DCT

1:20-cv-01003

Reflection Code LLC v. Starbucks Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01003, N.D. Ill., 02/11/2020
  • 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 retail marketing materials, which use barcode technology, infringe three patents related to using barcodes to retrieve information from a remote database.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to using barcodes, particularly those scanned by mobile devices, as pointers to retrieve dynamic web content (like a URL) from an internet database, rather than storing static information directly in the code.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that each of the three patents-in-suit has been licensed to more than 20 entities, suggesting a history of enforcement or industry adoption.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-18 Earliest Priority Date for ’657, ’446, and ’907 Patents
2011-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,963,446 Issues
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,733,657 Issues
2014-07-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,763,907 Issues
2020-02-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,733,657 - BARCODE DEVICE

  • The Invention Explained:

    • Problem Addressed: Conventional barcodes typically store static information directly within the code, limiting the amount and dynamism of the data they can convey (Compl. ¶10-11). The patent’s background section notes the existence of various one-dimensional and two-dimensional barcode types used for purposes like inventory control (’657 Patent, col. 1:20-28).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a two-dimensional barcode not to store final data, but to store a "pointer" that directs a reading device (like a smartphone) to an entry in a remote, internet-based database. This database entry, in turn, contains a URL. The reading device executes a command to perform this two-step lookup, effectively using a simple, static barcode to link to rich, updatable web content (’657 Patent, claim 13; col. 4:36-54). This client-server architecture is illustrated in Figure 4 of the patent.
    • Technical Importance: This approach allows information associated with a barcode to be changed after the barcode has been printed and distributed, providing significantly more flexibility than traditional static barcodes (Compl. ¶10).

  • Key Claims at a Glance:

    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶16).
    • Essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
      • A two-dimensional barcode with first and second coded information.
      • The first information is a "command" for a reading device.
      • The second information is a "pointer" that addresses a specific entry in an internet-based database.
      • The addressed database entry contains a URL.
      • A reading device, upon scanning the barcode, executes the command, uses the pointer to find the database entry, and retrieves the URL.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,963,446 - BAR CODE DEVICE

  • The Invention Explained:

    • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’657 patent, the technology addresses the limitations of conventional barcodes by enabling them to link to larger, more flexible datasets (Compl. ¶26).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a portable communications apparatus, such as a cellular phone, equipped with an optical reader. The apparatus reads a barcode containing two distinct parts of information. The first part is a command that instructs the device to use the second part as a "pointer" to fetch a website address from a remote database. Critically, the claim specifies that the information in the barcode comprises "a series of digits that are not a website address," reinforcing the indirect, two-step lookup process (’446 Patent, claim 7; col. 4:36-54).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for mobile devices, which were becoming ubiquitous, to interact with physical objects or marketing materials and access dynamic online content through a simple scan (Compl. ¶28).

  • Key Claims at a Glance:

    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶32).
    • Essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
      • A portable communications apparatus with an optical reader, capable of making a wireless communication and a telephone call.
      • The reader obtains information from a barcode having a first and a second part.
      • A processor decodes the information, where the first part is a command to use the second part as a pointer.
      • The pointer is used to fetch a website address from a remote database.
      • The apparatus is operable to fetch and display the website.
      • The information in the barcode is a series of digits that is not a website address.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,763,907 - BARCODE DEVICE

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,763,907, "BARCODE DEVICE," issued July 1, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a mobile device with a digital camera reading a two-dimensional barcode. The barcode's first information includes a first uniform resource locator (URL). This first URL is used to access a database on the internet, which in turn provides a second URL that the mobile device then displays on its screen (’907 Patent, claim 1). The invention thus covers a barcode-initiated web redirection process.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products or marketing materials that incorporate a barcode device including a first URL that addresses a database to receive a second URL (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint broadly identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as "Defendant's retail consumer products and/or marketing materials" (Compl. ¶16, ¶32, ¶48). The complaint does not specify any particular product, service, or marketing campaign.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The relevant functionality is described as the incorporation of barcode technology that, when scanned, acts as a pointer to a database to retrieve a URL or other website address (Compl. ¶16, ¶32, ¶48). The complaint alleges these instrumentalities are marketed and used by Starbucks' partners, clients, and customers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2, 4, and 6) that are incorporated by reference but not attached to the provided documents. The infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

  • ’657 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint asserts that Defendant's Accused Instrumentalities directly infringe at least claim 13 of the ’657 patent (Compl. ¶16). The narrative theory is that these products or materials include a barcode device where a value in the barcode acts as a pointer to a database entry. Scanning the barcode allegedly causes a computer-controlled device to retrieve a URL from that addressed database entry, thereby practicing the patented two-step lookup method (Compl. ¶16).

