DCT

2:25-cv-00790

Induction Devices LLC v. Recreational Equipment Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00790, E.D. Tex., 08/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a place of business in Plano, Texas, and conducts regular business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s provision and support of branded contactless consumer credit cards induces infringement of five patents related to various semiconductor circuit technologies, including reset circuits, secure memory systems, and signal processing.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to fundamental technologies for the design and operation of complex integrated circuits, particularly those used in secure, high-frequency, and low-power applications like modern payment cards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,899,145 was previously litigated in two cases in the Western District of Texas, which were resolved before any substantive matters were addressed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-06-01 ’145 Patent Priority Date
2006-01-26 ’926 Patent Priority Date
2006-12-21 ’885 Patent Priority Date
2007-03-09 ’543 Patent Priority Date
2007-04-17 ’628 Patent Priority Date
2008-11-11 ’926 Patent Issue Date
2011-02-15 ’145 Patent Issue Date
2012-05-29 ’885 Patent Issue Date
2013-02-05 ’543 Patent Issue Date
2013-09-24 ’628 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,449,926 - "Circuit for Asynchronously Resetting Synchronous Circuit"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,449,926, "Circuit for Asynchronously Resetting Synchronous Circuit", issued November 11, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in semiconductor devices where a synchronous circuit, such as RAM, can lose its stored data if it is reset with an asynchronous signal during normal operation; however, an immediate asynchronous reset is necessary when the circuit operates abnormally to prevent system errors (’926 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a reset signal generation circuit that intelligently switches between reset types. It includes an operation detection circuit that monitors a CPU to determine if it is "operating normally or abnormally" (’926 Patent, col. 13:8-11). Based on this detection, a signal control circuit generates either a data-preserving synchronous reset signal during normal operation or an immediate asynchronous reset signal during abnormal operation, enhancing overall system reliability (’926 Patent, col. 6:58-7:6).
  • Technical Importance: This selective reset capability allows systems to maintain data integrity during routine resets while ensuring rapid, safe-state initialization in response to critical faults.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An operation detection circuit for detecting whether the synchronous circuit is operating normally or abnormally and for generating an operation detection signal.
    • A signal control circuit for generating a first reset signal based on a system reset signal, a clock signal, and the operation detection signal.
    • The signal control circuit generates a synchronous first reset signal when the synchronous circuit is operating normally.
    • The signal control circuit generates an asynchronous first reset signal when the synchronous circuit is operating abnormally.

U.S. Patent No. 7,899,145 - "Arrangement with a Transponder and a Metal Element"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,899,145, "Arrangement with a Transponder and a Metal Element", issued February 15, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the degradation of performance for radio-frequency transponders (e.g., RFID) when placed on or near a metal component, as the metal can absorb the electromagnetic energy and interfere with communication (’145 Patent, col. 1:49-58). The complaint, however, describes the ’145 patent as being directed to a "multiplexer circuit and method that reduces jitter" (Compl. ¶15).
  • The Patented Solution: As described in the patent itself, the invention provides an arrangement where an antenna for a transponder is formed by creating a "recess" in the metal component (’145 Patent, col. 2:14-20). This design turns the problematic metal object into a functional part of the antenna system, improving communication reliability. In contrast, the complaint alleges the patent teaches a multiplexer design that isolates logic gates to reduce crosstalk and noise (Compl. ¶17).
  • Technical Importance: The technique described in the patent enables the effective integration of RFID and other transponder technologies with metal goods, containers, or equipment, which is critical for logistics and asset tracking.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "at least claim 10" (Compl. ¶42). Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An arrangement with a transponder and an allocated metal component.
    • An aerial for the transponder formed by means of a recess in the metal component.
    • A cover allocated to the recess.
    • A cavity enclosed by the cover and the metal component.
    • The cavity is at least partially filled with a dielectric material.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,190,885 - "Non-Volatile Memory Sub-System Integrated with Security for Storing Near Field Transactions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,190,885, "Non-Volatile Memory Sub-System Integrated with Security for Storing Near Field Transactions", issued May 29, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a memory module that integrates a security processor, non-volatile memory, and a near-field communication (NFC) component (’885 Patent, Abstract). This integration creates a secure environment for processing and storing NFC transaction data, with the security processor enforcing access rights to memory partitions to ensure data integrity (Compl. ¶21-22).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The integrated systems within the accused contactless credit cards that combine memory, security, and NFC functions are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶52).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,370,543 - "Busy Detection Logic for Asynchronous Communication Port"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,370,543, "Busy Detection Logic for Asynchronous Communication Port", issued February 5, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses systems for synchronizing communication between components operating in different clock domains (e.g., a processor and a memory device) (’543 Patent, Abstract). The invention aims to achieve this without the pulse-width restrictions or high-speed clock requirements of conventional designs, thereby reducing complexity and power consumption (Compl. ¶25-27).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 16 and references an infringement analysis for claim 1 (Compl. ¶62-63).
  • Accused Features: The internal circuitry of the accused credit cards that manages communication and data transfer between different internal electronic components is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶62).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,543,628 - "Method and System of Digital Signal Processing"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,543,628, "Method and System of Digital Signal Processing", issued September 24, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to a dynamically reconfigurable digital signal processing system on a chip (’628 Patent, Abstract). A microcontroller uses instruction sets to configure a controller and an address-calculation device, which in turn select filter-coefficients for a data path device to perform digital filtering on incoming data, enabling resource efficiency and scalability (Compl. ¶29-30).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The digital signal processing capabilities within the accused credit cards are alleged to operate as the claimed reconfigurable system (Compl. ¶72).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "branded contactless consumer credit cards" provided and supported by Defendant REI (Compl. ¶32, ¶42, ¶52, ¶62, ¶72).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are products used by Defendant's "partners, clients, customers, and end users" for transactions (Compl. ¶32). The infringement allegations center on the internal semiconductor circuitry that enables the cards' functionality, including their ability to securely process transactions, manage internal operations across different clock domains, handle data filtering, and reset internal components. The complaint alleges these products are marketed and used throughout the United States (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant indirectly infringes by inducing the direct infringement of its partners, clients, and end users who use the accused contactless credit cards (Compl. ¶32). The complaint states that infringement analyses are set forth in Exhibits A-1 through E-1, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Accordingly, the following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theory described in the complaint body.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’926 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused credit cards contain circuitry that performs the method of claim 1 of the ’926 Patent (Compl. ¶33, ¶39). This suggests the cards include synchronous circuits (e.g., memory, processors) and a reset generation circuit that can detect normal versus abnormal operation and issue a corresponding synchronous or asynchronous reset signal to protect data and ensure system stability.

