DCT

2:17-cv-00167

Hand Held Products Inc v. Code Corp The

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00167, D.S.C., 01/19/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because its principal place of business is in the district, and alternatively, because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image-based barcode readers infringe six patents related to optical assembly design, illumination methods, power management, and user feedback systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld barcode scanners, a critical tool for data capture in industries such as healthcare, logistics, and retail.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant has been aware of U.S. Patent No. 6,607,128 since at least 2006, when Defendant cited it during the prosecution of its own patent, a fact that may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement. The complaint also notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,538,413 and 6,491,223 have expired, limiting any potential infringement claims for those patents to past damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,538,413 Priority Date
1996-03-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,249,008 Priority Date
1996-07-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,039,258 Priority Date
1996-09-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,491,223 Priority Date
1999-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,607,128 Priority Date
1999-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,096,472 Priority Date
2000-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,039,258 Issued
2001-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,249,008 Issued
2002-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,491,223 Issued
2003-03-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,538,413 Issued
2003-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,607,128 Issued
2006-01-01 Alleged Pre-Suit Knowledge of ’128 Patent Begins
2012-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,096,472 Issued
2017-01-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,607,128 - “Optical Assembly for Barcode Scanner,” issued August 19, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a compact, easily installed, and adjustable optical unit for use in handheld barcode scanners, particularly for long-range scanning where efficient illumination is critical (’128 Patent, col. 1:8-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular optical assembly built on a single molded frame that holds and positions the core components, including LED light sources, an imaging lens, and an imager (’128 Patent, col. 2:1-12). The assembly uses specific arrangements of field stops and optical elements to shape the illumination and efficiently project it onto a target barcode, with the resulting image being focused back onto a solid-state imager (’128 Patent, col. 3:1-12; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify the manufacturing and improve the performance of handheld scanners by integrating components into a compact, robust assembly suitable for high-volume production.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Essential elements of claim 25 include:
    • a support frame having a rear housing containing a solid state imager assembly;
    • first and second light units on either side of a receive optical axis;
    • first and second field stops disposed "optically forwardly" of the respective light units; and
    • a single piece optical element with a center aperture that images the field stops onto a target.

U.S. Patent No. 8,096,472 - “Image Sensor Assembly for Optical Reader,” issued January 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the operational problems that can arise from variations in the thickness of multilayered image sensors used in devices like barcode readers, which can negatively impact focus and performance, particularly in compact designs (’472 Patent, col. 2:1-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an optical reader assembly with specific structural features, including a support frame, an imager, light sources, and horizontally extending field stop apertures positioned in front of the light sources (’472 Patent, col. 4:21-44). A key feature is a "single optical element... of elongated shape" supported by the frame, which both transmits light from the sources and has an opening to allow an image of the target to pass through to the imager (’472 Patent, col. 13:1-14:52).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a specific, integrated architecture for an optical assembly that aims to provide reliable performance in a compact form factor.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Essential elements of claim 17 include:
    • a support frame, a solid state imager, and imaging optics;
    • first and second light sources;
    • first and second horizontally extending field stop apertures positioned in front of the light sources; and
    • a single optical element of "elongated shape" with an opening, disposed to transmit light from the sources and allow an image to pass through the opening.

U.S. Patent No. 6,249,008 - “Code Reader Having Replaceable Optics Assembly Supporting Multiple Illuminators,” issued June 19, 2001

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for improving barcode reading success by using multiple types of illuminators. The method involves attempting a read with a first type of illuminator and, if that attempt is unsuccessful, automatically selecting and attempting a read with a second, different type of illuminator (’008 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶89).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement through the CR2600's use of a "rolling shutter technique" where light sources may be sequenced, constituting selection between different illuminator types to achieve a successful decode (Compl. ¶92, ¶94).

U.S. Patent No. 6,538,413 - “Battery Pack with Capacity and Pre-Removal Indicators,” issued March 25, 2003

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a battery-powered electronic device with a removable battery pack that provides a "pre-removal indication" of its remaining capacity level as it is being removed from the device. This allows a user to check the battery's status without needing it to be fully installed in an operating device (’413 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶103).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶102).
  • Accused Features: The CR2600 barcode reader allegedly includes a removable battery pack with indicator lights that illuminate to show the capacity level when a user removes it from the scanner (Compl. ¶47, ¶107, ¶108). A diagram from the CR2600 user manual shows indicator lights that correspond to different charge levels (Compl. p. 21).

