ScanComm LLC v. Block Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ScanComm LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Block, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KENT & RISLEY LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00867, N.D. Ga., 02/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper 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 Cash App product infringes a patent related to initiating secure, private communications between users via scannable labels like QR codes.
• Technical Context: The technology enables users to interact by scanning a QR code, which triggers a communication channel mediated by a remote server, thereby preserving the privacy of the users' underlying contact information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement, including a claim chart, via a letter dated February 16, 2024, ten days before filing the lawsuit. This allegation forms the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,003,878 - "System for Communication from a User to the Publisher of a Scannable Label"

• 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 initiate communication with others (e.g., customers, new acquaintances) without immediately disclosing private contact information like a phone number or email address ('878 Patent, col. 3:25-38). Conventional QR codes often link directly to public information, whereas this invention seeks to enable a private interaction.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a "publisher" uses an application to generate a QR code associated with a specific "profile" (e.g., personal, anonymous) ('878 Patent, col. 4:36-44). A "consumer" scans this code with their own device, which uses a "digital identification code" embedded in the QR code to establish a "secure two-way communication" through a remote server ('878 Patent, col. 3:51-64). This server-mediated approach allows for communication without the parties needing to know each other's direct contact details, which are stored on the server rather than in the QR code itself ('878 Patent, col. 4:57-63).
• Technical Importance: This system provides a method for privacy-preserving initial contact, allowing for controlled disclosure of information in social or commercial settings.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14).
• Claim 19 is directed to a "tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium" (e.g., a device's memory storing an app) whose instructions, when executed, cause a processor to perform a series of operations, including:
  • Obtaining a scanned image of a code symbol corresponding to a "unique communication profile" of a second user.
  • Extracting a "digital identification code" from the symbol.
  • Using this code to establish a "secure two-way communication" with the second user via a "secure server."
  • Receiving contact information associated with the second user's profile and providing an option to store it.
  • Ensuring the secure server is configured to enable "private communication."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Cash App product" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused Cash App. It alleges that the product is identified in a claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not included with the public filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶15). The complaint itself does not contain narrative infringement allegations or element-by-element comparisons sufficient for detailed analysis.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the asserted claim and the general nature of the accused product, the dispute may raise several questions:
  • Scope Questions: Can a user account within a payment application like Cash App be considered a "unique communication profile" as contemplated by the patent, which describes distinct personal, professional, and anonymous profiles ('878 Patent, Fig. 4)? Does the exchange of transactional information qualify as the "secure two-way communication" recited in the claim, or does the claim require a more conversational or messaging-based interaction?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the Cash App performs the specific sequence of (1) establishing a communication channel, and then (2) receiving contact information associated with the scanned user's profile, and (3) providing an option to store that contact information, as required by claim 19? The court will need to determine if the accused functionality maps to this multi-step process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "secure two-way communication"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention. Its definition will determine whether the functionality of the accused product—primarily a payment application—can be seen as infringing. The dispute will likely focus on whether a transaction-based link constitutes "communication" in the context of the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary suggests the communication can be an "email or text message (or other private communication)," which could arguably encompass various forms of data exchange ('878 Patent, col. 4:26-27).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly discusses creating different profiles to manage interactions with "acquaintances" and "customers," and includes user interface mockups for managing contacts and messages, suggesting a system oriented toward social and business networking rather than just financial transactions ('878 Patent, col. 4:36-44; Figs. 21-22).

• The Term: "unique communication profile"

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on whether a standard Cash App user account meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish a simple user account from the more complex, multi-faceted profile system described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. A party could argue that any set of user data stored on a server and linked to a unique identifier constitutes a "unique communication profile."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of distinct profile types a user can create, such as "Personal," "Professional," and "Anonymous," each with different information and permissions ('878 Patent, col. 6:40-47; Fig. 4). This could support an argument that the term requires a system allowing a user to maintain multiple, selectable profiles for different contexts, not just a single, static account.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Block, Inc. induces infringement by distributing "product literature, website materials, and/or in-app instructions" that encourage users to operate the Cash App in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of infringement based on a notice letter and claim chart sent to the Defendant on February 16, 2024. It further alleges that the Defendant continued its infringing conduct despite this "actual knowledge" (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

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

1. A central issue will be one of functional operation: Does the accused Cash App system, primarily designed for financial transactions, actually perform the specific, multi-step process of establishing a "secure two-way communication" and managing contact information from a "unique communication profile" as recited in claim 19, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical function?
2. The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the claim term "secure two-way communication," which the patent specification links to messaging and contact management, be construed broadly enough to encompass the exchange of user and payment data that occurs when a Cash App QR code is scanned?
3. An initial evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can substantiate its infringement theory, given that the complaint itself provides no technical details or evidence of the accused product's operation and instead relies entirely on an un-provided exhibit.