DCT
7:25-cv-01805
ShockWatch v. Four M Commercial Operations LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ShockWatch, Inc. d/b/a SpotSee (Nevada)
- Defendant: Four M Commercial Operations, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Langley Law Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-01805, S.D.N.Y., 03/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Smart Tag" visual indicator products, and the methods of using them, infringe a patent related to systems for optically recognizing and interpreting the status of physical monitoring tags.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using camera-equipped devices, such as smartphones, to digitize and automate the process of reading physical indicators used in supply chain management to monitor for environmental conditions like temperature or shock.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Four M Commercial Operations acquired the assets of an Israeli company, Varcode, Ltd. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s knowledge of the patent-in-suit extends from its predecessor, Varcode, which may be relevant to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-17 | U.S. Patent 10,147,025 Priority Date |
| 2018-12-04 | U.S. Patent 10,147,025 Issue Date |
| 2025-03-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,147,025 - "Visual Indicator Status Recognition"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In logistics and quality control, it is often necessary to monitor goods for exposure to undesirable environmental conditions, such as impacts or temperature fluctuations, during transit or storage (’025 Patent, col. 1:5-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method where an imaging device, like a smartphone, is used to read a physical indicator tag. The system first captures an image to identify the specific tag, often by reading a serial or model number (’025 Patent, col. 2:37-40). Based on that identification, the system may use "relational data" to know how to interpret the tag, for example by generating a specific "capture window" on the device's screen to help the user frame a second image of the tag's status area (’025 Patent, col. 2:50-55). The system then analyzes this image to automatically derive the tag's status (e.g., whether a temperature threshold has been breached), thereby digitizing the monitoring process (’025 Patent, col. 2:43-46).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to replace manual inspection of indicator tags with an automated, data-driven process, enabling status information to be captured digitally and made "readily available to a customer or other entity" for tracking and analysis (’025 Patent, col. 2:49-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) recites, in part:
- a camera to capture an image of an indicator device;
- a detection circuit to derive a model/serial number from the image;
- the circuit accesses relational data to determine the location of a "dynamic indicating region" on the device;
- the circuit "optically manipulate[s] the image to position a select area"; and
- the circuit analyzes the select area to derive status information.
- Independent Claim 8 (System) recites, in part:
- a camera to capture an image of an indicator device;
- a detection circuit to derive a model/serial number from the image;
- the circuit accesses relational data to identify a "capture window" for that type of device;
- the circuit "optically manipulate[s] the image to position the indicator device... within the capture window"; and
- the circuit analyzes the image to derive status information.
- Independent Claim 15 (Method) recites, in part:
- capturing an image of an indicator device;
- deriving a model/serial number from the image;
- identifying a "capture window" based on the model/serial number;
- "optically manipulating the image to position the indicator device... within the capture window"; and
- analyzing the image to derive status information.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "visual indicator recognition system and method," identified as the "Smart Tag" and "Smart Tag VI" products (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused system involves a user employing a device with a camera to scan a physical tag (Compl. ¶20). An image provided in the complaint shows a smartphone app interface that guides a user to first "Scan QR Code," then "Scan Smart Tag Barcode," before viewing "Time and Temp results" (Compl. ¶20). This suggests a process where the system first identifies the tag via its codes and then provides status information derived from the tag. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance or market positioning.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’025 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a camera configured to capture an image of an indicator device | The infringing product includes a camera configured to capture an image of an indicator device. | ¶21 | col. 15:59-61 |
| a detection circuit executable by a processing unit to: derive at least one of a model number and a serial number of the indicator device from the image | The product includes a detection circuit to derive at least a model or serial number of the indicator device. | ¶21 | col. 15:62-64 |
| based on the at least one of the model number and the serial number, access relational data to determine a location on the indicator device of a dynamic indicating region for a type of indicator device... | The product accesses relational data to determine the location of the indicator device and a physical phenomenon measured by the device. | ¶21 | col. 15:65-col. 16:6 |
| optically manipulate the image to position a select area of the image in a particular location based on the location of the indicating region | The product uses "optical manipulate" to determine a select area of the image of the indicating region. | ¶21 | col. 16:7-10 |
| analyze the select area to derive status information of the indicator device corresponding to the indicating region. | The product analyzes the select area to derive the status of the indicator device. | ¶21 | col. 16:11-13 |
’025 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 8)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a camera configured to capture an image of an indicator device | The product includes a camera configured to capture an image of an indicator device. | ¶22 | col. 16:30-32 |
| a detection circuit executable by a processing unit to: derive at least one of a model number and a serial number of the indicator device from the image | The product includes a detection circuit to derive at least a model or serial number of the indicator device. | ¶22 | col. 16:34-36 |
| based on the at least one of the model number and the serial number, access relational data to identify a capture window for a type of indicator device... | The product accesses relational data to identify a capture window of the indicator device. | ¶22 | col. 16:37-43 |
| optically manipulate the image to position the indicator device depicted in the image within the capture window | The product uses "optical manipulate to position the indicator device." | ¶22 | col. 16:44-47 |
| analyze the image to derive status information of the indicator device. | The product analyzes the image to derive status information of the indicator device. | ¶22 | col. 16:48-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be what actions constitute "optically manipulate the image." The patent describes an embodiment where a software-generated "capture window" is overlaid on a device's screen to guide alignment (’025 Patent, Fig. 9). The defense may argue that the accused product's functionality, which may only involve a user manually framing the tag in a standard camera view, does not meet this limitation. The complaint's general allegation of "optical manipulate" (Compl. ¶21, 22) does not specify the mechanism.
