NetMomentum LLC v. Associated Industries China Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Associated Industries China, Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01079, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and alleges that Defendant committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products infringe a patent related to semi-transparent Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to be readable when stacked or in close proximity.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a common problem in RFID systems where tags placed close together, such as in a stack of documents or poker chips, can interfere with each other and become unreadable.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, administrative 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional RFID tags interact strongly with nearby electromagnetic fields and with each other. When such tags are stacked, the outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield," blocking the radio frequency signals from reaching the inner tags, rendering them unreadable ('726 Patent, col. 1:26-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "semi-transparent" antenna that is intentionally designed to be a poor collector of RF energy. It gathers just enough energy for the RFID chip to function but allows most of the RF wave to pass through to other tags in a stack ('726 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-col. 3:3). This is achieved by constructing the antenna from materials with high sheet resistivity, resulting in an RFID device with a high total impedance presented to the RF wave ('726 Patent, col. 5:26-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable reliable reading of entire stacks of tagged items—such as currency, documents, or casino chips—in a single pass, a significant challenge for existing RFID technology ('726 Patent, col. 2:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to "exemplary method claims" without specifying particular claims (Compl. ¶11). For illustrative purposes, independent device claim 1 and independent method claim 18 are analyzed below.
• Independent Claim 1 (Device):
  • 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.
• Independent Claim 18 (Method):
  • A method for identifying each object in an assembly of objects, comprising:
  • sequentially communicating with each of a plurality of RF devices as recited in claim 1,
  • each of the RF devices being coupled to objects,
  • wherein the objects are oriented in close proximity with each other such that an RF carrier wave must pass through a radar profile of at least one of the RF devices to reach at least one other of the RF devices.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to the "'726 Patent Claims'" (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name or describe any specific products (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint; this exhibit was not available for analysis (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

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

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are contained entirely within charts in an "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The body of the complaint contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to features of any accused product. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent’s technology, several points of contention are likely to arise.

• Scope Questions: A primary dispute may center on the meaning of the phrase "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields" (Claim 1). The parties may dispute whether this limitation requires a specific quantitative degree of RF transparency (e.g., allowing more than 50% or 90% of energy to pass through) or is met by any design that shows improved readability in a stack compared to conventional tags ('726 Patent, col. 5:18-22).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be how the accused products achieve functionality, if any, for reading stacked tags. The infringement allegation suggests the accused products do so by employing the claimed "semi-transparent" high-impedance antenna design. The defense may argue that their products use alternative, unclaimed methods to mitigate interference, such as different communication protocols, power adjustments, or antenna tuning techniques that do not rely on the antenna itself "minimally affect[ing]" the RF fields in the manner described by the '726 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the independent claims and captures the core of the purported invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any antenna that reduces interference in a stack, or narrowly to require the specific high-resistivity, high-impedance design described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification 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). A plaintiff may argue this sets a functional, performance-based standard rather than requiring a specific structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term must be limited to the structures that enable the function. The specification repeatedly links the "semi-transparent" effect to specific physical properties, such as an antenna constructed of a planar conductor with a "sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" and a "total impedance of the RF device presented to the RF wave...greater than about 1000Ω" ('726 Patent, col. 5:26-34). This suggests the term should be defined by these structural characteristics rather than by the resulting effect alone.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint alleges only direct infringement (Compl. ¶11). It does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A Pleading Sufficiency Question: Does the complaint, which contains no factual allegations of infringement in its body and relies entirely on an unattached exhibit, meet the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading required by federal courts?
2. A Definitional Scope Question: What is the proper construction of the claim term "minimally affects"? The case may turn on whether this term is defined by the functional result of improved stack-reading, or if it is limited to the specific high-impedance, high-resistivity antenna structure disclosed in the patent as the only means of achieving that result.
3. An Evidentiary Question: Assuming the case proceeds, can the plaintiff provide evidence that the unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually incorporate the "semi-transparent" antenna technology of the '726 Patent, as opposed to using other, non-infringing technical solutions to address the problem of reading stacked RFID tags?