Kephart Consulting LLC v. Cognitec Systems Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kephart Consulting, LLC. (Arizona)
  • Defendant: Cognitec Systems Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Consumer Rights Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10579, D. Mass., 03/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the District of Massachusetts and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s facial recognition security products and services infringe patents related to systems and methods for proactively identifying persons of interest at large venues by comparing captured images to a database.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses security for large, crowded venues by using automated facial recognition to screen attendees against pre-compiled databases of individuals with violent histories or other risk factors.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses but argues these do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because they were not licenses to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-19	Earliest Priority Date for '137 & '849 Patents
2019-04-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,248,849 Issues
2020-10-06	U.S. Patent No. 10,796,137 Issues
2025-03-11	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,796,137

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,796,137, Technique for Providing Security, issued October 6, 2020.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the challenge of "fan violence" at large sporting events and other gatherings, noting that conventional security relies on "outdated, reactive tactics" that only respond after an incident occurs ('137 Patent, col. 1:26-60). It also highlights post-9/11 concerns about potential terror attacks at such venues ('137 Patent, col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a proactive security system where cameras at venue entry ports capture facial images of attendees. A computer circuit transmits these images for comparison against a database of "persons of interest." If a likely match is detected, the system generates an alert for law enforcement or security personnel, enabling them to intercept the individual before or during entry ('137 Patent, col. 2:55-67). A key feature is that the system is controlled by a first party (e.g., the venue) while the database is controlled by a second, separate party (e.g., a data fusion center) ('137 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The patent asserts that this approach is an improvement over prior art because it allows security to be "pro-active" by identifying and potentially excluding individuals with known violent tendencies before they enter a venue, rather than simply reacting to violence after it has started ('137 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-23 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is directed to a system comprising:
    • At least one camera configured to capture a photographic image of a person.
    • A computer circuit configured to receive the image, transmit it for comparison against a database of persons of interest, receive an alert if a match is detected, and alert security personnel.
    • A structural limitation wherein the system at the secure area is controlled by a "first party" and the database is controlled by a "second party."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

U.S. Patent No. 10,248,849

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,248,849, Technique for Providing Security to an Area, issued April 2, 2019.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’137 Patent: the inadequacy of reactive security measures in preventing fan violence and other threats at large, crowded events ('849 Patent, col. 1:21-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for providing security by capturing a photographic image of each person approaching an entry port to a "secure area." This image is then compared to a compiled database of "persons of interest." If a likely match is found, an alert is sent to law enforcement or security personnel ('849 Patent, Abstract). The method specifies that comparing the image involves transmitting it to the database and receiving an alert in response, and like the '137 Patent, requires that the secure area and the database be controlled by separate first and second parties, respectively ('849 Patent, cl. 1). The specification also details embodiments that include scanning vehicle license plates in venue parking lots ('849 Patent, col. 4:4-22).
  • Technical Importance: The described method aims to make venue security proactive by using technology to identify potential threats based on historical data before they can escalate within the venue ('849 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-23 (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the steps of:
    • Providing an entry port to a secure area.
    • Capturing a photographic image of each person approaching the entry port.
    • Comparing the captured image to a database of persons of interest to detect a likely match.
    • Alerting security personnel of a detected match.
    • The "comparing" step includes transmitting the image to the database and receiving an alert in response.
    • The method requires the secure area to be controlled by a "first party" and the database to be controlled by a "second party."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "devices/products, methods, systems, and processor-readable media" and "systems, products, and services" maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant Cognitec (Compl. ¶¶8, 16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused instrumentalities are alleged to perform the function of "comparing captured facial images to a database of facial data for persons of interest and alerting security personnel" (Compl. ¶¶7, 15). The complaint alleges these products provide proactive security benefits for large venues (Compl. ¶¶9, 17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 18). As such, the infringement allegations are analyzed based on the narrative descriptions provided.

The complaint alleges that Cognitec directly infringes, induces infringement, and contributorily infringes claims 1-23 of both the ’137 and ’849 Patents (Compl. ¶¶8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20). The core theory is that Cognitec's security systems and services, when used by its customers at large venues, practice the patented inventions. For the ’137 Patent, this involves providing a system with the claimed camera and computer circuit architecture (Compl. ¶8). For the ’849 Patent, this involves performing the claimed method steps of capturing, comparing, and alerting (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Cognitec instructs its customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner and contributory infringement by asserting the components sold "do not have any substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶11, 12, 19, 20).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The independent claims of both patents require that the "secure area is controlled by a first party" and the "database is controlled by a second party" ('137 Patent, cl. 1; '849 Patent, cl. 1). A primary question for the court will be whether the relationship between Cognitec and its customers fits this two-party control structure. The analysis may depend on whether Cognitec provides a standalone product controlled entirely by the customer (a potential mismatch) or a service where Cognitec retains control over a remote database accessed by the customer's on-site system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations about how the accused products operate. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused systems perform the specific step of "transmitting" a captured image to a remote database and "receiving an alert" in response, as required by the claims. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system is a self-contained unit that performs analysis locally or a distributed system that matches the claimed architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "database... controlled by a second party" (appearing in claim 1 of both patents).

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. If "controlled by a second party" is construed to require operational and administrative separation between the entity managing the on-site cameras (the venue operator, or "first party") and the entity managing the comparison database, then infringement will depend entirely on the specific architecture of Cognitec's products and services. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a deliberate structural limitation designed to distinguish the invention from a single, self-contained security product.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's description of a "fusion center" located "remotely from [the] stadium" and networked via the internet supports an interpretation that the "second party" is a distinct, geographically separate entity that provides data services to the "first party" at the venue ('849 Patent, col. 14:26-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents do not explicitly define "controlled by." A defendant could argue that if it provides a database as part of a system sold to a customer, and the customer has ultimate administrative rights over the entire system (including the database component), then the "first party" effectively controls both, potentially defeating the "second party" limitation.

• The Term: "person of interest" (appearing in claim 1 of both patents).

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines the necessary character of the database against which images are compared. Its construction will determine whether the accused system must use a database limited to a specific category of individuals (e.g., those with a history of venue violence) or if a broader database suffices.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the database may be expanded beyond just violent fans to include "persons subject to outstanding arrest warrants" and even non-criminals for general identification purposes ('849 Patent, col. 3:22-31, col. 5:25-29). This would support a broad definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background" section of the patents focuses heavily and repeatedly on the problem of "fan violence" at sporting events ('137 Patent, col. 1:26-44). An argument could be made that the term should be construed in light of this primary problem, limiting its scope to individuals with known histories of such specific behavior.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on claims that Cognitec "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶11, 19). It alleges contributory infringement by stating that the components marketed by Cognitec "do not have any substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶12, 20).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly alleged as a separate count. However, the prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" and an award of enhanced damages, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶VII.d, e).

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

1. A central issue will be one of architectural scope: Does the operational relationship between Defendant and its customers satisfy the claims’ “first party/second party” control requirement? The case may turn on whether the accused products are sold as integrated, customer-controlled systems or as services where Defendant retains control over a remote database.

2. A second core issue will be evidentiary: Given the generality of the pleadings, can Plaintiff produce evidence in discovery to show that the accused systems technically perform the claimed functions—specifically, transmitting image data to a remote database for comparison and receiving an alert in response—as opposed to operating in a different, non-infringing manner?

3. A final question relates to damages and prior conduct: How will Plaintiff’s status as a non-practicing entity and its history of prior settlement licenses impact the potential damages calculation, particularly in light of the arguments raised concerning the patent marking statute?