NetMomentum LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (DE)
  • Defendant: Asustek Computer Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00841, E.D. Tex., 10/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to semi-transparent Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to be readable when stacked or in close proximity.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a common problem in RFID systems where tags interfere with each other, particularly when densely packed, by using antennas that allow most radio frequency energy to pass through them.
• 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

U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 - Semi-transparent RFID tags (Issued May 11, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes how conventional RFID tags interact strongly with nearby electromagnetic fields and with each other. When tagged objects like poker chips or documents are stacked, the antennas of the outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield," blocking the radio signal and preventing the inner tags from being read ('726 Patent, col. 2:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "semi-transparent" RFID tag. Its antenna is designed to gather only some of the RF energy from a reader's signal, while allowing most of the energy to pass through to other tags nearby or behind it ('726 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67). This is achieved by constructing the antenna from materials with specific electrical properties, such as high sheet resistivity, which limits its interaction with the RF field ('726 Patent, col. 5:12-22).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable reliable, simultaneous reading of numerous RFID tags that are stacked or in close physical proximity, a key challenge for inventory management and tracking applications ('726 Patent, col. 2:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims," but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the broadest independent apparatus claim.
• 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 identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’726 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). The infringement theory is that these unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the ’726 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13).

The complaint references claim charts in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶13). Without this exhibit and specific product identification, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold question is whether the complaint's allegations, which lack identification of a specific accused product and any detail on how it infringes, meet the plausibility standard for patent cases established under Twombly and Iqbal.
• Technical Questions: Once a product is identified, the central technical question will be whether its antenna system functions in the "semi-transparent" manner required by the claims. This will involve determining what portion of RF energy passes through the antenna versus what is absorbed or reflected.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint’s lack of detail on the accused products prevents a focused analysis of specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent's technology, the following term from independent claim 1 is likely to be critical.

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"
• Context and Importance: This term of degree is the central limitation defining the invention's novelty. The entire infringement case may depend on whether an accused device's antenna "minimally affects" RF fields. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the scope of the patent's protection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional and does not recite a specific structure or numerical value, which could support a construction not limited to the patent's specific examples. The patent summary describes the invention broadly as an antenna that "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields" without initially tying it to a numeric threshold ('726 Patent, col. 2:66-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more concrete definition, stating that "by 'minimally affects' what is meant is that at least about 50%, and preferably greater than about 90%, of the RF energy striking the antenna... is useable by another RF device in the vicinity of the tag" ('726 Patent, col. 5:18-22). The patent also ties this performance to specific physical properties, such as an antenna with a sheet resistivity "greater than about 1 Ω/sq" (as recited in dependent claim 3) or a total device impedance "greater than about 1000Ω" (as recited in dependent claim 5) ('726 Patent, col. 8:1-5). A defendant may argue these passages define and limit the scope of the term.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. It does request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to recover attorneys' fees, but this is a separate legal standard from willfulness (Compl. ¶ E.i).

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: The primary threshold issue is whether the complaint can survive a motion to dismiss. Its failure to identify a single accused product or provide any factual detail regarding the infringing functionality raises a significant question about its compliance with federal pleading standards.
2. Definitional Scope: Assuming the case proceeds, a core issue will be one of claim construction: can the functional limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields" be defined broadly, or will the court limit its scope to the quantitative benchmarks disclosed in the specification, such as the ">50% energy pass-through" or specific sheet resistivity values?
3. Evidentiary Proof: A key evidentiary question will be one of measurement and function: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that an accused product's antenna, during operation, actually allows a specific, measurable amount of RF energy to pass through it, thereby meeting the "minimally affects" limitation as construed by the court?