’145 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement of at least claim 10 of the ’145 Patent (Compl. ¶42). The complaint's description of the technology focuses on a multiplexer circuit for reducing jitter (Compl. ¶15-17). However, the actual ’145 patent is directed to forming a transponder antenna from a recess in a metal component. The infringement allegations are premised on a technological teaching that does not appear in the patent document itself, raising a significant question about the basis for this count.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Discrepancy (’145 Patent): The primary point of contention for the ’145 patent is the fundamental mismatch between the technology described in the complaint (jitter-reducing multiplexers) and the technology disclosed and claimed in the patent (transponder antennas formed in metal). The viability of this infringement claim may depend on whether Plaintiff can reconcile this discrepancy.
    • Technical Questions (’926 Patent): A key question for the ’926 patent will be whether the reset circuitry in the accused credit cards in fact performs the claimed two-mode operation. The analysis will require evidence of a specific "operation detection circuit" that distinguishes between "normal" and "abnormal" operation and a "signal control circuit" that responsively switches between synchronous and asynchronous reset signals, as opposed to a more generic reset mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’926 Patent: "operating normally" / "operating abnormally" (Claim 1)

  • The Terms: "operating normally" and "operating abnormally".
  • Context and Importance: The distinction between these two states is the core of the invention, as it is the trigger for generating either a synchronous or asynchronous reset signal. The definitions will be central to determining whether the accused products meet these limitations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional and does not impose a specific structural or algorithmic definition, which may support a broader construction covering any method of detecting proper versus improper operation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where "operating normally" means a CPU provides a "clear signal" to an operation detection circuit at a predetermined interval, and "operating abnormally" means this signal is not provided appropriately, causing a counter to exceed a predetermined value (’926 Patent, col. 4:34-45). A defendant may argue this embodiment limits the scope of these terms.

’145 Patent: "recess" (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "recess".
  • Context and Importance: The formation of the antenna "by means of a recess" is the central feature of the claimed invention. The scope of this term will determine what kinds of physical modifications to a metal component fall within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it requires a complete opening or merely an indentation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ordinary meaning of "recess" is a hollow or indentation, which could be argued to cover a wide range of shapes and depths, not just a complete hole.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a preferred embodiment where the recess is a "breakthrough" that extends through the entire thickness of the metal component (’145 Patent, col. 3:40-45). Further, specific forms like a "slot-type aerial" are described, which could be argued to narrow the term to antenna-like shapes rather than any arbitrary indentation (’145 Patent, col. 5:63-65).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all five patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The basis for inducement is that Defendant provides the accused credit cards along with "instruction materials, training, and services" that allegedly encourage customers to use the cards in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶37, ¶47). Knowledge and specific intent are alleged based on Defendant’s awareness of the patents, at least from the date of the complaint filing.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's induced infringement has been willful "since the filing of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶38, ¶48). This is an allegation of post-suit willfulness based on the notice provided by the lawsuit itself.

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

  1. Reconciling the ’145 Patent: A threshold issue for the case is the significant factual discrepancy concerning the ’145 patent. The court will need to address whether infringement allegations describing a multiplexer circuit (Compl. ¶15) can be sustained against a patent claiming a transponder antenna formed by a recess in a metal element, or if this count is based on a fundamental pleading error.

  2. Evidentiary Mapping: For the remaining four patents, a central question will be evidentiary. Can Plaintiff produce evidence, through discovery and technical analysis, demonstrating that the complex, multi-component circuitry within the accused credit cards performs the specific functions and meets the structural limitations recited in the asserted claims, or will Defendant show a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?

  3. Proving Intent for Inducement: The case will likely examine the specific facts supporting induced infringement. A key question for the court will be what affirmative acts by Defendant, beyond merely selling the accused credit cards, demonstrate a specific intent to cause its customers to perform the patented methods, as required to prove inducement under § 271(b).