U.S. Patent No. 6,039,258 - “Hand-Held Portable Data Collection Terminal System,” issued March 21, 2000

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a handheld data collection terminal that incorporates a "somatic communications system" to provide tactile feedback to the user. This system produces a plurality of "tactually distinct vibrational signals" to communicate different events or statuses to the operator during use, which can be more effective than audio or visual signals in noisy environments (’258 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶115).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 99 (Compl. ¶114).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the CR2600 reader contains a vibration motor that produces different numbers of vibrations to indicate different events, such as a successful scan (one vibration) versus a failed scan (four vibrations), constituting a plurality of tactually distinct signals (Compl. ¶48, ¶118, ¶123). The complaint includes a feedback chart from a product manual detailing these distinct vibration signals (Compl. p. 23).

U.S. Patent No. 6,491,223 - “Autodiscriminating Optical Reader,” issued December 10, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an optical reader that improves decoding efficiency by first analyzing a captured 2D image to find regions of "high activity." The processor only attempts to decode a barcode symbol if at least one of these calculated high-activity regions, which can indicate the presence of barcode lines, is detected in the image (’223 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶134).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 37 (Compl. ¶133).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the CR2600's processor infringes by calculating "activities in some of the image data elements" to identify candidate barcode symbols, and only then attempting to decode the image when a high-activity region is found (Compl. ¶138).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendant's barcode scanners, with the CR2600 barcode reader being the primary example (Compl. ¶42, ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the CR2600 is an image-based barcode reader marketed and sold for use in the healthcare scanner market, directly competing with Honeywell's products (Compl. ¶24-25, ¶27). The relevant technical functionalities alleged include a scan engine with both aimer and illumination LEDs, field stops, and multiple light sources that can be operated in sequence (Compl. ¶43-45). The complaint also highlights a removable, rechargeable battery pack with capacity indicator lights (Compl. ¶47) and a vibration motor for providing tactile feedback (Compl. ¶48). An annotated, exploded view of the CR2600 scan engine is provided to identify its constituent components (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'128 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a support frame having a rear housing containing a solid state imager assembly... wherein said rear housing includes a back surface receiving said imager assembly The scan engine's "Component 1" is the alleged rear housing containing a solid state imager, and "Components 1, 2 and 3" together form the support frame. ¶54-55 col. 2:6-12
first and second light units disposed on either side of said receive optical axis "Component 1" of the scan engine allegedly includes first and second light units positioned on either side of the optical axis extending from the solid state imager. ¶56 col. 4:51-54
first and second field stops, wherein said first field stop is disposed optically forwardly of said first light unit, and wherein said second field stop is disposed optically forward of said second light unit "Component 2" of the scan engine allegedly includes two field stops that are positioned optically forward of the respective light units when the engine is assembled. ¶57 col. 4:55-59
a single piece optical element received on said support frame disposed to image said first and second field stops onto a target, said single piece optical element having a center aperture centered on said receive optical axis "Component 4" is alleged to be a single piece optical element received on the support frame that images the field stops and has a center aperture centered on the optical axis. ¶58 col. 4:60-65

Identified Points of Contention (’128 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: The complaint defines the "support frame" as including Components 1, 2, and 3, while defining the "rear housing" as only Component 1 (Compl. ¶55). This raises the question of whether the term "support frame having a rear housing" as used in the patent can be construed to describe a structure where the housing is also a part of the frame itself.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise as to whether the accused field stops in "Component 2" are "disposed optically forwardly" of the light units in "Component 1" in the manner required by the claim.

