ScanComm LLC v. LinkedIn Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ScanComm LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: LinkedIn Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KENT & RISLEY LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-03856, N.D. Ga., 08/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LinkedIn mobile application infringes a patent related to initiating private, secure communications between users by scanning a visual code.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using scannable codes, like QR codes, to allow users to connect and communicate digitally without initially revealing sensitive, underlying contact information such as phone numbers or email addresses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement, including a claim chart, via a letter dated August 22, 2023, one week prior to filing the lawsuit. The asserted patent claims priority back to a 2015 provisional application through a chain of continuing applications.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,003,878, "System for Communication from a User to the Publisher of a Scannable Label," issued May 11, 2021.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for individuals and businesses to establish digital communication with others (e.g., customers, new acquaintances) in a way that is private and secure, without requiring the initial exchange of permanent contact information like a phone number or email address. (’878 Patent, col. 1:22-26, col. 3:36-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user (“publisher”) generates a scannable code (e.g., a QR code) linked to a specific communication profile, which can be public or anonymous. (’878 Patent, col. 3:40-54). Another user (“consumer”) scans the code with a mobile app. Crucially, the code itself does not contain the publisher’s sensitive contact details; instead, it contains an identifier that allows the consumer’s app to contact a secure remote server, which then facilitates a “secure and private communication” between the two parties. (’878 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-62).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enables context-specific or temporary digital interactions, allowing users to control the level of personal information they disclose when initiating contact through a scannable code. (’878 Patent, col. 3:45-54).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims... including at least claim 19." (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent claim 19 is a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium claim with instructions that, when executed, perform the following essential steps:
    • Obtaining a scanned image of a code symbol from a second user's unique communication profile using a 2D code scanner on a first user's mobile device.
    • Extracting a "digital identification code" of the second user from the scanned symbol.
    • Establishing a "secure two-way communication" with the second user using the application and the digital identification code.
    • Receiving and providing an option to store the second user's contact information.
    • Wherein the establishment of communication uses a "secure server" configured for "private communication."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "LinkedIn app" as an exemplary accused product. (Compl. ¶12).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the LinkedIn app that is alleged to infringe. It alleges that Defendant offers and distributes the app and provides "product literature, website materials, and/or in-app instructions" that induce infringement. (Compl. ¶12). The infringement theory appears to target the app's feature that allows users to connect by scanning another user's LinkedIn QR code. The complaint does not provide detail for analysis of the product's market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the LinkedIn app is a "tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium" that infringes at least claim 19 of the '878 patent. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14; ’878 Patent, col. 10:21-23). The narrative infringement theory suggests that the LinkedIn app contains instructions that, when executed on a user's mobile device, perform the claimed steps. This process allegedly involves a first user scanning a second user's LinkedIn QR code, the app extracting an identifier from that code, and the app then using a secure server to establish a connection between the two users' profiles, which Plaintiff characterizes as "secure two-way communication." (Compl. ¶¶12-15). The complaint states that a claim chart comparing claim 19 to the accused product was provided as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶15).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "secure two-way communication." The question for the court will be whether the standard act of forming a connection on a professional networking platform, which is designed to disclose profile information, falls within the scope of a term the patent repeatedly associates with privacy and anonymity. (’878 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is whether the data within a LinkedIn QR code constitutes a "digital identification code" as required by the claim. The case may turn on whether the code contains a simple hyperlink (URI) to a public profile—a technology the patent specification appears to distinguish itself from—or a unique, non-public identifier used specifically by the claimed secure server system to broker the connection. (’878 Patent, col. 2:10-12; col. 7:53-58).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "secure two-way communication"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the ultimate function and purpose of the claimed system. Whether the accused LinkedIn app's connection process meets this limitation will likely be a dispositive issue in the case. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's emphasis on privacy and anonymity appears distinct from the functionality of a typical social networking platform.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the term to anonymous or temporary communication, stating only that it is established using a "secure server" that is "configured to enable private communication." (’878 Patent, col. 8:30-41). A party might argue this covers any server-mediated, encrypted (e.g., HTTPS) connection process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract describes communication "without either party knowing the phone number or email address of the other party." The specification further details embodiments with "anonymous" profiles and the disclosure of only a "specified subset" of information, suggesting the term implies a specific architecture that preserves user privacy beyond standard encryption. (’878 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-54).

• The Term: "digital identification code"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the data extracted from the scannable symbol. The infringement analysis depends on whether the data in LinkedIn's QR code fits this definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires extracting a "digital identification code ... in the form of digital data embedded in the code symbol," which could be argued to encompass any unique digital string that identifies a user, including a URL path. (’878 Patent, col. 8:25-30).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests that if a user scans the code with a third-party application, "all they would get is an 8 digit random code that must be decoded after it is received by the secure server." (’878 Patent, col. 7:53-58). This suggests the "code" is a proprietary identifier, not a universally readable pointer like a URL, a technology the patent discusses as part of the prior art. (’878 Patent, col. 2:10-12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product literature, website materials, and/or in-app instructions" that actively and knowingly encourage end-users to use the LinkedIn app in a manner that infringes the ’878 patent. (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported "actual knowledge" of infringement. The complaint claims this knowledge stems from a pre-suit notice letter and an accompanying claim chart sent to Defendant on August 22, 2023, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing activities. (Compl. ¶¶11, 12).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "secure two-way communication," which the patent describes in the context of privacy-preserving and potentially anonymous exchanges, be construed to cover the standard profile-linking and information-sharing function of the accused LinkedIn social networking app?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the data embedded in a LinkedIn QR code constitute a proprietary "digital identification code" as contemplated by the patent's disclosure, or does it function as a standard hyperlink (URI), potentially creating a mismatch with the claimed invention?