NetMomentum LLC v. Audiocodes Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AudioCodes Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01080, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes 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 limitations in conventional RFID systems where tags interfere with each other when densely packed, enabling applications in inventory management, document tracking, and gaming.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events relevant 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"

Issued May 11, 2010 (’726 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional RFID tags, which interact strongly with nearby electrical and magnetic fields. When such tags are stacked or placed in close proximity (e.g., a stack of poker chips or documents), the outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield," blocking the RF signal and preventing the inner tags from being read. (’726 Patent, col. 2:26-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an RF device with a "semi-transparent" antenna that "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna." ( Compl. ¶9; ’726 Patent, Abstract). This antenna is designed to gather only some of the RF energy for its own operation while allowing most of the energy to pass through to other nearby tags, thereby enabling communication with an entire stack or assembly of tagged objects. (’726 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:3). This is achieved through specific antenna properties, such as high sheet resistivity. (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-32).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to solve what the patent calls a conventionally "impossible" problem, enabling reliable RFID reading of densely assembled items like currency, documents, or poker chips. (’726 Patent, col. 2:40-41, col. 6:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more "exemplary method claims" and "Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" but does not identify specific claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core device invention.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts referenced as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent." (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement but relies entirely on claim charts in an un-filed "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement theory. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). The narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe by practicing the claimed technology and satisfying all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶13).

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent and the general nature of the allegations, the dispute may raise several questions:

• Scope Questions: A central issue will be the proper construction of the phrase "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields." The dispute will likely focus on whether this term requires a specific quantitative measure of RF transparency (e.g., allowing at least 50% of energy to pass through, as described in the specification) or is met by any device that demonstrates improved readability in stacked configurations compared to the prior art. (’726 Patent, col. 5:17-22).
• Technical Questions: Assuming a construction is reached, a key factual question will be whether the accused products' antennas actually function in the manner required by the claim. This would require evidence comparing the RF field interaction of Defendant's products to the standard defined by the patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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 defining the novelty of the claimed invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend almost entirely on how this phrase is construed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates the technical evidence required to prove or disprove infringement.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a functional definition, stating that "minimally affects" means "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. 5:17-22). A party could argue that any device meeting this performance metric falls within the claim scope, regardless of its specific physical structure.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent links the "minimally affects" functionality to specific physical characteristics described in the embodiments, such as an antenna constructed of a planar conductor with a "sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" and a total device impedance presented to the RF wave of "greater than about 1000Ω." (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-32). A party could argue that the term should be limited to antennas possessing these or similar structural properties, not just any antenna that achieves the functional result.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts related to pre-suit knowledge. It does, however, request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in its prayer for relief. (Compl., p. 4, ¶ E.i).

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

The case, as presented in the complaint, appears to center on the following core questions for the court:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the central claim limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? Will the definition be based on the functional outcome of RF energy pass-through described in the specification, or will it be tied more narrowly to the specific structural and electrical properties (e.g., sheet resistivity, impedance) of the embodiments disclosed?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations linking the accused products to the patent, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused products' antennas, in operation, actually meet the "minimally affects" limitation as construed by the court.