NetMomentum LLC v. Gao RFID Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: GAO RFID Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00939, E.D. Tex., 09/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radio-frequency identification (RFID) products infringe a patent related to "semi-transparent" RFID tags designed to function when stacked or in close proximity to one another.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a common limitation in RFID systems where tags placed close together, such as on stacked documents or poker chips, interfere with each other and become unreadable.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,714,726, "Semi-transparent RFID tags," issued May 11, 2010 (’726 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional RFID tags interact strongly with nearby electrical and magnetic fields, causing them to interfere with each other when stacked or assembled in close proximity (Compl. ¶ 9; ’726 Patent, col. 2:26-30). This interaction can render tags unreadable, as the outermost tags may act as a "Faraday shield," blocking the RF signal from reaching interior tags (’726 Patent, col. 2:36-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "semi-transparent" antenna that gathers only some of the RF energy from a carrier wave, allowing most of the energy to pass through to other nearby tags (’726 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by constructing the antenna from a material with a high sheet resistivity, which "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 2:62-col. 3:4; col. 5:26-28). This design allows for the creation of readable assemblies of tagged objects, such as the stacked items shown in Figure 4 (’726 Patent, col. 3:1-4; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach purports to solve a significant operational problem in RFID systems, enabling reliable identification of individual items within densely packed assemblies like stacks of currency, documents, or poker chips (’726 Patent, col. 2:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but specifies the asserted claims only in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted device technology.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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 also references "exemplary method claims" being infringed, of which independent claim 18 is the first in the patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Defendant products" but identifies them only in charts within an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality, features, or market context, other than to allege they are products that practice the technology claimed in the ’726 Patent (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶13-14). In lieu of a claim chart, the complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the ’726 Patent because they "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). The allegations cover acts of making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶11).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether standard RFID products, which are designed to efficiently couple with RF energy, can be said to practice an invention premised on inefficient coupling. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused products' antennas "minimally affect" surrounding RF fields as required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products are constructed with high sheet-resistivity antennas or demonstrate the "semi-transparent" energy pass-through property described in the patent? The patent suggests a quantitative test, stating that "at least about 50%" of the RF energy passes through and is usable by another device, a technical threshold the plaintiff would need to prove the accused products meet (’726 Patent, col. 5:18-22).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This functional limitation is the central inventive concept of the ’726 Patent, distinguishing the claimed tags from conventional RFID tags. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend entirely on the construction of this phrase.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term should be understood qualitatively in the context of the problem solved—i.e., enabling the reading of stacked tags. They might contend that any antenna that allows for such functionality, regardless of its specific electrical properties, "minimally affects" the fields for the purposes of the invention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the term is explicitly defined by quantitative and structural characteristics in the specification. The patent states that "minimally affects" means "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 specification also links this function to a particular structure: an antenna with a high "sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-28).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains a conclusory allegation regarding infringement by Defendant's customers but does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does, however, request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ E.i).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the central claim limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? The case may turn on whether this term is interpreted as a broad functional goal or is strictly limited by the quantitative (e.g., >50% energy pass-through) and structural (e.g., >1 Ω/sq sheet resistivity) examples provided in the patent specification.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate, through testing or technical analysis, that the accused standard RFID products possess the specific "semi-transparent" properties required by the claims? Without such evidence, establishing that conventional RFID tags meet a limitation defined by intentional energy inefficiency presents a significant hurdle.