DCT

4:25-cv-00715

Near Field Electronics LLC v. Panda Express Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00715, E.D. Tex., 07/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Panda Express has a regular and established place of business in the district and has conducted business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s credit card readers, which incorporate specific Near-Field Communication (NFC) components, infringe five U.S. patents related to semiconductor architecture for bus interface protocols, power management, and signal detection.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational technologies for integrated circuits that enable devices to communicate over multiple protocols (like USB and PS/2), configure interfaces flexibly, and manage power consumption efficiently.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts infringement for a period beginning July 3, 2019. Four of the five asserted patents ('201, '071, '350, '727) are noted as having expired prior to the filing of the complaint, limiting the remedy for those patents to past damages.

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 Issued
2004-05-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Issued
2005-01-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 Priority Date
2005-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 Issued
2006-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 Issued
2008-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 Issued
2019-07-03 Alleged Damages Period Begins for Expired Patents
2021-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Expired
2022-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 Expired
2022-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 Expired
2023-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 Expired
2025-07-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 - "Dual Mode USB-PS/2 Device," Issued February 10, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that conventional peripheral devices supporting multiple signaling protocols, like USB and PS/2, required costly external components, used more circuit board space, and needed complex firmware to manage the different protocols, often compromising performance (’201 Patent, col. 1:40-50; Compl. ¶11).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a single integrated circuit that can automatically detect which protocol (e.g., USB or PS/2) a connected bus is using and configure itself to operate accordingly using a single set of I/O pins (’201 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:55-67). This single-chip solution is intended to eliminate the need for external components and simplify firmware, thereby reducing cost and board space (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a streamlined, cost-effective way for peripheral manufacturers to create devices compatible with multiple interface standards, maximizing connectivity options without the hardware overhead of previous designs (’201 Patent, col. 1:50-2:8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶31).
  • The essential elements of method claim 14 are:
    • (A) detecting a signaling protocol of a bus connected to an integrated circuit that operates in a plurality of signaling protocols; and
    • (B) configuring said integrated circuit to communicate in one of said plurality of signaling protocols in response to said detected signaling protocol, where each protocol operates over the connected bus through a single set of pins.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 - "Real-time I/O Processor Used to Implement Bus Interface Protocols," Issued May 25, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint explains that conventional microprocessor-based I/O systems were often rigid and protocol-specific, limiting their flexibility in handling multiple or evolving bus protocols (’071 Patent, col. 1:20-67; Compl. ¶16). Implementing complex or high-speed interfaces required significant custom hardware.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a programmable general-purpose interface (GPIF) that acts as a specialized, real-time I/O processor (’071 Patent, col. 5:5-10). This processor uses a limited instruction set to generate interface-specific waveforms and respond to external events in real-time, allowing it to make decisions and change control outputs on every clock cycle, which enables higher-speed operation than traditional systems (Compl. ¶¶15-16).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provided a flexible, software-configurable alternative to fixed-function hardware, allowing a single chip to implement various bus protocols efficiently and at high speeds (’071 Patent, col. 6:4-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶36).
  • The essential elements of method claim 15 are:
    • (A) generating a plurality of first control signals in response to a current state of a processor;
    • (B) progressing to a next state based on the current state, an internal control signal, and an input signal from an external bus;
    • (C) driving at least one output control signal onto the external bus; and
    • (D) updating the current state to the next state.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 - "Configurable USB Interface With Virtual Register Architecture," Issued October 25, 2005

Technology Synopsis

The complaint states that conventional USB interface controllers used hard-coded endpoint configurations, which were inflexible and required writing separate, error-prone HDL code for each version (Compl. ¶20). The ’350 patent discloses a configurable bus interface controller that uses a hardware description language (HDL)-based package to flexibly generate the required circuitry, avoiding the need for separate code for each endpoint configuration (Compl. ¶¶19, 21).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶41).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by credit card readers equipped with the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 - "Power Supply for Universal Serial Bus Interface with Programmable Bus Pullup Resistor," Issued February 7, 2006

Technology Synopsis

The complaint describes that prior technology provided a constant voltage supply with no low-power mode (Compl. ¶25). The ’727 patent is directed to a power supply architecture for a bus interface that operates in two modes: a standard mode and a power-down standby mode that reduces current consumption by using a programmable, low-power resistor to maintain the pullup function (Compl. ¶24).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶46).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by credit card readers equipped with the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 - "Signal Detection Method, ... and Electronic Apparatus," Issued May 13, 2008

