DCT
1:19-cv-11000
Scanning Tech Innovations LLC v. Skycore LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Scanning Technologies Innovations LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Skycore LLC (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chavous Intellectual Property Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-11000, D. Mass., 04/26/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is deemed to reside in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s codeREADr barcode scanner application infringes a patent related to systems that use a mobile device to check a local, pre-downloaded database to determine if online information exists for a scanned product code.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the user-experience problem of scanning a product barcode only to find that no information is available or that internet connectivity is poor, by enabling an "offline" pre-check for the existence of an online data link.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-02-25 | ’498 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-06-09 | ’498 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-04-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,053,498 - Systems and Methods for Indicating the Existence of Accessible Information Pertaining to Articles of Commerce
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,053,498, Systems and Methods for Indicating the Existence of Accessible Information Pertaining to Articles of Commerce, issued June 9, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the frustration users experience when they use a mobile device to scan a product code (e.g., a UPC) to get more information, but the process is slow or fails due to poor or unavailable internet connectivity ('498 Patent, col. 1:47-54). This creates a need for a method to "allow a consumer to determine whether or not information pertaining to an identified article of commerce may be obtained" quickly and reliably, even when "on the go" ('498 Patent, col. 1:54-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a mobile device first downloads and stores a "look-up table" from a server ('498 Patent, col. 2:19-22). This table contains product identification codes and corresponding "information link indicators." When a user scans a product, the device checks the code against this local database to determine if a link to online information exists, and provides a signal to the user ('498 Patent, Fig. 4B). The core function is that this check for the existence of a link is performed "without access to the communication network" at the moment of the scan ('498 Patent, col. 2:22-29).
- Technical Importance: This approach decouples the act of scanning from the need for an immediate, live network connection, allowing for an "instant gratification" check that informs the user whether it is worth attempting to access more information online ('498 Patent, col. 1:53-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system with a mobile device (with a visual input device), a local database, and a server with a server database.
- The server database stores a "look-up table" containing "identification codes" and associated "information link indicators."
- Each "information link indicator" is a "status signal indicating the existence or absence of a link to information" accessible via a communication network.
- The mobile device's visual input device captures and decodes an image (e.g., a barcode) to get an identification code.
- A signal processing device then looks up the code in the "look-up table stored in the local database."
- Crucially, the processor determines "whether or not the link exists without accessing the communication network."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may implicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims later (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant’s "codeREADr B2B barcode scanner app, and any similar products" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes codeREADr as a "barcode & NFC scanning app used for ticket scanning, attendance tracking, inventory and asset tracking, guest lists, access control, lead retrieval and tracking security and maintenance workers" (Compl. ¶15). The app runs on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint alleges the app uses the mobile device’s camera as a visual input device to scan barcodes and obtain a code value (Compl. ¶18, ¶24).
- A key allegation is that the app functions both "online and offline" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint specifically highlights marketing materials stating that users can "Instantly validate scans against a downloaded database on the device," a feature intended for "when users don't have access to an internet connection" (Compl. ¶13, ¶26). One provided screenshot shows the app interface after a successful scan, displaying the barcode value and a "VALID" status. (Compl. ¶15, p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’498 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile device comprising a portable handheld housing and a communication interface... a signal processing device and a visual input device... | The codeREADr app runs on mobile devices (e.g., smartphones) with processors and cameras, which are contained in a portable housing and can communicate over the Internet. | ¶16, ¶17, ¶18 | col. 5:20-24 |
| a local database associated with the mobile device... configured to store data for use by the mobile device; | The app allegedly uses a "downloaded database on the device" for offline validation. A screenshot from Defendant's materials describes how users "can receive scan records over a local area network." | ¶12, ¶26 | col. 2:6-9 |
| a server... comprising a server database configured to store a look-up table that includes at least a plurality of identification codes... [and] a plurality of information link indicators... configured as a status signal indicating the existence or absence of a link... | The system allegedly uses a server with a "validation database" storing "barcode values and associated data." The "response" to a scan, which can be text or a "clickable URL," is alleged to be the "information link indicator." | ¶7, ¶20, ¶21, ¶23 | col. 2:9-19 |
| wherein the visual input device is configured to capture an image of an article of commerce and decode the image to obtain an identification code; | The app uses the mobile device camera to scan and decode a barcode to obtain an "identification code (e.g., barcode value...)." A provided screenshot shows the "Tap to Scan" interface. | ¶24, ¶5 | col. 11:36-39 |
| wherein... the signal processing device is configured to look up the identification code in the look-up table stored in the local database... wherein the signal processing device determines whether or not the link exists without accessing the communication network. | The complaint alleges the app "enables the mobile device to work in offline mode without accessing the Internet." A screenshot describes how offline validation can show if an item exists in the local database. | ¶26, ¶12 | col. 11:46-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's "validation database" and "response" (e.g., a "VALID" message or descriptive text) meet the patent's definitions of a "look-up table" containing "information link indicators." The defense may argue that a simple validation status is not a "status signal indicating the existence or absence of a link" to further information as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on Defendant's marketing materials to allege offline functionality (Compl. ¶26, ¶13). A key factual dispute may arise over how the codeREADr app's offline mode technically operates. The question will be what evidence demonstrates that the app, when offline, determines the existence of an external link (as claimed) rather than simply checking a scanned code against a local list of valid codes for authentication purposes. One of the complaint's visuals is a diagram titled "Validate Scans Online," which may be used to question the extent and nature of the offline capabilities. (Compl. ¶10, p. 10).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "information link indicator"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory maps it to the "response" generated by the accused app (Compl. ¶23, ¶25). The case may turn on whether a simple status message (e.g., "VALID," "Ticket 006 redeemed") constitutes an indicator of a link to information, or is merely a validation result. A screenshot in the complaint shows the offline response "Ticket 006 redeemed," which will be a focal point of this dispute. (Compl. ¶13, p. 13).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term as a "status signal" (col. 11:32-33), which could be argued to encompass any signal that communicates a state, such as validity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly specifies the link is made "via the communication network" (col. 11:34-35) and the specification contemplates "hyperlinks" (col. 9:9-10). This may support an argument that the "indicator" must signify the existence of a specific, network-accessible resource, not just a generic status.
The Term: "without accessing the communication network"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core inventive concept of offline operation. The dispute will focus on what the accused app actually does when disconnected. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's evidence is defendant's marketing language, which may not precisely describe the technical implementation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this means the device is simply not connected to the network when the determination is made.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the device to determine "whether or not a link exists for accessing information pertaining to an article of commerce... via the communication network" (col. 11:44-48), and to do so while offline. This suggests the offline determination is not just about the code's local validity, but specifically about the existence of a corresponding online resource.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 but does not contain separate counts or specific factual allegations for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court's answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the accused app's "validation database" and the resulting "response" text be construed to meet the patent's specific requirements for a "look-up table" containing "information link indicators," or is there a material difference between a system that validates a code and one that indicates the existence of an external link?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused app's offline mode perform the precise technical function required by Claim 1—determining the existence of a link to network-accessible information—or does it perform a different function, such as simply authenticating a code against a local list? The case may turn on whether the plaintiff can prove the accused system’s offline function matches the patent’s claims beyond what is stated in marketing materials.