DCT
6:22-cv-01121
Bassfield IP LLC v. Famous Daves Of America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bassfield IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Famous Dave's of America Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01121, W.D. Tex., 10/26/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining places of business within the Western District of Texas and committing at least a portion of the alleged infringing acts within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s method of producing QR codes with an embedded corporate logo infringes a patent related to compositing machine-readable data with human-readable images.
- Technical Context: The technology involves methods for embedding machine-readable code, such as 2D barcodes, on a document or substrate in a way that allows it to be overlaid with human-readable content, such as text or graphics, while both remain discernible.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff Bassfield IP LLC, which possesses the exclusive right to prosecute this action. The patent was originally assigned to Xerox Corp. No other procedural history is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-10-16 | '053 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-11-04 | '053 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-10-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,641,053 - “Foreground/Background Document Processing with Dataglyphs,” issued November 4, 2003
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with prior art document systems where machine-readable information and human-readable content were printed in separate, non-overlapping areas, which limited the amount of data that could be stored on a page (Compl. ¶14; ’053 Patent, col. 2:51-55). This approach also did not provide a robust way to verify the integrity of a document after it had been copied or scanned, as minor differences or alterations could be difficult to detect (’053 Patent, col. 2:55-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create a composite document by generating a background image made of machine-readable "glyph codes" and overlaying it with a second, human-readable image (e.g., text or graphics) (’053 Patent, col. 3:7-23). This composite structure is designed so that the foreground image can be viewed by a person while the underlying machine-readable code remains decodable, even if partially obscured, allowing for the integration of both types of information in the same physical space (Compl. ¶14; ’053 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technique offered a method to increase the data density on a physical document and to embed robust, self-registering information that could survive replication processes like photocopying or scanning (’053 Patent, col. 6:34-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15). The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims" (’053 Patent, ¶VI.a).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Generating a background image on a substrate, where the image comprises "coded glyphtone cells based on grayscale image data values," with each cell having one of at least two distinguishable patterns.
- Compositing the background image with a second image so that both the second image is viewable and at least some of the underlying cells can still be decoded.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's method for producing a "composite machine-readable and human read-able document," specifically identified as a scannable QR code that includes Defendant's logo (Compl. ¶¶15-16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant generates and uses QR codes that have the "Famous Dave's" logo superimposed over the center of the code's data field (Compl. ¶18). The complaint provides a visual example of such a QR code, which directs customers to online services like ordering and rewards programs (Compl. ¶16). This visual from a company menu shows a QR code with a logo partially obscuring the data matrix (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that the QR code's data cells function as the machine-readable component and the logo functions as the human-readable component (Compl. ¶¶16, 19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'053 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating a background image on a substrate, said background image comprising coded glyphtone cells based on grayscale image data values, each of said halftone cells comprising one of at least two distinguishable patterns; | Defendant allegedly generates a QR code image (the "background image") on a screen or other substrate. The complaint asserts that the QR code's "data cells" are "based on grayscale" and that the black and white squares constitute the "two distinguishable patterns." | ¶17 | col. 14:49-54 |
| compositing the background image with a second image such that two or more adjacent visible halftone cells may be decoded and the second image may be viewed. | Defendant allegedly composites the QR code with a second image, identified as the Famous Dave's logo. The complaint alleges that the logo is viewable and that the underlying QR code remains scannable and decodable. A visual from an explanatory website is used to identify the "Data cells" of the QR code (Compl. ¶17, p. 7). | ¶18 | col. 14:55-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for claim construction may be whether a standard QR code's black and white squares fall within the scope of the terms "coded glyphtone cells" and "halftone cells" as used in the patent. The patent's specification repeatedly describes "glyphs" as elongated, slash-like marks oriented at specific angles (e.g., +45° and -45°) to encode data (’053 Patent, col. 5:28-36; Fig. 1), which raises the question of whether the claims are limited to that specific embodiment or can be read more broadly to cover any pixelated data matrix.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that the accused QR code is "based on grayscale image data values" (Compl. ¶17). A key factual question will be what evidence supports this assertion, as QR codes are conventionally understood to be based on binary data. The complaint does not provide technical evidence to substantiate the "grayscale" allegation beyond a conclusory statement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "coded glyphtone cells based on grayscale image data values"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central technical limitation describing the machine-readable layer. The viability of the infringement case depends on construing this phrase to cover the black and white pixels of a standard QR code. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's title is "…with Dataglyphs," and the specification heavily features a specific type of angled mark, creating a potential divergence from the accused QR code technology.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the patent’s objective is to provide an "efficient method for integrating machine-readable information with human-readable information" (Compl. ¶11; ’053 Patent, col. 3:7-10), and that a QR code with an embedded logo is a modern implementation of this general inventive concept. The claim language requires "at least two distinguishable patterns," which could arguably be satisfied by the black and white squares of a QR code.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "glyphtone" is specifically tied to the "slash-like marks" or "glyphs" described and illustrated throughout the specification (’053 Patent, col. 5:16-20; Figs. 1-2). They may argue that these specific descriptions limit the claim scope to the "Dataglyph" technology explicitly disclosed, and not to unrelated technologies like QR codes, which were developed independently.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain counts or specific factual allegations for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "coded glyphtone cells," which is described in the patent specification in the context of angled "Dataglyphs," be construed broadly enough to read on the square, binary pixels of a standard QR code?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical accuracy: does the plaintiff have evidence to support its allegation that the accused QR codes are generated using "grayscale image data values," as required by the claim, or does the accused technology operate on a purely binary basis, creating a fundamental mismatch with the claim language?