DCT

2:25-cv-00306

NetMomentum LLC v. Kyocera Group Global Network

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00306, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a foreign corporation, has an established place of business in the district through an alter ego, Kyocera International, Inc., and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe a patent related to semi-transparent Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to operate when stacked or in close proximity.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses a known issue in RFID systems where tags placed close together can interfere with each other, rendering them unreadable.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint; no other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 Application Filing Date
2010-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 Issue Date
2025-10-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726 - “Semi-transparent RFID tags”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where conventional RFID tags interact strongly with surrounding radio frequency fields and with each other. When such tags are stacked—as with poker chips, paper currency, or documents—the outermost tags can form a "Faraday shield," blocking RF energy from reaching the tags on the inside of the stack and preventing them from being read. (’726 Patent, col. 2:26-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an RF device with a "semi-transparent" antenna. This 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. This minimal interaction with the surrounding RF field is intended to prevent the shielding effect, thereby enabling reliable communication with a plurality of tagged objects even when they are densely packed or stacked. (’726 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to expand the applicability of RFID technology to use cases involving densely packed items, which were previously challenging for conventional RFID systems. (’726 Patent, col. 2:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to "exemplary method claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted. (Compl. ¶11). As a representative independent claim, Claim 1 recites:
    • 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 is silent on whether Plaintiff reserves the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Kyocera-branded smartphones," specifically naming the "DuraForce Ultra 5G smartphone" as an exemplary accused product. (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific functionality. It alleges generally that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" without describing how any particular component or feature operates. (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts are included in an "Exhibit 2" which is incorporated by reference, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and importing the accused smartphones, and also by having its employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products." (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The ’726 Patent is directed to solving the problem of reading stacked physical items like poker chips and documents. A primary question will be how the claims, born from this context, read on the components of a smartphone. The complaint does not articulate a theory for bridging this apparent gap in technological application.
    • Technical Questions: The patent's solution relies on an antenna that "minimally affects" RF fields, which the specification links to physical properties like high sheet resistivity. A key technical question will be whether any component in the accused smartphones—which are designed for efficient RF communication—possesses an antenna that performs the claimed function of being "semi-transparent" to RF energy. The complaint provides no technical facts to support this.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central functional limitation of independent claim 1 and captures the essence of the "semi-transparent" invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether a conventional smartphone antenna, which is designed to interact efficiently with RF fields, can fall within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a quantitative 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 and in the vicinity of the antenna is useable by another RF device in the vicinity of the tag." (’726 Patent, col. 5:16-21). A party could argue this functional test should apply regardless of the product's context.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention as a solution to the "stacking" problem. (’726 Patent, col. 2:26-59). A party could argue that the term must be construed in light of this stated purpose, limiting its scope to antennas that specifically enable the reading of densely packed or stacked devices.

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 or egregious conduct. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of attorney's fees but provides no basis for this request in the pleadings. (Compl. p. 6).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological applicability: Can a patent focused on enabling the readability of stacked physical RFID tags via "semi-transparent" antennas be applied to the standard RF components within a smartphone, an entirely different technological context?
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields," defined in the patent as allowing over 50% of RF energy to pass through, describe the function of a smartphone antenna, which is engineered to efficiently capture such energy for communication?
  • A dispositive evidentiary question will be one of factual support: What evidence exists to show that the accused smartphones contain an antenna that meets the physical and functional limitations of the asserted claims, such as the high sheet resistivity described in the patent? The complaint does not currently provide this information.