NetMomentum LLC v. Gao Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Gao Group Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06637, S.D.N.Y., 08/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Southern District of New York based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and allegedly committing acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radio-frequency identification (RFID) products infringe a patent related to semi-transparent RFID tags designed for use in close proximity to one another.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a known problem in RFID systems where stacked or densely packed tags can interfere with each other, rendering tags in the middle of a stack unreadable.
• 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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726, Semi-transparent RFID tags, issued May 11, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how conventional RFID tags interact strongly with radio frequency (RF) fields, causing them to shield other nearby tags. In a stack of tagged items like documents or poker chips, this "Faraday shield" effect can prevent tags in the interior of the stack from receiving a signal and being read. ( ’726 Patent, col. 2:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an RF device with a "semi-transparent" antenna that "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding [it]" (’726 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by designing the antenna to "control and limit [its] interactions with the RF fields such that most of the RF wave striking or in the immediate vicinity of the antenna does not couple into the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 5:12-16). This design allows RF signals to pass through an assembly of tagged objects, enabling communication with tags that would otherwise be shielded. (’726 Patent, col. 5:40-48).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable reliable RFID tracking for applications involving stacked or densely packed items, a significant limitation for inventory systems dealing with objects like paper currency, documents, or casino chips. (’726 Patent, col. 2:54-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified claims, including method claims, from the ’726 Patent. (Compl. p. 3). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the core device invention.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A Radio Frequency (RF) device, comprising:
  • a circuit; and
  • an antenna coupled to the circuit, wherein the antenna minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna even in the vicinity of the antenna.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name the accused products, referring to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these products are RFID devices that "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent." (Compl. ¶13). It does not provide specific technical details about the functionality or operation of the accused products beyond this general allegation. The complaint alleges Defendant has made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported these products. (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’726 Patent by incorporating by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶13). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's allegations is not possible. The complaint summarily asserts that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the accused devices' antennas fall within the scope of the claim term "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields." The dispute may center on the degree of RF transparency required to meet this limitation.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be what the physical and electrical properties of the accused antennas are. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products are constructed with the high-sheet-resistivity materials described in the patent as a way to achieve the claimed "minimal effect"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and captures the core of the purported invention. The entire infringement analysis will depend on how this phrase is construed, as it is not a standard technical term and is defined primarily by its function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether broad and qualitative or narrow and quantitative—will likely determine the outcome of the case.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional and does not recite a specific numerical threshold. The "Summary of the Invention" describes the solution in general terms, stating the antenna "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields" so that "assemblies of objects carrying the RF devices can be formed while maintaining acceptable communications." (’726 Patent, col. 2:67-col. 3:4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, quantitative examples of what "minimally affects" could mean. It discloses that "at least about 50%, and preferably greater than about 90%, of the RF energy striking the antenna... is useable by another RF device." (’726 Patent, col. 5:18-22). It also repeatedly links the invention to antennas constructed with a "sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq." (’726 Patent, col. 8:63-65). A party could argue these embodiments define and limit the scope of the broader claim term.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain factual allegations of pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent. However, in its prayer for relief, it requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and seeks an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (Compl. ¶¶ D, E.i).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the central claim limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? Will the term be defined by the qualitative objective of enabling stacked tag readability, or will it be limited to the specific quantitative thresholds disclosed in the patent's specification, such as a particular sheet resistivity or percentage of RF energy pass-through?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Assuming a construction is reached, what factual evidence will the plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused products' antennas actually possess the properties required to "minimally affect" surrounding RF fields? The case will likely turn on expert testimony and technical testing of the accused devices' materials and performance characteristics.