- Technical Questions: The claims require the system to "access relational data" based on the indicator's model or serial number to identify a "capture window" or "dynamic indicating region" (’025 Patent, col. 16:37-43). A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused product's software architecture performs this specific lookup function or if it uses a more generic image processing routine for all tags. The complaint alleges this functionality but does not provide supporting technical detail.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "optically manipulate the image"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claims (1, 8, 15) and describes an active step performed by the system. Its construction will be critical, as it distinguishes the invention from merely capturing an image. Practitioners may focus on this term because the strength of the infringement case may depend on whether the actions of the accused product's software and user interface fall within its scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a specific type of manipulation. A party could argue that any software-guided process for positioning the indicator for analysis, including user-controlled zoom or pan within an app, qualifies. The patent refers generally to a "capture window configured to enable positioning of the event indicator" (’025 Patent, col. 2:51-52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily features an embodiment where the system displays a graphical "capture window" overlay ("900") to frame the indicator ("600") for analysis (’025 Patent, Fig. 9; col. 14:17-49). A party could argue that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "optically manipulate" to this specific function of generating and using a framing guide.
The Term: "detection circuit"
Context and Importance: This term defines the processing element of the claimed system. Its construction is important for determining what combination of hardware and software meets the limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "detection module" as potentially being a "software program" executable by a "processing unit" (’025 Patent, col. 8:1-6, col. 13:62-65). It also describes a generic "data processing system" that includes a processor and memory, which could encompass a standard smartphone (’025 Patent, Fig. 2). This supports a broad construction covering a general-purpose processor running specialized software.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While less likely given the specification's language, a party could argue that the term "circuit" implies a more specific hardware configuration than merely software running on a general-purpose CPU. The patent states that aspects may be embodied as a "circuit," "module," or "system," and can be an "entirely hardware embodiment" (’025 Patent, col. 2:58-63), which could be cited to argue for a narrower, hardware-specific meaning.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "actively and knowingly inducing others to do so" (Compl. ¶24). The factual basis for this appears to be Defendant providing the "Smart Tag" system and, through its app and instructions, guiding end-users to perform the steps of the patented method (Compl. ¶20, 23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is "knowing, intentional, willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶26). This allegation is based on the claim that Defendant, "including via its predecessor in interest Varcode, has had knowledge of the '025 Patent" and continued its activities (Compl. ¶25). This asserts pre-suit knowledge as a basis for willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "optically manipulate the image," which is described in the patent with specific "capture window" embodiments, be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of the accused "Smart Tag" system, which may only involve a user manually framing a tag within a standard camera interface?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will Plaintiff be able to obtain in discovery to prove that the accused system's back-end software "accesses relational data" based on a tag's unique identifier to determine specific analysis rules, as required by the claims, versus using a one-size-fits-all image analysis algorithm?
- A third determinative issue for damages will be willfulness and knowledge: the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant's predecessor, Varcode, had knowledge of the ’025 patent and whether that knowledge can be legally imputed to Defendant to establish pre-suit willful infringement.