DCT

4:25-cv-00710

Near Field Electronics LLC v. Levi Strauss & Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-710, E.D. Tex., 07/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of credit card readers equipped with specific Near Field Communication (NFC) components infringes five patents related to integrated circuit design, including protocol management, power efficiency, and signal detection.
  • Technical Context: The patents address fundamental challenges in designing semiconductor chips that can flexibly and efficiently interface with various communication standards and manage power consumption.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts infringement of four expired patents, limiting the damages period for those patents to the six years prior to filing through their respective expiration dates. Infringement of one patent is alleged to be ongoing. Willful infringement and inducement are alleged for the single non-expired patent, based on knowledge from the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 Priority Date
2000-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Priority Date
2000-08-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 Priority Date
2002-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 Priority Date
2004-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 Issue Date
2004-05-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Issue Date
2005-01-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 Priority Date
2005-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 Issue Date
2006-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 Issue Date
2008-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 Issue Date
2019-07-03 Alleged Infringement Start Date for Expired Patents
2021-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Expiration Date
2022-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 Expiration Date
2022-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 Expiration Date
2023-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 Expiration Date
2025-07-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 - Dual Mode USB-PS/2 Device

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, peripheral devices supporting multiple communication protocols, such as USB and PS/2, required additional external components, which increased cost, consumed circuit board space, and necessitated complex firmware to manage the different protocols (Compl. ¶11; ’201 Patent, col. 1:40-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a single integrated circuit that can operate using multiple signaling protocols. This circuit is designed to automatically detect the protocol of a connected bus (e.g., USB or PS/2) and configure itself to communicate using that protocol, all through a single shared set of I/O pins, thereby eliminating the need for extra components (Compl. ¶10, ¶12; ’201 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:47-54).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated approach was intended to reduce the cost, physical size, and design complexity for manufacturers of computer peripherals, such as mice, that needed to offer connectivity to different generations of computer hardware (Compl. ¶12; ’201 Patent, col. 1:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Claim 14 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • detecting a signaling protocol of a bus connected to an integrated circuit that operates in a plurality of signaling protocols; and
    • configuring said integrated circuit to communicate in one of said plurality of signaling protocols in response to said detected signaling protocol;
    • wherein each of said selected protocols operate over said connected bus through a single set of pins.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 - Real-time I/O Processor Used to Implement Bus Interface Protocols

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional methods for implementing bus interfaces relied on either protocol-specific hardware, which was inflexible, or user-programmable interfaces with fixed wait-states, which could not handle complex signaling and limited performance (’071 Patent, col. 1:16-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a specialized, real-time I/O processor, described as a programmable general-purpose interface (GPIF), with a limited instruction set. This processor can generate specific control waveforms and respond to external events on a clock-cycle-by-clock-cycle basis, providing a flexible and high-speed way to implement various bus protocols (Compl. ¶15, ¶16; ’071 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:4-16).
  • Technical Importance: The invention offered a way to replace rigid, protocol-specific hardware designs with a more adaptable processor-based solution, enabling a single chip to efficiently support multiple or evolving communication standards without the performance penalty of a traditional microprocessor (’071 Patent, col. 1:53-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Claim 15 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • generating a plurality of first control signals in response to a current state of a processor;
    • progressing to a next state based on said current state, at least one internal control signal of said first control signals and an input signal received from said external bus;
    • driving at least one output control signal of said first controls signals onto said external bus; and
    • updating said current state to said next state.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 - Configurable USB Interface With Virtual Register Architecture

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of using hard-coded endpoint configurations in USB interface controllers, which required writing and maintaining different HDL code for each version (Compl. ¶20; ’350 Patent, col. 1:19-28). The invention provides a system where a configuration package is used at compile time to generate flexible configuration circuitry (e.g., registers or combinational logic), allowing the interface to be reconfigured for different endpoints without altering the core HDL code (Compl. ¶19, ¶21; ’350 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 10, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The configurable architecture of the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End used in credit card readers (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 - Power Supply for Universal Serial Bus Interface with Programmable Bus Pullup Resistor

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the power consumption of conventional USB interfaces that used a constant voltage supply with no low-power mode (Compl. ¶25; ’727 Patent, col. 1:28-31). The invention discloses a power supply architecture with both a standard operating mode and a power-down standby mode. In standby mode, the main supply is turned off, and a programmable resistor, controlled by trim bits from non-volatile memory, maintains the necessary pullup function with significantly reduced current consumption (Compl. ¶24, ¶25; ’727 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-18).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The power supply and power management features of the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 - Signal Detection Method...and Electronic Apparatus

