Scanning Tech Innovations LLC v. Boomset Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Scanning Technologies Innovations LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Boomset, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00248, S.D.N.Y., 01/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is deemed a resident of the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s application for barcode scanning infringes a patent related to systems and methods for using a mobile device to efficiently check for the existence of online information associated with an article of commerce.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of latency and user frustration when mobile barcode scanners must connect to a network to check for product information, only to find none exists, by instead using a locally-stored data table for an initial, offline availability check.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, indicating a prior version was filed. The patent-in-suit is part of a larger family of patents and applications sharing a common priority claim.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-02-25	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,600,101
2020-03-24	U.S. Patent No. 10,600,101 Issued
2023-01-30	Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,600,101 - "Systems and Methods for Indicating the Existence of Accessible Information Pertaining to Articles of Commerce"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,600,101, “Systems and Methods for Indicating the Existence of Accessible Information Pertaining to Articles of Commerce,” issued March 24, 2020 (the “’101 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the user frustration that occurs when a mobile device is used to scan a product’s barcode, requiring time to connect to the internet, only to discover that no information for that product is available. (’101 Patent, col. 2:1-8). This process is inefficient and problematic, particularly where internet service is slow or unavailable.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-step system to solve this problem. First, a mobile device downloads and stores a “look-up table” from a server. (’101 Patent, col. 2:36-38; FIG. 4A). This table contains a list of product bar codes and, for each, a corresponding “information link indicator” that signals whether online information exists. (’101 Patent, Abstract). When a user scans a barcode, the device first consults this local, offline table to check the indicator. (’101 Patent, col. 2:41-48; FIG. 4B). The device then provides a visual or audible signal to the user, immediately confirming whether information is available before any attempt is made to access a network.
• Technical Importance: This method decouples the check for information availability from the network-dependent process of retrieving it, providing an "offline access to immediately determine if product information is available." (’101 Patent, col. 2:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims, including at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a mobile device (with a visual input device), digital files, and a server.
  • The server stores a "look-up table" containing a plurality of bar codes and associated "information link indicators".
  • Each "information link indicator" is a "status signal" indicating the existence or absence of a link to information for the respective bar code.
  • The mobile device’s visual input device scans and decodes an image to obtain a bar code.
  • A signal processing device on the mobile device then looks up the bar code in the "look-up table" to determine from the "information link indicator" whether a link exists.
• The complaint states it is asserting the "Exemplary '101 Patent Claims," reserving the right to assert claims beyond Claim 1. (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "product which is an application for scanning the barcode" (the "Product"). (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Product is an application that scans a barcode present on an article of commerce. (Compl. ¶15). This action is performed to "obtain decoded links that contain information about an article of commerce," with the example given of displaying "guest details when the barcode is scanned." (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific operation of the accused application or its market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart, attached as Exhibit B, which purports to compare the asserted claims to the accused Product. (Compl. ¶15, ¶20). As this exhibit was not included with the complaint, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's Product infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’101 Patent. (Compl. ¶15). The core of the infringement theory is that the Product is an application that scans barcodes to obtain links to information, thereby practicing the technology claimed by the ’101 Patent. (Compl. ¶15, ¶20). The complaint asserts that the Product satisfies "all elements of the Exemplary '101 Patent Claims" and incorporates the unattached Exhibit B by reference to support this allegation. (Compl. ¶20-21). However, the complaint itself does not plead specific facts explaining how the accused application meets key limitations of Claim 1, such as the downloading and use of a local "look-up table" containing "information link indicators."

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused application downloads and stores a "look-up table" on the user's device for an offline check, as required by the claims. The complaint does not provide facts to support this allegation, raising the question of whether the application instead performs a direct network query for every scan, which may not align with the claimed method.
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the Product's function of obtaining "decoded links" (Compl. ¶15) is equivalent to the claimed step of first checking a separate "information link indicator" that serves as a "status signal." (ʼ101 Patent, cl. 1). The distinction between checking a status signal and directly retrieving a link could be a focal point of the dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "look-up table"

• Context and Importance: The presence and function of a "look-up table" stored locally on the mobile device is the central technical element of the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a direct-to-network scanning application can infringe. Infringement will depend on whether the accused Product uses a data structure that meets the definition of a "look-up table" as described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that information "may be organized in a look-up table, for example," which may suggest that other forms of data organization could fall within the term's scope. (’101 Patent, col. 4:60-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a specific process where the table is downloaded from a server and stored locally on the mobile device to enable an offline check. (’101 Patent, col. 2:36-38). The patent's summary and detailed description emphasize this "download and store" functionality, which could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, locally-stored data file.

The Term: "information link indicator"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the data that is checked in the offline step. The case may turn on whether the accused Product checks a "status signal" (the indicator) or simply retrieves the link itself.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the indicator as an "indication... as to whether (or not) information about the identified article of commerce can be accessed" and a "status or check signal." (’101 Patent, col. 4:7-12). This language could be argued to cover any data flag that serves this purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly defines the indicator as a "status signal indicating the existence or absence of a link." (’101 Patent, cl. 1). The specification further distinguishes the indicator from the link itself, noting that a link "might be stored along with the information link indicator," suggesting they are separate data elements. (’101 Patent, col. 4:17-19). This may support a construction where the indicator must be something other than the link data itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶18). It also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’101 Patent "at least as of the service of the present complaint." (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after receiving this notice is willful. (Compl. ¶18-19).

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

• A primary issue will be evidentiary and technical: can the Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused Boomset application downloads, stores, and consults a local "look-up table" containing "information link indicators"? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this point suggests that demonstrating the existence and operation of this core technical feature will be a central challenge.
• The case will also likely involve a key question of claim scope and functional equivalence: does the accused Product’s alleged function of obtaining "decoded links" perform the same function in the same way as the patent's two-step process of first checking a "status signal" in an offline table before attempting any network access? The resolution will depend on whether the court views the accused functionality as a direct network retrieval or as the specific "check-then-fetch" method claimed in the ’101 Patent.