Kephart Consulting LLC v. Wicket LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kephart Consulting LLC (Arizona)
  • Defendant: Wicket LLC (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices; Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-06536, E.D. Pa., 04/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s security systems, which utilize facial recognition, infringe a patent related to proactively identifying and flagging persons of interest at large venues.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated security screening systems for crowded venues, such as stadiums, that use facial recognition to compare attendees against a database of known individuals to prevent security incidents.
• Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint narrows the case to a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,248,849, after Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the initially asserted '137 patent with prejudice. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses a history of prior settlement licenses with other parties, arguing that these licenses do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-19	'849 Patent Priority Date
2019-04-02	'849 Patent Issue Date
2025-04-30	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,248,849 - "Technique for Providing Security to an Area," issued April 2, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional security measures at large venues like sporting events are primarily reactive, relying on the visible presence of security staff to deter or respond to violence after it has already started (Compl. ¶9; ’849 Patent, col. 1:55-65). This approach is described as inadequate for proactively identifying and excluding individuals with a known history of violence before they can cause harm (’849 Patent, col. 2:13-16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for proactive security screening. Cameras at venue entry ports capture a facial image of each person seeking admission (’849 Patent, col. 2:58-60). A computer then compares this image against a specialized database of "persons of interest," such as those with past histories of violence (’849 Patent, col. 2:53-57). If a match is detected, the system generates an alert for on-site law enforcement or security personnel, enabling them to intervene before the individual enters the venue (’849 Patent, col. 2:63-65). The system architecture, as shown in Figure 6, envisions a data "fusion center" that is distinct from the venue itself (’849 Patent, Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from reactive to proactive security protocols for large events, aiming to prevent incidents by leveraging automated facial recognition against curated databases of potential threats (’849 Patent, col. 2:27-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 17 (a system) (’849 Patent, col. 17:51, col. 19:66).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (method) include:
  • Providing an entry port into a secure area.
  • Capturing a photographic image of each person approaching the entry port.
  • Comparing the captured image to a database of facial images of persons of interest to detect a likely match.
  • Alerting law enforcement or security personnel upon detection of a match.
  • A structural limitation wherein the secure area is controlled by a first party and the database is controlled by a second party.
• Essential elements of independent claim 17 (system) include:
  • An entry port to a secure area.
  • A camera configured to capture a photographic image of each person approaching the port.
  • A computer circuit configured to receive the image, compare it to a database to detect a match, and generate an alert.
  • The same structural limitation that the secure area is controlled by a first party and the database by a second party.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-23, which includes all dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific product, referring generally to Defendant's "devices/products, methods, systems, and processor-readable media" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are alleged to be security systems that provide for "comparing captured facial images to a database of facial image data for persons of interest and alerting security personnel" (Compl. ¶7). The complaint alleges these systems are designed to reduce violence at large venues by proactively scanning attendees and comparing them to a database of "known miscreants" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's specific market positioning beyond alleging that Defendant sells and offers to sell these products and services in Pennsylvania (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit B but does not attach the exhibit (Compl. ¶10). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’849 Patent by making, using, and selling security systems that practice the claimed invention (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9). The core of the infringement theory is that Defendant’s systems perform the patented method of capturing facial images of individuals, comparing those images to a database of persons of interest, and generating alerts for security personnel when a match is found (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether Defendant's systems operate in a manner that satisfies the "first party"/"second party" control limitation present in the independent claims. Does the complaint provide evidence that Wicket LLC’s system involves a "secure area" (e.g., a stadium) controlled by a "first party" (the venue operator) while the "database" is controlled by a distinct "second party" (such as Wicket or a third-party data provider), as required by claims 1 and 17? (’849 Patent, col. 18:10-14).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused systems compare images against a "database of facial images of persons of interest," as that term is used in the patent, rather than for a more general-purpose function like ticketing or identity verification? The patent specification heavily contextualizes "persons of interest" as individuals with histories of violence or other security risks (’849 Patent, col. 2:27-30).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "database of facial images of persons of interest"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the scope of the invention. The infringement analysis may turn on whether this term is limited to databases compiled for security screening against known threats, as described throughout the patent, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any database of individuals who are "of interest" for any reason (e.g., VIPs, ticketholders).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the term itself does not explicitly limit the reason why a person might be "of interest."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract, background, and summary repeatedly frame the invention in the context of preventing violence and identifying individuals with "past histories of violent tendencies" (’849 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-30) or those "known to have been violent during similar events in the past" (’849 Patent, col. 2:55-57). This context suggests the term is meant to cover databases curated for security and threat-mitigation purposes.

The Term: "wherein the secure area is controlled by a first party and the database is controlled by a second party"

• Context and Importance: This limitation, present in both asserted independent claims, defines a specific business and operational structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires proof of two separate controlling entities, which may not align with Defendant's business model or how its products are deployed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "controlled by" could refer to distinct operational divisions within a single large corporation, not necessarily separate legal entities.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system architecture where a local venue (the secure area) communicates with a remote "fusion center" that maintains the database, strongly implying two separate, independent entities (’849 Patent, col. 13:27-38; Fig. 6). This supports a construction requiring distinct legal or business entities.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant actively encourages and instructs its customers, through "website and product instruction manuals," to use its systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 12). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused systems are not staple commercial products and their "only reasonable use is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge, with the complaint asserting Defendant has known of the ’849 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural compliance: can Plaintiff prove that the accused systems, as used by Defendant's customers, meet the claim requirement that the "secure area" is controlled by a "first party" and the "database" by a distinct "second party"? The case may turn on the factual evidence of operational control and the court's construction of this limitation.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of definitional scope: does the accused system's comparison against a database of individuals constitute an infringement of claims directed at a "database of...persons of interest"? The resolution will depend on whether this term is construed narrowly to mean security threats, as suggested by the patent's specification, or more broadly.