'472 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a support frame; a solid state imager; imaging optics supported by said support frame and defining an optical axis... The scan engine's Components 1, 2, and 3 allegedly form the "support frame," Component 1 includes the solid state imager, and Component 2 includes the imaging optics. ¶71-73 col. 13:53-62
a first light source; a second light source Component 1 of the scan engine allegedly includes the first and second light sources. ¶74 col. 13:63-64
...a first horizontally extending field stop aperture...a second horizontally extending field stop aperture...wherein the first...field stop is positioned in front of the first light source, and wherein the second...field stop is positioned in front of the second light source Component 2 of the scan engine is alleged to define the two horizontally extending field stop apertures, positioned in front of the respective light sources. ¶75 col. 13:65-14:5
a single optical element supported by the support frame and being of elongated shape... Component 4 of the scan engine is alleged to be the single optical element, supported by the frame, and is alleged to have an elongated shape. ¶76 col. 14:6-9
...wherein the single optical element has an opening...disposed so that an image of a target can pass optically undisturbed through the opening Component 4 allegedly includes an opening that allows an image of a target to pass through undisturbed. ¶77 col. 14:18-18

Identified Points of Contention (’472 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of the term "elongated shape." The complaint alleges "Component 4," a squarish component with a central aperture, meets this limitation (Compl. ¶76). This raises the question of whether the patent's specification or prosecution history limits "elongated" to a more traditionally rectangular or oblong form.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that "Component 2" defines "apertures," as required by the claim, rather than simply being a structure with openings that function as field stops?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'128 Patent: "support frame having a rear housing"

  • The Term: "support frame having a rear housing"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on mapping multiple physical components of the accused device (Components 1, 2, and 3) to the "support frame" while simultaneously mapping a subset of those components (Component 1) to the "rear housing" (Compl. ¶55). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether this nested structural relationship is permissible under the patent's teachings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the invention relates to an "optical assembly" and a "single molded frame for holding and positioning the components" (’128 Patent, col. 1:43-46), which may suggest that "support frame" should be interpreted broadly to encompass the entire structural unit holding the relevant optical parts.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a "single piece frame 19" that includes a "rectangular-shaped housing 20" and "a pair of forwardly extended arms 21-21" (’128 Patent, col. 3:1-4). This language and depiction could be used to argue that the "housing" and the overall "frame" are distinct, though connected, parts, potentially challenging an interpretation where the housing is also part of the frame.

'472 Patent: "elongated shape"

  • The Term: "elongated shape"
  • Context and Importance: The accused "single optical element" is identified as Component 4 in the complaint's "Exploded View" image (Compl. p. 10), which appears to be a generally square or rectangular component. The viability of the infringement allegation against claim 17 may turn on whether this component can be considered to have an "elongated shape."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "elongated optical element" in functional terms related to its position at the "distal end of the frame arms" and its role in imaging and illumination (’472 Patent, col. 10:5-14). An argument could be made that any shape that fulfills this function and fits within the described architecture is "elongated" in the context of the invention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently refers to the element as "elongated" and the figures (e.g., Fig. 17) depict an optical element (2025) that is visibly wider than it is deep, consistent with a common understanding of "elongated." This could support an argument that the term requires a shape with one dimension significantly greater than another.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for the ’128, ’472, and ’258 patents. The basis for these allegations is that Defendant provides its customers and users with instructions, such as user manuals, on how to use the CR2600 barcode reader in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶62, ¶81, ¶126).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement for the ’128, ’472, ’008, and ’258 patents. For the ’128 Patent, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge since "at least 2006," when Defendant cited the patent to the USPTO during the prosecution of its own patent (Compl. ¶61, ¶65). For the ’472, ’008, and ’258 patents, the willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the complaint, supporting a claim for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶84, ¶98, ¶129).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms describing the physical architecture of the optical assembly, such as "support frame having a rear housing" (’128 Patent) and "elongated shape" (’472 Patent), be construed to read on the specific multi-part component structure of the accused CR2600 scan engine as alleged in the complaint?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge and intent: what was Defendant’s state of mind regarding the ’128 patent, given the allegation that Defendant was aware of the patent since 2006 after citing it in its own patent prosecution, and did its subsequent actions constitute willful infringement?
  • A central technical question will concern functional mapping: for the patents directed to user feedback and decoding methods (e.g., ’258, ’008, ’223), does the accused product’s use of a vibration motor, sequential illumination, and image activity analysis perform the specific, distinct, and ordered steps required by the asserted claims, or is there a material difference in their technical operation?