NetMomentum LLC v. Chuwi Innovation Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: CHUWI Innovation and Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01083, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags designed to function when stacked or placed in close proximity to one another.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in conventional RFID systems where tags interfere with each other when densely packed, enabling applications such as tracking stacked currency, documents, or poker chips.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings 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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional RFID tags interact strongly with nearby electromagnetic fields and with each other. When such tags are stacked, the outermost tags can act as a "Faraday shield," absorbing most of the RF energy and preventing the reader from communicating with tags inside the stack (’726 Patent, col. 1:26-36). This problem makes it difficult or "impossible to read a stack of tagged items" such as poker chips, documents, or currency (’726 Patent, col. 1:36-41).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes an RFID tag with a "semi-transparent" antenna. This antenna is designed to gather only some of the RF energy from a reader's signal while allowing most of the energy to pass through to other tags nearby (’726 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-col. 3:4). This is achieved by constructing an antenna that "minimally affects the electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna" using materials with high sheet resistivity, which in turn creates a high-impedance device (’726 Patent, col. 3:47-54; col. 5:11-20).
• Technical Importance: This design allows for the reliable reading of assemblies of tagged objects in close proximity, a significant challenge for prior RFID technology (’726 Patent, col. 1:53-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring only to "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶11). For the purpose of analysis, independent method claim 18 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 18 include:
  • 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 other claims, but its reference to "one or more claims" suggests this possibility (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts" and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶11). These charts, designated as Exhibit 2, were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support this claim (Compl. ¶11). Instead, it incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary ’726 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible. The complaint's narrative theory of infringement is limited to the conclusory statement that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent’s technology, several technical questions are likely to be central to the dispute.

• Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused products contain antennas with the specific properties required to be "semi-transparent" as described in the patent. This may involve inquiries into the antenna material's sheet resistivity and the total impedance of the device as presented to an RF wave (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-33).
• Functional Questions: For method claims, a key point of contention may be whether the accused system operates by "sequentially communicating" with tags in a stack and whether, in operation, an RF carrier wave "must pass through a radar profile of at least one of the RF devices to reach at least one other," as required by claim 18 (’726 Patent, col. 8:35-44).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"minimally affects" (from claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term appears in the preamble of independent claim 1 and defines the essential functional characteristic of the patented antenna. The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of this term, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from conventional RFID tags that strongly interact with RF fields. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused devices, which may interact with RF fields to some degree, fall within the scope of the claims.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a quantitative, and potentially broad, 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. 5:16-20). Claim 10 recites a device where "at least 50% of the RF energy striking the antenna passes through the antenna," which a plaintiff may argue defines the lower bound of what it means to "minimally affect" a field (’726 Patent, col. 8:9-11).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "minimal effect" to specific physical properties, such as an antenna constructed of a planar conductor with a sheet resistivity "greater than about 1 Ω/sq" and a total device impedance "greater than about 1000Ω" (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-32). A defendant may argue that "minimally affects" is not merely a functional result but is limited to devices embodying these specific structural characteristics disclosed as enabling that result.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or plead any facts related to pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. p. 4, ¶ E.i).

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

The litigation appears to present two fundamental threshold questions for the court.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "minimally affects"? Will it be defined by a functional outcome (e.g., >50% RF energy pass-through), or will it be limited to the specific high-impedance and high-resistivity antenna structures disclosed in the patent's specification as the way to achieve that outcome?
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint, as filed, lacks any specific factual allegations identifying the accused products or detailing how they infringe. A central question will be whether the plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused products possess the specific antenna characteristics and perform the sequential communication methods required by the asserted patent claims.