NetMomentum LLC v. Barco NV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Barco NV (Belgium)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01082, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to be readable even when stacked in close proximity.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a known limitation in RFID systems where tags placed close together can shield each other from radio signals, preventing reliable identification.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

I.A. Case Timeline

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

II.A. 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.

II.A.1. The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how conventional RFID tags interact strongly with radio frequency (RF) fields, which causes significant problems when tags are stacked or placed in close proximity. The outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield," blocking RF energy and preventing the tags on the interior of the stack from being read. (’726 Patent, col. 2:25-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "semi-transparent" RF device where the antenna "gathers some of the RF energy, but most of the energy in the RF wave does not couple into the antenna." (’726 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by designing an antenna that "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding [it]," allowing RF energy to pass through to other nearby tags. (’726 Patent, col. 3:48-54). The specification suggests this can be accomplished using antennas with high sheet resistivity and by creating a high total impedance for the device presented to the RF wave. (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve the "stacking problem" for RFID, enabling reliable reading of densely packed tagged items like currency, documents, or casino chips. (’726 Patent, col. 2:52-59).

II.A.2. Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring generally to "one or more claims" and to claim charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). The foundational independent device claim is Claim 1.

• 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.

The complaint notes that Plaintiff will assert "exemplary method claims" but does not identify them (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

III.A. Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count," but these charts (purportedly Exhibit 2) were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

III.B. Functionality and Market Context

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 references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶13-14). It alleges narratively that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). Without the charts or specific product details, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV.A. Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of the '726 Patent's representative Claim 1, the central dispute will likely involve claim construction and factual evidence regarding the accused products' RF properties.

• Scope Questions: The primary question will concern the scope of the term "minimally affects." The dispute may center on whether this term requires a specific quantitative threshold of RF energy pass-through or is defined by certain physical properties of the antenna, such as sheet resistivity, as described in dependent claims and the specification.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the unidentified accused products possess an antenna that "minimally affects" surrounding RF fields. This will require technical testing and expert analysis of the accused products' performance, particularly when used in proximity to one another.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This functional language is the central limitation of the independent claims and is not a standard term of art. The definition of this term will be dispositive for infringement, as it defines the boundary between the patented "semi-transparent" technology and conventional RFID tags.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term should be understood by its functional outcome. Claim 10, a dependent claim, recites "wherein at least 50% of the RF energy striking the antenna passes through the antenna," suggesting a potential quantitative benchmark for "minimally affects." (’726 Patent, col. 8:14-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the term is defined by the specific structural characteristics disclosed in the patent as enabling the function. The specification and other dependent claims describe physical properties like an antenna sheet resistivity "of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" or a total device impedance "greater than about 1000Ω." (’726 Patent, col. 8:3-8; col. 5:26-35). A defendant could argue that "minimally affects" should be limited to devices embodying these specific electrical properties.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations to support induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint body provides no factual basis for this request (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

Based on the complaint and the patent-in-suit, the litigation appears poised to center on two fundamental issues:

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the functional limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? Whether this term is construed broadly based on a performance metric (e.g., percentage of RF pass-through) or narrowly based on specific physical embodiments disclosed in the patent (e.g., sheet resistivity) will likely determine the outcome.
2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: As the complaint fails to identify specific accused products or provide the referenced infringement charts, an initial question will be one of proof: what specific products are being accused, and what technical evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that these products meet the crucial "minimally affects" limitation of the asserted claims?