Technology Synopsis

This patent is directed to methods and devices for detecting the presence, absence, or frequency of signals in an electronic device by monitoring the current flowing through a circuit (Compl. ¶28). By detecting the operational state of a target, the invention enables the reduction of power consumption by stopping or reducing the power supply (Compl. ¶29).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 2 is asserted (Compl. ¶51).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by credit card readers equipped with the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities are identified as credit card reader devices equipped with an "NXP PN512 NFC Front-End" or other NFC components with similar functionality (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant Panda Express uses these credit card readers in the regular course of its business for processing NFC payment transactions (Compl. ¶33). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the readers beyond identifying the accused NXP component. The allegations apply to any other NFC-capable readers used by the Defendant that incorporate similar front-end components (Compl. ¶31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement claim charts attached as Exhibits A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document. Accordingly, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.

’201 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that by using the Accused Instrumentalities to process NFC payment transactions, Panda Express directly infringes at least claim 14 of the ’201 patent (Compl. ¶¶31, 33). The infringement theory appears to be that the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End, when operating, necessarily performs the claimed method steps of automatically detecting and selecting a signaling protocol. The complaint does not specify which protocols the accused NXP chip allegedly detects or how it performs the selection.

’071 Patent Infringement Allegations

Similarly, the complaint alleges that using the Accused Instrumentalities for NFC payments constitutes direct infringement of at least claim 15 of the ’071 patent (Compl. ¶¶36, 38). The underlying theory suggests that the NXP PN512 component, as an I/O processor, performs the claimed method of generating control signals and progressing through states based on external inputs, all within a single clock cycle to enable high-speed communication. The complaint does not detail the specific states, control signals, or inputs involved in the accused operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’201 Patent

  • The Term: "automatically selects one of said plurality of signaling protocols in response to a signaling protocol of a connected bus" (from claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused NXP chip’s mode-switching functionality constitutes "automatic selection" as contemplated by the patent, and whether its operation is "in response to a signaling protocol of a connected bus."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the automatic selection as occurring "without user input" (’201 Patent, col. 2:53-54), which could support a broad reading covering any non-manual mode detection. The plurality of protocols is described as including USB and PS/2, but this is presented as an example, not a limitation (’201 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses heavily on detecting USB vs. PS/2 protocols based on specific electrical states, such as a "long low state" on the data lines (’201 Patent, col. 2:57-62). A defendant might argue the term is limited to the specific detection mechanisms disclosed for those particular protocols.

For the ’071 Patent

  • 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 term defines the decision-making logic of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused NXP chip’s operation involves the specific combination of inputs—current state, internal signals, and external signals—to determine its next state, as required by the claim. The dispute may turn on what qualifies as an "internal control signal" versus an "input signal."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the method more generally as "progressing to a next state based on a current state and one or more input signals in a single cycle of the clock signal" (’071 Patent, col. 1:50-53), which omits the "internal control signal" limitation and could suggest a broader scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a system where state transitions depend on distinct inputs from memory ("first control signals") and external flags/inputs ("second control signal") (’071 Patent, col. 11:55-65). A defendant could argue that the claim requires these distinct types of inputs to be present and used in the state transition logic.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For the ’531 patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations state that Panda Express aids and abets infringement by its partners, clients, and customers by advertising, distributing, and providing instruction materials and training for the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶55-56). The complaint alleges Defendant acts with specific intent or willful blindness because it has had actual knowledge of the ’531 patent since at least the date of notice (Compl. ¶56).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’531 patent based on knowledge obtained "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶54). The claim for willfulness appears to be based on alleged post-suit continuation of infringement (Compl. ¶57).

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused NXP PN512 component, as implemented in Panda Express's card readers, performs the specific method steps recited in the asserted claims. Given the generic nature of the infringement allegations, discovery into the technical operation of the accused chip will be dispositive.

  2. Claim Scope and Technological Match: The case will likely involve a debate over claim construction, particularly whether the patent claims, which are rooted in the technical context of early 2000s computer peripheral interfaces (USB/PS/2), can be interpreted to read on the modern NFC communication protocols allegedly used by the accused devices. A key question for the court will be whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed technology and the accused technology.

  3. Knowledge and Intent for Willfulness: For the single non-expired patent ('531), a central question will be whether the Plaintiff can establish that Panda Express had the requisite knowledge and specific intent to encourage infringement by its partners and customers. The allegation of willfulness relies solely on notice via the complaint itself, raising the question of whether continued post-suit conduct, without more, is sufficient to meet the standard for enhanced damages.