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method and device for detecting the presence, absence, or frequency of a signal by monitoring the "through current" flowing in a circuit of series-connected transistors whose gates receive the input signal (Compl. ¶28; ’531 Patent, Abstract). Detecting the absence of this through current over a period of time indicates the input signal is stopped, which can trigger a power-saving mode (Compl. ¶28, ¶29; ’531 Patent, col. 2:47-3:41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 2, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The signal detection and power consumption control methods allegedly used within the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "credit card reader device[s] equipped with an NXP PN512 NFC Front-End" and other NFC front-end components with similar functionality (Compl. ¶31, ¶36, ¶41, ¶46, ¶51).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant Levi Strauss & Co. uses these NFC-capable credit card readers in the "regular course of its business operations for processing NFC payment transactions" (Compl. ¶33, ¶38, ¶43, ¶48). The allegations center on the internal operation of the NXP PN512 chip within these devices when they are used as intended for payment processing.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (e.g., Ex. A-1, B-1) for each asserted patent but does not include them with the filing (Compl. ¶32, ¶37, ¶42, ¶47, ¶52). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

'201 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that when Defendant uses the accused credit card readers, the devices directly infringe claim 14 of the '201 Patent (Compl. ¶31). The theory of infringement is that the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End, when processing a payment, necessarily performs the claimed method steps. Specifically, it is alleged to automatically detect and select a communication protocol (NFC) and configure itself to communicate over a bus using a single set of pins (Compl. ¶33). The complaint does not, however, provide specific facts mapping the operation of an NFC reader to these claimed steps.

'071 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that use of the same accused devices infringes claim 15 of the '071 Patent (Compl. ¶36). The allegation is that the NXP PN512 chip performs the claimed method of operating as a real-time processor for a bus interface. This includes generating control signals, progressing through logical states based on inputs from an external bus, and updating its state to manage communications, as required by the claim (Compl. ¶38). The complaint offers no specific details on how the accused chip performs these state-based functions.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "signaling protocol" in the '201 Patent, which is described in the context of wired standards like USB and PS/2, can be construed to encompass the wireless NFC protocol used by the accused devices. The defense may argue that the patent is limited to the technological environment disclosed, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader interpretation of the claim language itself.
  • Technical Questions: For all asserted patents, a central technical question will be whether the actual operation of the NXP PN512 chip maps to the specific steps of the asserted method claims. For the '071 Patent, for instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused chip progresses through states based on the combination of a "current state," an "internal control signal," and an "input signal" as recited in claim 15? The complaint's lack of specific technical allegations suggests this will be a key area for discovery and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201

  • The Term: "a plurality of signaling protocols" (from claim 14)
  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is fundamental to the infringement case. The patent's specification is heavily focused on the USB and PS/2 protocols ('201 Patent, Title, col. 1:15-27), while the accused product operates on the NFC protocol (Compl. ¶31). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent's claims can reach beyond the specific wired peripheral context of the 2000s to cover the modern wireless communication technology at issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to USB or PS/2. The phrase "a plurality of signaling protocols" is facially broad. The patent's summary section states the invention concerns an "apparatus comprising an integrated circuit configured to operate in a plurality of signaling protocols" without express limitation ('201 Patent, col. 2:54-56).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background of the Invention section exclusively discusses the problems of supporting USB and PS/2 protocols ('201 Patent, col. 1:11-50). The preferred embodiment is described as a "dual mode device (e.g., USB-PS/2)" ('201 Patent, col. 3:25-27). This consistent contextual focus may be used to argue the term was intended to cover only similar wired peripheral protocols.

For U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071

  • The Term: "progressing to a next state based on said current state, at least one internal control signal...and an input signal received from said external bus" (from claim 15)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific, multi-input logic for state transitions within the claimed method. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused NXP chip can be shown to operate in this precise manner. Given the lack of technical detail in the complaint, the interpretation of what it means to progress to a "next state" based on this specific combination of inputs will be a central battleground.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the invention as a "generic interface" ('071 Patent, col. 6:45) and a "processor-based solution" for implementing changing standards ('071 Patent, col. 1:57-62), which could support an interpretation that the claimed state-transition logic should be read flexibly to cover any processor that considers these types of inputs.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific two-instruction architecture ("branch on signal" and "wait N clocks") to implement its functionality ('071 Patent, col. 7:18-28). A defendant may argue that the claim should be limited to a processor that functions according to these disclosed logical structures or their equivalents, rather than any generic state machine.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) only for the '531 Patent. The basis is the allegation that Defendant encourages its partners, clients, and customers to use the accused readers, supported by acts such as "advertising and distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing instruction materials, training, and services" (Compl. ¶55, ¶56). Knowledge and specific intent are alleged to exist from the date Defendant received notice of the complaint (Compl. ¶56).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged only for the '531 Patent. The allegation is based on post-suit conduct, stating that "Since the filing of this Complaint, Defendant's infringement has been willful" (Compl. ¶57).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological scope: can claims drafted in the context of early 2000s wired peripheral interfaces, such as USB and PS/2, be construed to cover the fundamentally different operational environment and protocol of a modern wireless NFC payment system? The resolution may depend on whether the claim language is interpreted broadly or is limited by the specific problems and solutions described in the patents' specifications.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: given the complaint's conclusory allegations, can Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence during discovery to demonstrate that the internal architecture and real-world operation of the accused NXP PN512 chip perform the specific, multi-step methods recited in the asserted claims, particularly the state-machine logic of the '071 patent and the current-monitoring technique of the '531 patent?