allowing a camera-equipped mobile device to automatically retrieve online information linked to a physical object, thereby avoiding the need for users to manually enter URLs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Priority Date |
| 2013-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Issue Date |
| 2018-07-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159, Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-Pattern, issued September 24, 2013 (’159 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience for consumers of having to remember and manually type a website URL from a printed advertisement to obtain more information about a product (’159 Patent, col. 1:45-52). It also notes the difficulty travelers may have in obtaining location-specific information or calling for transportation services in an unfamiliar area (’159 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user terminal with a camera captures an image of a "code pattern" (e.g., a barcode). The terminal then decodes the pattern to extract information, such as a URL, and uses that information to automatically request and receive content from a server, displaying it to the user (’159 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5). This automates the process of linking a physical-world object to online content.
- Technical Importance: The described technology simplifies the user experience of accessing online information related to physical products or locations, a key development in early mobile internet applications (’159 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16. (Compl. ¶16).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites the essential elements of:
- obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal;
- processing the image by a processor to extract the code pattern;
- decoding the extracted 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 in response.
- Independent Claim 8 (Apparatus) recites a "user terminal" comprising a camera, a processor (with an image processor and a decoder), and a transceiver configured to perform the transmitting and receiving steps of the method.
- Independent Claim 15 (Computer-Readable Medium) recites a non-transitory storage medium with code that, when executed, implements a method mirroring the steps of Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 16 (Method) recites a similar method to Claim 1 but uses the term "characteristic information" instead of "code pattern" and "code information."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the method of providing content via QR codes featured on Defendant’s products, such as the "ATP Ignite Workout" supplement, when scanned by a user terminal like a smartphone (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant places QR codes on its product packaging, which, when scanned by a smartphone, direct the user's device to a webpage associated with the Defendant (Compl. ¶19, ¶22). The complaint provides a photograph of the accused product's packaging, which includes a QR code labeled "Scan To Learn More!" (Compl. p. 5). This functionality is alleged to provide consumers with additional product information, thereby using the patented method for commercial purposes (Compl. ¶10, ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal; | A user obtains a photographic image of the QR code on Defendant's product packaging using a smartphone camera. | ¶20 | col. 38:6-8 |
| processing, by a processor of the user terminal, the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image; | The smartphone's processor processes the captured image to isolate and extract the QR code pattern. | ¶21 | col. 38:9-12 |
| decoding the extracted code pattern by the processor of the user terminal into code information; | The smartphone's processor decodes the QR code pattern into "code information," which is the URL for a webpage associated with the Defendant. | ¶22 | col. 38:13-15 |
| transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; | The smartphone transmits an HTTP request to Defendant's server using the decoded URL. | ¶23 | col. 38:16-18 |
| receiving content information from the server in response to the content information request message. | The smartphone receives content, such as a webpage, from the Defendant's server. | ¶24 | col. 38:19-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 16 recites a method for extracting "characteristic information," whereas Claim 1 recites extracting a "code pattern" and decoding it into "code information." The complaint appears to treat these terms as interchangeable (Compl. ¶56-57). A potential point of contention is whether "characteristic information" has a distinct technical meaning that could create a non-infringement argument for Claim 16.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement through Defendant's "internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19). A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer to substantiate these direct infringement allegations. The complaint supports its allegations with generic illustrations, including a diagram illustrating the four-step process of scanning a QR code to trigger an action (Compl. p. 6), which may not be specific to Defendant's activities. To support the "transceiver" limitation of Claim 8, the complaint includes a screenshot of an iPhone 7's cellular and wireless technical specifications (Compl. p. 9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim Term: "code pattern"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in all independent claims and is central to the invention. Its construction will determine the types of optical symbols covered by the patent. The complaint alleges that a QR code is a "code pattern" (Compl. ¶19).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the "barcode 60" can encompass both one-dimensional barcodes and two-dimensional barcodes, providing "a QR code" as a specific example (’159 Patent, col. 11:1-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently discusses the "code pattern" in the context of specific commercial applications, such as being "printed on a printed matter, such as a newspaper or a magazine" (’159 Patent, col. 8:52-54). A party could argue the term should be limited by these exemplary embodiments.
Claim Term: "characteristic information"
- Context and Importance: This term is used in independent claim 16 in place of "code information." Its definition is critical to determining the scope of Claim 16 relative to Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because its use suggests a potentially different scope, which could be pivotal for both infringement and validity analyses.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "characteristic information" is a broader term not limited to the data encoded within the pattern, but could also include other identifiable features of the image itself. The patent does not provide an explicit definition to distinguish it from "code information."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself appears to use the term synonymously with the decoded URL, alleging the processor extracts "characteristic information (e.g., URL of the webpage)" (Compl. ¶57). This suggests Plaintiff's own interpretation treats the terms as equivalent in this context.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant makes and sells products with QR codes that embody the invention (Compl. ¶15). The factual basis for inducement may be inferred from Defendant's product packaging that includes the instruction "Scan To Learn More!" next to the QR code, allegedly encouraging consumers to perform the patented method (Compl. p. 5).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged "upon information and belief," with the complaint asserting that Defendant had knowledge of the ’159 Patent and infringed without a reasonable basis for believing its conduct was non-infringing (Compl. ¶58). The complaint provides no specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of infringement evidence: as the complaint's direct infringement allegations are based on Defendant's "internal use and testing," a key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can produce of such activities, versus relying on an induced infringement theory based on Defendant's customers' use of the QR codes.
- A second core issue will be one of claim construction: the litigation may turn on whether the term "characteristic information" in Claim 16 is interpreted as synonymous with "code information" from Claim 1, or if it imparts a patentably distinct meaning that alters the infringement analysis.
- Finally, while not raised in the complaint, a dispositive issue will likely be the validity of the ’159 Patent. A court will need to assess whether the claimed method of scanning a code with a mobile device to access a URL was obvious or anticipated by the state of the art as of the patent's March 2003 priority date.