NetMomentum LLC v. Altai Tech Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Altai Technologies Ltd (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01078, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to "semi-transparent" Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to be readable even when stacked or in close proximity.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a known limitation in RFID systems where tag-to-tag interference in dense environments, such as stacks of documents or casino chips, can prevent reliable scanning.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of conventional RFID tags interfering with one another when stacked or placed in close proximity (’726 Patent, col. 2:25-30). The antenna of an outer tag can act as a “Faraday shield,” blocking the radio frequency (RF) signal from reaching tags on the interior of a stack, rendering them unreadable (’726 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a “semi-transparent” antenna that is designed to gather only some of the incoming RF energy—enough to power its associated circuit—while allowing most of the energy to pass through to other nearby tags (’726 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67). This is accomplished by constructing the antenna from materials with high sheet resistivity, which limits its interaction with the surrounding electromagnetic fields (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-29).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to enable reliable RFID scanning of densely packed items, a capability that could expand the technology's use in applications like tracking currency, documents, or casino chips (’726 Patent, col. 2:51-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, referring only to "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" in a separate exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). For the purpose of this analysis, independent claim 1 is examined as a representative claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). However, Exhibit 2 was not included with the public filing of the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports products that practice the technology claimed in the ’726 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its substantive infringement allegations by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The complaint itself does not contain specific factual allegations mapping elements of any asserted claim to the features of any accused product. Accordingly, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative claim 1, the infringement analysis will likely raise fundamental questions of claim scope and technical proof.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of the functional limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields." The question for the court will be whether this term connotes a specific, quantifiable degree of RF transparency (e.g., a percentage of energy pass-through) or a more qualitative standard of performance relative to conventional RFID antennas.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that an accused antenna meets the "minimally affects" limitation? The complaint lacks any such evidence, raising the question of how Plaintiff will prove this element, which may require complex RF modeling, expert testimony, or direct experimental measurement of the accused products' performance.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"
• Context and Importance: This functional language appears in the independent claims (e.g., Claim 1) and is the central feature distinguishing the invention from the prior art described in the patent. The construction of this term will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis, as it defines the boundary between infringing and non-infringing devices.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a potential quantitative benchmark, stating 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. 5:18-22). Dependent claim 10 further recites "at least 50% of the RF energy striking the antenna passes through the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 8:9-11). A plaintiff may argue this language supports a construction where "minimally affects" requires at least 50% of the energy to pass through.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the word "minimally" implies a standard higher than a simple majority. The specification's disclosure of a "preferably greater than about 90%" pass-through rate could be cited to support a narrower construction requiring a very high degree of RF transparency (’726 Patent, col. 5:19-20). The defense may also raise the question of whether this functional, result-oriented language renders the claim indefinite.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general reference to infringement by Defendant's "customers" but pleads no specific facts regarding Defendant's knowledge or intent required to support a claim for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the ’726 Patent. The prayer for relief includes a request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits an award of attorney fees in certain circumstances (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ E.i).

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

The resolution of this dispute, based on the initial complaint, appears to depend on two primary issues that will be developed during litigation.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the functional claim limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? The case's trajectory may shift significantly depending on whether the court adopts a specific, quantitative threshold (such as the ">50% pass-through" figure suggested by the specification) or a more qualitative, comparative standard.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce sufficient technical evidence, likely via expert testing, to demonstrate that the accused products' antennas actually meet the "minimally affects" limitation as it is ultimately construed by the court.