DCT

2:24-cv-00860

Honeywell Intl Inc v. Scandit AG

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00860, E.D. Tex., 10/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district, has significant contacts, and offers its products for sale through the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, which are accessible within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software development kits (SDKs), applications, and smartphone accessories for barcode scanning infringe five U.S. patents related to barcode reading ergonomics, user interfaces, and data display.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software and hardware for improving the performance and user experience of camera-based barcode scanners, particularly on general-purpose mobile devices like smartphones.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a letter on May 16, 2019, notifying Defendant of infringement of at least two of the asserted patents, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-06-29 Earliest Priority Date for ’426, ’530, and ’551 Patents
2013-02-20 Priority Date for ’376 Patent
2016-01-08 Priority Date for ’856 Patent
2016-04-05 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,304,376
2016-10-25 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,477,856
2019-05-16 Plaintiff sends letter notifying Defendant of alleged infringement by ’376 and ’856 Patents
2019-07-23 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,360,426
2023-11-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,816,530
2024-03-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,928,551
2024-10-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,304,376 - "Optical Redirection Adapter," issued April 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that using a rear-facing camera on an electronic device (like a smartphone) for barcode scanning is ergonomically unsound, as it forces users to hold the device in an unintuitive manner that can cause wrist, neck, or eye strain (Compl. ¶26; ’376 Patent, col. 1:11-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a physical adapter that attaches to the electronic device. It uses an optical element, such as a prism or mirror, to redirect the camera's field of view by approximately 90 degrees. This allows a user to point the edge of the device at a barcode, similar to a dedicated scanner, while the rear-facing camera captures the image (’376 Patent, col. 2:30-44, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to bridge the usability gap between general-purpose smartphones and dedicated, purpose-built barcode scanners, making smartphone-based scanning more efficient and comfortable in commercial environments (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • An optical redirection adapter for an electronic device with a camera.
    • A housing with an opening shaped to correspond to the outer shape of the electronic device.
    • An optical element attached to the housing and positioned in the camera's field of view when attached.
    • The optical element reflects light from a redirection angle offset from the camera's field of view.
    • The housing attaches via a friction fit between the housing's opening and the device's outer shape.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,856 - "System Having an Improved User Interface for Reading Code Symbols," issued October 25, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior art mobile device scanners lacked an intuitive trigger and a clear aiming system, leading to user confusion about which barcode was being scanned, especially when multiple barcodes were in the camera's view (Compl. ¶32; ’856 Patent, col. 2:37-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system (processor, camera, display) that, after capturing an image with a barcode, determines if the barcode is "readable" and, if so, displays a "positive indicator" directly overlaying the readable barcode on the screen. This provides immediate visual feedback to the user, confirming which barcode has been successfully targeted and is ready for decoding (’856 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-10).
  • Technical Importance: This user interface innovation aimed to make software-based scanning on mobile devices faster and more reliable by providing the kind of immediate, unambiguous feedback that users of traditional laser scanners expected (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Claim 7 requires a method comprising:
    • Providing a system with a camera, a user interface with a visual display, and a processor.
    • Capturing an image with a code symbol.
    • Displaying the image on the visual display.
    • Determining with the processor whether the code symbol is readable.
    • Displaying on the visual display a visual indicator overlaying the code symbol in response to determining it is readable.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,360,426 - "Computer Configured to Display Multimedia Content," issued July 23, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of prior art systems not displaying "certain meaningful information" after decoding a barcode (Compl. ¶38; ’426 Patent, col. 1:29-37). The invention solves this by configuring a computer to not only decode the barcode but also to embed the "decoded message data" from the barcode directly into the content being displayed on the screen, thereby enriching the user's view with relevant information (Compl. ¶40; ’426 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Scandit's Barcode Scanning for Wearable Devices and the Scandit's Barcode SDK" of infringement (Compl. ¶87).

