Indyme Solutions LLC v. Darko Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Indyme Solutions, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Darko Inc. (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Zagrans Law Firm LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02329, N.D. Ohio, 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Ohio because Defendant Darko Inc. maintains its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ShopperAccess line of retail loss prevention products infringes patents related to systems and methods for providing customers with self-service access to locked merchandise.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the conflict in retail between securing high-theft merchandise in locked displays and providing a convenient shopping experience to prevent lost sales.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-07-26	Earliest Priority Date for ’694 and ’910 Patents
2024-03-12	U.S. Patent No. 11,928,694 Issues
2025-04-08	U.S. Patent No. 12,271,910 Issues
2025-10-29	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,928,694 - "System Providing Self-Service Access to Locked Merchandise" (Issued Mar. 12, 2024)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the "universal paradox in retail stores" where measures to protect merchandise from theft, such as locked cabinets, inconvenience the vast majority of legitimate shoppers and lead to significant lost sales (’694 Patent, col. 1:18-24). This creates a cumbersome process requiring shoppers to locate a store associate with a key, which is frustrating for customers and costly for retailers (’694 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that automates access to locked fixtures for shoppers (’694 Patent, Abstract). The system involves a merchandise fixture that restricts access, a method for receiving a shopper's personal identifying information, and a mechanism to automatically grant access, where the shopper uses a mobile device as a user interface for the transaction (’694 Patent, col. 20:42-52). This approach aims to provide trusted customers with convenient, unfettered access while maintaining security (’694 Patent, col. 2:17-24).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a modernization of retail loss prevention by leveraging consumer mobile devices to bridge the gap between physical security and customer self-service (’694 Patent, col. 1:40-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶16, 30, 37).
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A system for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the system comprising:
  • (a) providing a merchandise fixture which restricts access to the merchandise;
  • (b) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the merchandise; and
  • (c) automatically enabling access to the merchandise, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as a user interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system.

U.S. Patent No. 12,271,910 - "System Providing Self-Service Access to Locked Merchandise" (Issued Apr. 8, 2025)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same retail challenge as the ’694 Patent: balancing sales preservation with loss prevention by reducing the friction for legitimate shoppers to access secured goods (’910 Patent, col. 2:15-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method that relies on a pre-existing database of "opted-in" individuals (’910 Patent, Abstract). The method involves providing a locked merchandise display, receiving personal identifying information from a shopper, authenticating that the individual is in the opt-in database, and then automatically enabling access to the merchandise for those who are authenticated (’910 Patent, col. 19:43-58). This creates a "trusted shopper" ecosystem where registered users are rewarded with streamlined access (’910 Patent, col. 2:17-21).
• Technical Importance: The method provides a framework for retailers to build a trusted user base, allowing for differentiated service levels that enhance the experience for loyal customers while deterring theft (’910 Patent, col. 2:40-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶22, 30, 45).
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A self-service method for maximizing sales and minimizing theft in a retail environment, the method comprising:
  • (a) providing a merchandise display comprising locked merchandise, wherein the merchandise display can allow or restrict access to the locked merchandise;
  • (b) providing a database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method;
  • (c) receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the merchandise which is correlated to their opt-in data;
  • (d) a means of authenticating an individual has previously opted into the self-service method and is contained in the database;
  • (e) automatically enabling access to the merchandise to individuals who are authenticated by the self-service method.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Darko's loss prevention systems and devices referred to as "ShopperAccess" products (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the ShopperAccess system provides self-service access to locked retail displays (Compl. ¶23). A visual provided in the complaint depicts a three-step process: (1) a user scans a QR code on the fixture with their mobile phone; (2) the user receives a random PIN via text message on their phone and enters it into a keypad located on the fixture; and (3) the fixture door unlocks, granting access to the product (Compl. p. 5). The complaint references promotional materials describing the system as "simple, safe and secure for shoppers to use" (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges that all ShopperAccess products have similar features and are used in a similar manner (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts demonstrating infringement are attached as Exhibits C and D (Compl. ¶¶28-29). However, these exhibits were not included with the complaint document. The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations and the explicit recitation of Claim 1 for each patent.

