DCT
2:17-cv-11095
Reflection Code LLC v. Energizer Holdings Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Reflection Code LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Energizer Holdings, Inc. (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jackier Gould, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-11095, E.D. Mich., 04/07/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district, the alleged acts of infringement occurred in the district, and the claims arise in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of QR codes on its consumer products infringes patents related to systems where a barcode contains a pointer used to retrieve a URL from a remote database.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns using mobile devices to scan barcodes on physical objects to link to dynamic online content, a foundational method for modern mobile marketing and interactive packaging.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that as of the filing date, there are "at least twenty one licensees" to each of the three patents-in-suit, which may be relevant to commercial success arguments or damages calculations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-07-18 | Priority Date for ’657, ’446, and ’907 Patents |
| 2011-06-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,963,446 Issue Date |
| 2014-05-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,733,657 Issue Date |
| 2014-07-01 | U.S. Patent No. 8,763,907 Issue Date |
| 2016-08-26 | Accused QR Code Capture Date |
| 2017-04-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,733,657 - "Barcode Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of linking physical items to large or dynamic sets of of information using barcodes, which traditionally hold a limited amount of static data (Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a two-dimensional barcode does not contain the final information itself, but rather a "pointer" to an entry in a remote, publicly available database. When a user scans the code with a device like a smartphone, the device uses the pointer to query the database, which in turn returns more extensive information, such as a URL, to the user's device (’657 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-20). This allows the information linked to the physical barcode to be updated without altering the code itself.
- Technical Importance: This client-server architecture decouples the printed barcode from the digital content it references, enabling flexible and dynamic linking from physical products to online resources (’657 Patent, col. 4:55-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts one or more unspecified claims of the ’657 Patent (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 13 is representative of the core technology alleged to be infringed.
- Independent Claim 13: A system claim for a two-dimensional barcode that comprises:
- Coded information containing a first value (a "command") and a second value (a "pointer").
- The pointer addresses an entry in a database stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
- The database entry itself contains a URL.
- A computer-controlled reading device that reads the barcode executes the "command," passes the "pointer" to the command, and in response, the command retrieves and returns the URL from the database to the device.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,963,446 - "Bar Code Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its family member, the ’657 Patent, this patent addresses the need for greater flexibility in the information that can be returned from scanning a barcode (Compl. ¶27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a portable communication device with an optical reader (e.g., a camera) obtains information from a barcode. The barcode's data includes a "command" and a "pointer." The device decodes this information and uses the pointer to fetch a corresponding website address from a remote database, which is then displayed to the user (’446 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-54).
- Technical Importance: The method provides a way for mobile, wirelessly-connected devices to use simple barcodes to access rich, updatable web content, moving beyond static data storage on the code itself (’446 Patent, col. 4:55-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts one or more unspecified claims of the ’446 Patent (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 4 is representative of the asserted method.
- Independent Claim 4: A method of reading and using a barcode that comprises the steps of:
- Using a portable communication device with an optical reader to obtain information from a barcode.
- Using the device to make a wireless communication.
- Decoding the barcode information to get a "command" and a "pointer."
- Using the pointer to "fetch a corresponding website address" from a remote database.
- Displaying the fetched website address and website on the device.
- Receiving website information from the database and accessing the website.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,763,907 - "Bar Code Device"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’657 and ’446 patents, claims a mobile device capable of reading a two-dimensional barcode. The barcode's information includes a first uniform resource locator (URL) that, when accessed, directs the device to a database to receive a second, different URL for display on the device, effectively creating a redirect system initiated by the barcode scan (’907 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶53). Independent claims 1 and 12 are available for assertion.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products incorporate a barcode device that includes a first URL addressing a database on the internet, which is used to receive a second URL (Compl. ¶53).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Instrumentalities" are Defendant Energizer’s retail consumer products and marketing materials that incorporate a two-dimensional barcode, specifically including a "quick response code found on Energizer Batteries" (Compl. ¶17-18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the QR codes on Energizer products function as part of an interactive system. When a consumer scans the code, it directs their device to a database that returns a URL, thereby linking the physical product packaging to online content (Compl. ¶17, ¶35). These codes are allegedly marketed and sold on consumer products across the United States (Compl. ¶19, ¶37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 8,733,657 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A two-dimensional barcode... | Defendant incorporates a two-dimensional quick response code on its products, such as Energizer Batteries. | ¶18 | col. 1:19-20 |
| ...coded information comprising first coded information... a command... and second coded information... a pointer addressing a database entry... | The barcode is alleged to include a "value acting as pointer addressing a database entry," which implies the presence of both the pointer and a command to use it. | ¶17 | col. 4:46-48 |
| ...the database entry comprising a URL... | The system allegedly "returns a URL in the addressed database entry to a computer-controlled device." | ¶17 | col. 4:55-60 |
| ...when a computer-controlled reading device reads the barcode, the device executes the command... and returns the URL... | This describes the overall alleged functionality where a consumer's device scans the QR code and is directed to online content via a database lookup. | ¶17 | col. 4:6-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the data encoded in the accused QR code contains two distinct components: a "command" and a "pointer," as recited in the claim. The complaint's allegations on this point are conclusory, and the infringement analysis may depend on whether a standard URL can be interpreted as comprising these separate elements.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the scanning device "executes" a "command" found within the barcode itself, as opposed to a web browser application on the device simply executing its own internal logic to resolve any scanned data that is formatted as a URL?