U.S. Patent No. 11,816,530 - "Computer Configured to Display Multimedia Content," issued November 14, 2023

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, sharing a specification with the ’426 Patent, also addresses the display of information post-scan (Compl. ¶44). The claimed solution involves identifying a barcode from a stream of content, generating a "flag" indicating the status of the decoding attempt, and then generating and displaying content based on that flag. This displayed content can include data derived from the barcode overlaid on the barcode image itself (’530 Patent, claim 16; Compl. ¶46).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Scandit's Shelfview, Barcode Scanning for Wearable Devices, and Barcode SDK" of infringement (Compl. ¶103).

U.S. Patent No. 11,928,551 - "Computer Configured to Display Multimedia Content," issued March 12, 2024

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the same family as the '426 and '530 patents, addresses the challenge of decoding multiple barcodes simultaneously (Compl. ¶50). The invention is a method for generating "unique flags" for each of multiple decoded barcodes. These flags are then displayed, embedded in the content stream, and overlaid "proximately on each barcode respectively," providing distinct feedback for each scanned item (’551 Patent, claim 19; Compl. ¶52).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 19 is asserted (Compl. ¶119).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Scandit's Shelfview and Barcode SDK" of infringement (Compl. ¶119).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities include the Scandit Case, the Scandit Barcode Scanner SDK, Scandit ShelfView, and Scandit Barcode Scanning for Wearable Devices (Compl. ¶17-20).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The Scandit Case is a physical accessory alleged to provide "protection, ergonomics, durability and accuracy needed to turn consumer-grade smartphones into enterprise-grade scanning devices" (Compl. ¶19).
    • The Scandit Barcode Scanner SDK is a software development kit that enables applications to "scan[s] multiple barcodes at once, then add visual feedback to provide real-time insights" (Compl. ¶20).
    • The Scandit ShelfView product is described as a "shelf intelligence solution" that uses scanning for retail automation (Compl. ¶17).
    • The Scandit Barcode Scanning for Wearable Devices is alleged to "Turn next gen camera-enabled devices into scanners with Scandit mobile computer vision and augmented reality (AR)" (Compl. ¶18).
    • The complaint illustrates the types of 1D and 2D barcodes that modern scanning systems, like those at issue, are designed to decode (Compl. p. 4, "Exemplary 1D and 2D barcodes").

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,304,376 Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An optical redirection adapter for an electronic device having a camera The Scandit Case is alleged to be an adapter for a smartphone with a camera. ¶19, ¶57 col. 7:62-64
comprising: a housing having an opening shaped to correspond to an outer shape of the electronic device for attaching to the electronic device The Scandit Case is alleged to be a housing that physically attaches to a smartphone. ¶19 col. 7:65 - col. 8:2
an optical element attached to the housing and positioned such that, when the adapter is attached to the electronic device, the optical element is positioned in the camera's field of view The complaint alleges the Scandit Case embodies the inventions of the patent, which requires an optical element to redirect the camera's view. ¶57 col. 8:3-7
wherein, when the adapter is attached to the electronic device, the optical element reflects light into the camera's field of view from a redirection angle that is offset from the camera's field of view The complaint alleges the Scandit Case provides ergonomic scanning, which the patent teaches is achieved by redirecting the camera's view. ¶19, ¶28 col. 8:8-12
and wherein, the housing attaches to the electronic device via a friction fit between the opening of the housing and the outer shape of the electronic device The complaint alleges the Scandit Case turns a "consumer-grade smartphone" into a scanning device, implying a physical attachment. ¶19 col. 8:13-16

