NetMomentum LLC v. Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NetMomentum LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-1086, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed radio-frequency identification (RFID) products infringe a patent related to "semi-transparent" RFID tags designed to be readable when stacked or in close proximity.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns RFID technology used for tracking physical objects, focusing on a technical solution to the problem of signal interference that occurs when tagged items are densely packed together.
• 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.

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: The patent’s background section describes a significant limitation in conventional RFID technology where tags, when stacked or placed in close proximity, interfere with each other. The outer tags can act as a "Faraday shield," absorbing or reflecting the reader's radio frequency (RF) signal and preventing it from reaching tags on the interior of the stack, making them unreadable ( ’726 Patent, col. 1:26-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "semi-transparent" RFID tag design featuring an antenna that "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 constructing the antenna from materials with a high sheet resistivity and designing the overall device to present a high impedance to the RF wave, thereby minimizing its effect on the surrounding electromagnetic field and allowing the RF signal to penetrate a stack of tagged items (’726 Patent, col. 5:12-32). Figure 4 of the patent illustrates such a stack of tagged objects (’726 Patent, FIG. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for reliable reading of densely packed items like documents, currency, or casino chips, which was a barrier to the adoption of RFID technology in certain logistics and asset-tracking applications (’726 Patent, col. 1:52-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary method claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating external charts by reference (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Independent claims 1 and 18 are representative of the patent's scope.

• Independent Claim 1 (Device):
  • 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):
  • Sequentially communicating with a plurality of RF devices as recited in claim 1;
  • Each device is coupled to an object, and the objects are in close proximity to 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 RF device.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It makes a conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '726 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '726 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). No information regarding the products' market context or commercial importance is provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in charts included as "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶13-14). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents. The infringement theory is based on direct infringement, alleging that Defendant's products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will likely be the proper construction of the term "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields." The dispute may turn on whether this functional language requires a specific quantitative level of RF transparency (e.g., a percentage of signal pass-through) or is met by devices having the specific physical characteristics disclosed in the patent, such as a particular sheet resistivity.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of detail raises the evidentiary question of what technical proof Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that the accused products' antennas actually possess the "semi-transparent" properties required by the claims. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused products were designed to solve the specific problem of reading stacked RFID tags, as opposed to achieving some other technical goal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields surrounding the antenna" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation defining the inventive concept of a "semi-transparent" tag. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from conventional RFID tags that strongly interact with RF fields. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will determine whether a wide range of RFID products, or only those with very specific properties, are implicated.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept functionally, stating that "most of the energy in the RF wave does not couple into the antenna" (’726 Patent, col. 1:66-col. 2:2). Language specifying that "at least about 50%, and preferably greater than about 90%, of the RF energy striking the antenna... is useable by another RF device" could support a construction based on a measurable performance standard rather than a specific physical structure (’726 Patent, col. 5:18-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this functional outcome to specific physical embodiments. A party might argue the term should be limited by these disclosures, such as an antenna constructed of a material with a "sheet resistivity of greater than about 1 Ω/sq" and a device with a "total impedance... greater than about 1000Ω" (’726 Patent, col. 5:26-32).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a count for willful infringement or allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’726 Patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could form a basis for seeking attorney's fees or enhanced damages depending on facts developed during the case (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the functional limitation "minimally affects electromagnetic RF fields"? Will it be construed according to a specific performance metric (e.g., a percentage of RF energy pass-through), or will it be limited to the physical characteristics disclosed in the patent's embodiments (e.g., specific sheet resistivity or impedance values)?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's lack of detail on the accused products, the case will likely depend on what technical evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused devices were designed for and actually operate in the "semi-transparent" manner required by the claims to solve the problem of reading stacked RFID tags.