  • ’446 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint asserts that Defendant directly infringes at least claim 7 of the ’446 patent (Compl. ¶32). The infringement theory centers on a user's portable device (e.g., a smartphone) scanning a barcode on one of Defendant's marketing materials. The barcode allegedly includes information that serves as a pointer to fetch a corresponding website address from a remote database, which the portable device then displays, thereby forming the infringing apparatus and system (Compl. ¶32).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused barcodes function via the claimed two-step lookup (pointer → database → URL) or via a conventional one-step method where the barcode simply encodes the final URL directly. The complaint does not provide specific technical evidence to distinguish between these two implementations.
    • Scope Questions: For the ’657 patent, a key dispute may be whether the data in the accused barcodes constitutes a "pointer" as distinct from a URL. For the ’446 patent, which claims an apparatus, a question is whether providing "marketing materials" is sufficient to hold Starbucks liable for infringement by a third-party user's device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 8,733,657

  • The Term: "pointer addressing a database entry" (claim 13)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claim. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused barcodes contain a "pointer" to an intermediate database, as claimed, or simply a direct link to a website. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean anything other than a direct URL, Plaintiff will face the evidentiary burden of proving the accused system uses an intermediate lookup step.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the pointer abstractly as "a cue, e.g. a number, that is associated with a special function" (’657 Patent, col. 4:36-39). This language could support a broad definition not limited to a specific data format.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the pointer from the final detailed information and describes a two-step process where the pointer is used to "access a publicly available information network" to retrieve more data (’657 Patent, col. 4:40-44). Furthermore, claim 7 of the related ’446 patent explicitly requires the information to be "a series of digits that are not a website address," which could be used to argue that the patentee understood a "pointer" to be something other than a URL.

U.S. Patent No. 7,963,446

  • The Term: "portable communications apparatus" (claim 7)
  • Context and Importance: Claim 7 is an apparatus claim. The complaint accuses Starbucks' "marketing materials," which are not an apparatus. Therefore, Plaintiff's infringement theory must be that a user's smartphone, when scanning the barcode, becomes the infringing apparatus. The definition of this term and how liability attaches to Starbucks for its creation will be central.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly defines the device as a "portable computer," a "personal digital assistant," or a "cellular telephone," and references a "Palm V™ type hand held computer" (’446 Patent, col. 2:2-12). This suggests the term covers common handheld consumer electronics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites several specific functional components, including circuitry "operable to make a telephone call" (’446 Patent, col. 8:51-53). A defendant might argue that for infringement to occur, a single accused apparatus must be proven to perform all recited functions, raising the question of how Plaintiff will prove this for a generic user's device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all three patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant provides instruction materials, training, and services that actively encourage and aid infringement by end-users (Compl. ¶21, ¶37, ¶53). It also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), asserting that the accused barcode technology is a material component especially made for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶22, ¶38, ¶54).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing date of this complaint" (Compl. ¶19, ¶35, ¶51). This allegation relies on post-suit knowledge to establish the basis for willfulness.

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will be produced to demonstrate that Starbucks’ barcode systems utilize the claimed two-step, pointer-based lookup mechanism to retrieve a URL from a database, as opposed to a conventional single-step process where the barcode directly encodes the final URL?
  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "pointer," which the patent family appears to distinguish from a final website address, be construed to read on the data encoded in Starbucks' accused marketing barcodes?
  • A pivotal question of liability will be whether Plaintiff can prove that Starbucks' alleged actions—providing marketing materials—satisfy the specific intent requirement to establish induced infringement for claims directed at an apparatus (e.g., a user's smartphone) that Starbucks does not make, use, or sell.