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Technical Questions: What is the specific optical mechanism within the Scandit Case? The complaint does not detail whether it uses a prism, mirror, or other element to redirect the camera's light path as required by the patent.
    • Scope Questions: Does the "Scandit Case" meet the definition of an "adapter" that attaches via "friction fit" as claimed, or is it a more integrated case that may attach differently? The nature of the physical connection between the case and the smartphone will be a key factual question.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,477,856 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a system having a camera, a user interface system with a visual display, and a processor... The accused Scandit SDK runs on smartphones, which are systems containing a camera, display, and processor. ¶72, ¶73 col. 6:53-56
capturing with the camera an image including a code symbol The Scandit SDK is alleged to use the device's camera to scan barcodes. ¶20 col. 6:57-58
displaying the image on the visual display The Scandit SDK is alleged to provide "real-time insights" which implies displaying the camera feed. ¶20 col. 6:59-60
determining with the processor whether the code symbol is readable by the processor The SDK allegedly scans barcodes, a process that necessarily includes determining readability. ¶20, ¶34 col. 6:61-62
and displaying on the visual display a visual indicator overlaying the code symbol in the image in response to determining that the code symbol is readable by the processor The Scandit SDK is alleged to "add visual feedback to provide real-time insights" after scanning barcodes. ¶20, ¶34 col. 6:63-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: What is the precise nature of the "visual feedback" provided by the Scandit SDK? Does it function as an "indicator overlaying the code symbol" to confirm readability before a final decode selection, as the patent appears to describe, or is it a post-decode confirmation?
    • Scope Questions: Does the term "readable" in the claim mean merely detectable by the system, or fully decoded? The timing and function of the accused "visual feedback" relative to the processor's determination of readability will be a central point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’376 Patent:

    • The Term: "optical redirection adapter"
    • Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory for the '376 patent rests on the Scandit Case being an "adapter." Practitioners may focus on whether this term implies a simple, separable accessory, or if it can also read on a more form-fitting, semi-permanent case that provides other functions like protection. The distinction between an "adapter" and a "case" could be a central issue.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the component functionally as a "housing having an opening shaped to correspond to an outer shape of the electronic device for attaching to the electronic device" (col. 7:65-67), which could be argued to encompass a wide range of attachable accessories.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The title of the patent is "Optical Redirection Adapter," and the background repeatedly frames the invention as an "accessory" for an electronic device, suggesting its primary purpose is optical redirection, not general protection like a typical case (’376 Patent, col. 1:28-30).

  • For the ’856 Patent:

    • The Term: "visual indicator overlaying the code symbol"
    • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's user interface improvement. The dispute will likely turn on what type of feedback qualifies and when it must be displayed. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused "visual feedback" (Compl. ¶20) is functionally the same as the claimed "visual indicator" which is displayed when a barcode is determined to be "readable."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides multiple examples of indicators, including a circle, a perimeter line, and a color highlight, suggesting the term is not limited to a single form (’856 Patent, col. 5:61-67).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description consistently show the indicator being displayed on or around a barcode to signal it is "readable" before a final selection input is made, suggesting a specific pre-selection, aiming-assistance function (’856 Patent, col. 6:1-4; Fig. 3). An argument could be made that a simple "success" message after a barcode is already fully decoded would not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement:
    • For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Scandit provides marketing materials, instructional information, and videos that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶62, ¶77, ¶93, ¶109, ¶125).
    • The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Scandit markets and sells products that are especially made for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶63, ¶78, ¶94, ¶110, ¶126).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Scandit's alleged knowledge of the '376 and '856 patents since at least May 16, 2019, due to a notice letter sent by Honeywell (Compl. ¶21-23, ¶60, ¶75). For the other three patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge since at least the filing of the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶90, ¶106, ¶122).

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

  • A core issue for the hardware-focused '376 patent will be one of definitional scope: does the "Scandit Case," an arguably multi-function protective enclosure, meet the claim requirements of being an "optical redirection adapter" whose primary inventive concept appears to be an ergonomic accessory?
  • A key evidentiary question for the software-focused patents ('856, '426, '530, '551) will be one of functional and temporal mapping: does the "visual feedback" in Scandit's SDK perform the specific functions claimed in the patents—such as pre-decode "readability" indication ('856), embedding of "decoded message data" ('426), or displaying "unique flags" for multiple barcodes ('551)—at the precise time and in the manner required by the claim language?
  • A central question for damages and willfulness will be the impact of the 2019 notice letter: did the letter provide Scandit with sufficient knowledge of its alleged infringement of the '376 and '856 patents to support a finding of willful infringement from that date, and how will that pre-suit knowledge allegation affect the litigation strategy for the patents asserted without prior notice?