’694 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the ShopperAccess system infringes Claim 1 of the ’694 Patent. The system provides a locked merchandise fixture, satisfying element (a) (Compl. p. 5). The system receives identifying information when a user scans a QR code and receives a PIN on their mobile phone, which may correspond to element (b) (Compl. p. 5). The system automatically unlocks upon correct PIN entry, which is alleged to satisfy element (c) (Compl. p. 5). A central part of the allegation is that the process of scanning a code and receiving a PIN constitutes utilizing a mobile device as a user interface for entering or receiving information (Compl. ¶16, p. 5).

’910 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the method performed by the ShopperAccess system infringes Claim 1 of the ’910 Patent. The system involves a locked display (element a) and presumably requires users to opt-in to a service to receive PINs, which would create a database (element b) (Compl. ¶22). Receiving a user's phone number or other identifier to send a PIN is alleged to meet the requirement of receiving identifying information (element c) (Compl. ¶22, p. 5). The system's process of validating the PIN against the sent code is alleged to be the "means of authenticating" (element d), and the subsequent unlocking of the fixture is alleged to be the automatic enabling of access (element e) (Compl. ¶22, p. 5).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions:
  • A key question for the ’694 Patent may be whether the accused system "utilizes a mobile device as a user interface for entering information into the system," as required by Claim 1(c). The visual evidence in the complaint shows the user entering the PIN on a keypad physically located on the merchandise fixture, not on the mobile device itself (Compl. p. 5). The dispute may focus on whether receiving a code on the device is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if the "entering" of information must also occur via the mobile device's interface.
• Technical and Legal Questions:
  • For the ’910 Patent, the claim limitation "a means of authenticating an individual" (Claim 1(d)) is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope will be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will depend on a court's construction of this term, which will require identifying the specific algorithms, hardware, or software described in the patent for performing authentication.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "utilizes a mobile device as a user interface for entering information into the system" (’694 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the accused product appears to separate the receipt of information (a PIN on a mobile device) from the entry of that information (on a fixture-mounted keypad). Practitioners may focus on whether "user interface" refers to the entire transaction workflow or only the specific component used for data input.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes various identification methods, including scanning QR codes, which inherently involve the mobile device as the initial interface with the system (’694 Patent, col. 6:50-65). This could support an argument that the mobile device is the gateway to the interface, even if not all steps occur on it.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language distinguishes between "entering information" and "receiving information." A narrow reading could require the mobile device itself to be the medium for the "entering" action, such as typing a code into an app on the phone, a function not depicted in the complaint’s description of the accused product.

Key Term: "a means of authenticating an individual" (’910 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the scope of this term is not its plain English meaning but is defined by the corresponding structure described in the patent's specification. The entire infringement question for this element will turn on identifying that structure and comparing it to the accused system's authentication architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • The specification describes the function as determining if an individual is a "trusted shopper" (’910 Patent, col. 5:18-25). The corresponding structure may be a processor or server configured to execute specific steps, such as "compares the biometric information with a database" or validates credentials from a "retailer's app" (’910 Patent, col. 5:18-25, col. 6:56-59). The court will be required to identify the specific algorithm or hardware configuration disclosed to perform this function.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on the allegation that Darko provides the Accused Products with instructions that lead customers and end-users to perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶25, 32). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that Darko supplies a material part of the patented system that is not a staple article of commerce and is not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶26, 33).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Darko was made aware of the asserted patents "at least as early as the filing of this suit" and has continued to infringe thereafter, forming the basis for a claim of willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶2, 34).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the phrase "utilizes a mobile device as a user interface for entering information" in the ’694 Patent require that the data entry action itself occur on the mobile device, or can it be construed to cover a multi-step process where the device is used to receive a code that is then entered on a separate, fixture-based keypad?
2. A central legal question will be the construction of a means-plus-function claim: For the ’910 Patent, what specific structure (e.g., software algorithm, server configuration) described in the specification corresponds to the "means of authenticating," and does the accused ShopperAccess system contain that structure or a legal equivalent?
3. An evidentiary question will be one of system architecture: What are the specific components and processes of the ShopperAccess system, particularly how it manages user data and authentication, to determine if it meets the database and correlation requirements of the ’910 Patent?