U.S. Patent No. 7,963,446 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| using a portable communication device which includes an optical imaging barcode reader therein to obtain information from a bar code... | A consumer uses a smartphone with a camera to scan the QR code on Energizer's products. | ¶35 | col. 2:5-15 |
| ...decoding... information in the bar code to obtain the different corresponding information... wherein first information from said first part comprises a command to use second information... as a pointer... | The complaint alleges the barcode includes "information used as a pointer to fetch a corresponding website address," implying a command-and-pointer structure. | ¶35 | col. 4:46-54 |
| ...to fetch a corresponding website address linked to the second information from a database remotely located from the portable communication device... | The user's device communicates with a remote server or database to retrieve the website address after scanning the code. | ¶35 | col. 4:36-45 |
| ...displaying... the address and the corresponding website on the portable communication device... | The browser on the user's device displays the final webpage returned by the system. | ¶35 | col. 4:6-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The viability of the infringement allegation may turn on the construction of "command" and "pointer." It raises the question of whether the system requires a two-step data structure within the barcode itself or if a single URL that initiates a server-side redirect would meet the limitation.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system use the data from the QR code to "fetch a corresponding website address," or does the QR code contain the final destination address itself? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific architecture of the accused system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pointer"
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to all asserted patents. The infringement theory depends on the barcode containing a "pointer" to a database entry, rather than the final information (the URL) itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to be distinct from a URL, Plaintiff must prove the accused QR codes contain such an intermediate value; if construed broadly to include any URL, the claim scope may raise other validity questions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states generally that "the information can represent a pointer to a database" (’657 Patent, col. 4:60-61), which could be argued to encompass any data that results in a database query.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment where the barcode stores "an cue command CX, followed by a base 39 alphanumeric value 4DMKDP" (’657 Patent, col. 4:46-48). This suggests a "pointer" is a specific, non-URL data value ("4DMKDP") that is meaningless without the associated command.
The Term: "command"
- Context and Importance: The claims require the barcode to contain a "command" that is "executed" by the reading device. This limitation is critical for distinguishing the invention from a standard device behavior (e.g., a browser opening any valid URL it sees). The infringement case may depend on whether Energizer's QR codes can be shown to contain an executable instruction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not provide an explicit definition of "command," which may support an argument that any data string causing a device to act constitutes a command.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives examples of specific instruction codes like "address command AD" and "cue command CX" (’657 Patent, col. 4:1-2, 4:46-47). This suggests the "command" is a discrete piece of code, separate from the data/pointer it operates on, that instructs the reading device on how to process the accompanying pointer.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all three patents. The factual basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged advertising and distribution of products with the infringing QR codes, as well as providing instruction materials (Compl. ¶22, ¶40, ¶58). The complaint alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the barcode device is a material component especially made for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶23, ¶41, ¶59).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness allegations for all three patents are based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶20, ¶38, ¶56). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical operation and claim scope: Does the data encoded within the accused Energizer QR codes contain a distinct "command" and "pointer" as required by the claims, or does it contain a single, standard URL that a scanning device's browser resolves using its own built-in, pre-programmed logic? The complaint's conclusory allegations leave this critical architectural question open.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of system architecture: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused system uses an intermediate database lookup, where a non-URL "pointer" from the QR code is used to fetch a separate and distinct URL? If discovery shows the QR code simply encodes the final destination URL, it may create a significant challenge to proving infringement of claims that require fetching a website address from a database using a pointer.