DCT
1:18-cv-02125
Coding Tech LLC v. Crawford Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Coding Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Crawford and Company (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02125, N.D. Ga., 05/14/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its corporate headquarters in the district and having committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of QR codes to direct users to online content infringes a patent related to methods and systems for providing mobile services using a code pattern.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using a camera-equipped mobile device to scan a visual code, which then automatically retrieves corresponding digital content from a server.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is the result of a long prosecution chain, claiming priority back to multiple Korean patent applications filed in 2003 and a PCT application filed in 2004, which may be relevant to determining the scope of the claims and the applicable prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-07 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 |
| 2013-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Issued |
| 2013-12-31 | Approximate date of Defendant's 2013 Annual Report (referenced in accused instrumentality) |
| 2018-05-14 | Complaint Filed |
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 (“’159 Patent”), issued September 24, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience for consumers of having to manually memorize and enter website URLs from advertisements into a mobile device ('159 Patent, col. 1:44-50). It also notes the difficulty for travelers in obtaining location-specific information or services, such as calling a taxi, without knowing a local phone number or address ('159 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user terminal with a camera captures an image of a "code pattern" (e.g., a barcode). The terminal then locally decodes the pattern to extract embedded information, such as a URL, and uses that information to automatically transmit a request to a server and receive corresponding content, such as a webpage or other data ('159 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:48-col. 12:20; FIG. 5).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create a more seamless link between physical media (like print advertisements) and online digital content for the growing population of mobile device users ('159 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 8 (user terminal), 15 (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium), and 16 (method) ('159 Patent, col. 38:32 - col. 40:46; Compl. ¶¶ 17, 31, 45, 52).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal;
- processing, by a processor of the user terminal, the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image;
- decoding the extracted code pattern by the processor of the user terminal 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 to the content information request message.
- Independent Claim 8 (User Terminal):
- a camera configured to obtain a photographic image of a code pattern;
- a processor comprising an image processor (to extract the code pattern) and a decoder (to decode the pattern into code information); and
- a transceiver configured to transmit a content information request message to a server and receive content information from the server.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 ('159 Patent, col. 38:56 - col. 39:31; Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28, 38, 41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as Defendant's method of providing content, specifically by using a QR code to direct users to its online annual report ('159 Patent, Compl. ¶¶ 15, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant, "at least in internal use and testing," practices a method where a user terminal (e.g., a smartphone) is used to scan a QR code ('159 Patent, Compl. ¶19). A visual in the complaint depicts a QR code on a webpage next to the text "Please visit our online annual report at www.crawfordandcompany.com/AR/2013 or scan the QR code below with your smartphone or tablet" (Compl. ¶19). The process involves capturing an image of the QR code, decoding it to extract the URL for the annual report, sending a request to Defendant's server, and receiving the webpage content ('159 Patent, Compl. ¶¶ 20-24). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating this four-step "QR-Code -> Scan -> Decode -> Action" workflow (Compl. ¶22).
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; | Defendant, in internal use and testing, obtains a photographic image of a QR code using a smartphone camera. A visual shows a smartphone camera interface focused on the QR code. | ¶20 | col. 38:34-35 |
| processing... the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image; | Defendant, in internal use and testing, processes the photographic image of the QR code using a smartphone processor to view and extract the code pattern. | ¶21 | col. 38:36-39 |
| decoding the extracted code pattern... into code information; | Defendant, in internal use and testing, decodes the extracted QR code into code information, specifically the URL of a webpage associated with Defendant. | ¶22 | col. 38:40-42 |
| transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; | Once the URL is decoded, a content information request message (e.g., an http request) is transmitted to Defendant's server based on the URL. | ¶23 | col. 38:43-45 |
| and receiving content information from the server in response to the content information request message. | The user terminal receives content information, specifically a webpage, from Defendant's server in response to the request. | ¶24 | col. 38:46-48 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations of direct infringement are based on Defendant's "internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19). A central question may be whether Plaintiff can prove that the Defendant itself performed every step of the claimed method, which involves coordinated action between a user terminal and a server. This raises a potential issue of divided infringement, where liability may depend on whether one party directs or controls the actions of another to perform the claimed steps.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused process performs the distinct steps of "processing... to extract the code pattern" and then "decoding the extracted code pattern" as separate limitations required by the claim? The complaint alleges these steps occur but provides limited technical detail on how the accused software operates beyond a high-level workflow diagram (Compl. ¶22).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "code pattern"
Context and Importance: This term appears in every independent claim and is fundamental to the scope of the patent. The infringement case depends on this term being construed to include the QR code used by the Defendant. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the patent covers modern, widely-used 2D barcodes or is limited to older or different types of codes contemplated in the specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the invention as relating to "a system and a method for providing mobile services using a code pattern," suggesting it is a broad, overarching term ('159 Patent, col. 1:20-22). The claims use the term without qualification, which typically supports a broader construction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently uses "barcode" and "code pattern" interchangeably and in parallel (e.g., "reads the code pattern (barcode)"), which could be argued to limit the scope of "code pattern" to the conventional meaning of "barcode" at the time of filing ('159 Patent, col. 2:18-19). The patent also distinguishes between one-dimensional and two-dimensional barcodes, and a defendant might argue the invention is primarily directed at one or the other based on the embodiments described ('159 Patent, col. 11:4-15).
The Term: "processor... comprising: an image processor configured to process the photographic image... to extract the code pattern...; and a decoder configured to decode the extracted code pattern"
Context and Importance: This limitation from apparatus claim 8 requires a specific two-part processor structure. The infringement analysis for the accused smartphone will hinge on whether its software and hardware components can be mapped onto this claimed structure. The complaint alleges that the smartphone processor "in turn comprises an image processor" and a "decoder" but does not specify if these are distinct hardware or software modules (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to describe the "image processor" and "decoder" in great detail, potentially allowing them to be construed as functional software modules running on a general-purpose processor rather than requiring separate, dedicated hardware.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that by claiming the "image processor" and "decoder" as distinct components of the processor, the patentee intended to claim a specific architecture that is not met by a single, monolithic software application performing both functions on a general-purpose CPU. The block diagram in FIG. 3 shows "DECODER" (13) as a separate block from the "CONTROL UNIT" (15), which may support an argument for structural separation ('159 Patent, FIG. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads contributory and induced infringement, alleging Defendant "designed to capture certain code pattern information" and that this "embodies or uses the invention claimed" (Compl. ¶15). The factual basis for inducement could be inferred from Defendant's alleged act of providing a QR code with instructions to scan it, thereby encouraging users to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendant "has known of the existence of the ’159 Patent" and that its infringement has been willful, but provides no specific factual basis for pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter or citation (Compl. ¶58).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of direct infringement and control: can Plaintiff prove that Defendant, through its "internal use and testing," performed every step of the claimed methods itself? If not, the case may turn on whether Defendant’s actions of providing a QR code and an associated website are sufficient to establish liability for indirect infringement under U.S. patent law.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the software on the accused smartphones operate in a way that maps onto the specific claim limitations, particularly the distinct claim steps of "processing to extract" and "decoding," or is there a mismatch between the patent's claimed architecture and the functionality of modern QR code-reading applications?
- A foundational question for the court will be one of claim scope: can the term "code pattern," as defined by the patent’s specification from the early 2000s, be broadly construed to cover the ubiquitous QR code technology of today? The construction of this term, along with others defining the processing steps, will be critical in determining the patent's reach.