NetMomentum LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC

• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00888, E.D. Tex., 11/03/2024

• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents, one related to 'semi-transparent' RFID tags for tracking stacked items and another related to two-sided, dual-screen mobile phone designs.

• Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to radio-frequency identification systems used for inventory and asset tracking, and the physical design and user interface of mobile electronic devices.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history for the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. 9,351,334 is a continuation of a prior application which has since issued as a patent and claims priority to a 2009 provisional application.

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 a problem where conventional Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags interact strongly with RF fields, effectively shielding other tags when they are stacked or in close proximity. This 'Faraday shield' effect makes it difficult or impossible to read all the tags in a stack of items like poker chips, documents, or currency (ʼ726 Patent, col. 2:25-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a 'semi-transparent' antenna for an RFID tag. This antenna is designed to gather only some of the incoming RF energy to power its circuit, while allowing most of the energy to pass through to other tags nearby. This is achieved by constructing the antenna from materials with high sheet resistivity, which 'minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna' ('726 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-54).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to enable reliable RFID scanning of densely packed or stacked objects, a scenario where prior art RFID systems were often ineffective ('726 Patent, col. 2:53-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" contained in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶12). As a representative example, independent claim 1 is analyzed.
• Independent Claim 1: An 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 does not specify whether it will assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,351,334 - Two-sided dual screen mobile phone device (issued May 24, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the design trade-off in mobile phones between large screens and physical keyboards. Devices with large touchscreens can be cumbersome for text entry, while devices with physical keyboards often have smaller screens that are less suitable for viewing media or websites. Solutions involving moving parts like sliders or hinges were seen as reducing reliability and increasing device thickness (ʼ334 Patent, col. 1:18-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a 'stick' form-factor mobile device with two opposing sides. One side features a large display that occupies most of the surface area (e.g., for media consumption), while the other side features a second, smaller display along with a physical QWERTY keypad for text entry. The device can use sensors or a physical switch to determine which side is active, combining the benefits of both form factors without moving parts ('334 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1A-1B).
• Technical Importance: The design offers a potential solution to combine a large-format viewing screen and a tactile physical keyboard in a single, non-mechanical, slab-like form factor, a persistent challenge in mobile device ergonomics ('334 Patent, col. 1:56-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '334 Patent Claims" contained in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18). As a representative example, independent claim 1 is analyzed.
• Independent Claim 1: A device comprising:
  • a generally rectangular-shaped enclosure with a first side and an opposite second side;
  • the first side comprising a first display that occupies between 60-100% of the first side;
  • the second side comprising a second display;
  • wherein the first and second displays operate simultaneously in at least one mode;
  • wherein at least one of the displays is used primarily for one or more navigation buttons;
  • a third side comprising a physical switch with at least three positions for selecting operation between the displays.
• The complaint does not specify whether it will assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products from Samsung. It alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶12, ¶23). These exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality, features, or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). The pleading states that these charts compare the exemplary patent claims to the accused products and asserts that the products "satisfy all elements" of the claims (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). Without these exhibits, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint's specific allegations is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • For the '726 Patent: A central issue may be the construction of 'minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields.' The question for the court will be whether this phrase should be interpreted qualitatively or whether it is defined by the quantitative examples in the specification, such as allowing 'at least about 50%' of RF energy to pass through ('726 Patent, col. 5:17-19). The infringement analysis will depend heavily on the scope assigned to this term of degree.
  • For the '334 Patent: The infringement analysis may focus on several specific limitations in the claims. A primary question is whether the accused devices include 'a physical switch for selecting operation' that has 'at least three positions' ('334 Patent, cl. 1). Many modern devices use software, sensors, or simple buttons rather than a multi-position physical switch for such functions, raising a potential question of literal infringement and requiring an analysis under the doctrine of equivalents. Further questions may arise over the meaning of 'operate simultaneously' and whether a display is 'used primarily for... navigation buttons.'

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the '726 Patent:

  • The Term: 'minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields' (cl. 1)
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the central feature of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art RFID tags that allegedly blocked RF fields. The construction of this term will likely determine the scope of the claim and, consequently, whether an accused device infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim uses a qualitative, relative term ('minimally'), which could be argued to encompass any antenna that is less interfering than a conventional, fully conductive antenna ('726 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a potentially limiting definition, stating that 'minimally affects' means 'that at least about 50%, and preferably greater than about 90%, of the RF energy striking the antenna... is useable by another RF device' ('726 Patent, col. 5:17-21). A party could argue this passage defines and quantifies the term.

• For the '334 Patent:

  • The Term: 'a physical switch for selecting operation ... compris[ing] at least three positions' (cl. 1)
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes a very specific hardware component that may not be present in modern smartphones, which often rely on sensors and software for screen management. The presence or absence of this exact structure in an accused device will be a critical infringement question.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses other methods for switching between screens, such as using sensors (e.g., accelerometers, thermal sensors) ('334 Patent, col. 5:50-63). A party might argue that the claim should not be read to exclude these other disclosed embodiments, though this specific claim recites a 'physical switch.'
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific ('physical switch,' 'at least three positions'). The specification describes and Figure 1C depicts a discrete 'switch 118' on the side of the device ('334 Patent, col. 5:42-48). This evidence supports a narrow construction limited to a tangible, multi-throw hardware control.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '334 Patent. The factual basis asserted is that Defendant distributes 'product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes' ('334 Patent, Compl. ¶21). The allegation is also based on knowledge of infringement gained from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word 'willful,' it alleges that Defendant obtained 'Actual Knowledge of Infringement' upon service of the complaint and 'knowingly' continued to induce infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). Plaintiff also requests that the case be declared 'exceptional' under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶H.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Uncertainty: The most immediate issue is the lack of identification of the "Exemplary Defendant Products." Without the complaint's referenced exhibits, the factual basis for the infringement allegations is unclear, preventing a complete analysis of the dispute's merits.
2. Functional Scope ('726 Patent): A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: will the court construe the claim term 'minimally affects' qualitatively, or will it be limited by the quantitative performance metrics (e.g., >50% energy pass-through) disclosed in the patent's specification?
3. Structural Correspondence ('334 Patent): A key infringement question will be one of structural mismatch: do the accused mobile devices incorporate the specific 'physical switch' with 'at least three positions' as required by claim 1, or will the case depend on whether a different mechanism (e.g., sensors, software controls) can be proven to be an equivalent?