Multimodal LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Anker Innovations Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00430, W.D. Tex., 06/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to object-recognition locks, which use the unique surface texture of an object as a form of key.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of physical security and access control, proposing an alternative to traditional keys or complex biometric scanners by enabling common objects to function as authenticators.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit, which was originally assigned at issuance to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763 - "Object-recognition lock,"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763, "Object-recognition lock," issued May 16, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the limitations of conventional security locks, such as the risk of lost or stolen keys, the inconvenience of forgotten combinations, and the high cost and narrow application of existing pattern-recognition systems that are typically restricted to scanning specific biometric features like eyes (’763 Patent, col. 1:11-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a lock system that uses a scanner to generate an image signal of an object’s unique "micro-textured surface" (’763 Patent, col. 4:5-12). As illustrated in the system diagram (Fig. 1), a controller (16) compares the scanned texture of an object (14) to a pre-stored reference texture. If the two textures match, the controller actuates the lock assembly (20), effectively turning any object with a sufficiently unique surface—such as a rock, a piece of wood, or a body part—into a key (’763 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-44).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a flexible, secure, and relatively inexpensive alternative to both traditional keys and high-end biometric scanners by leveraging the inherent uniqueness of common objects' surface topographies (’763 Patent, col. 7:35-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '763 Patent Claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s foundational independent claims are 1 (method) and 8 (apparatus).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Scanning an object for at least one surface texture.
  • Generating at least one image signal indicative of the surface texture.
  • Comparing the surface texture with a reference texture at a "micro-level in which depths of features of the surface texture... are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns."
  • Actuating the lock if the surface texture matches the reference texture.
• Independent Claim 8 (Apparatus) includes the following essential elements:
  • A scanner for generating an image signal of an object's surface texture.
  • A controller, coupled to the scanner, for determining the surface texture from the signal and comparing it to a reference texture.
  • A lock assembly, coupled to the controller, that is operable when the scanned texture matches the reference texture.
  • A user interface for establishing and changing settings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not included with the public-facing complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context, other than to allege that they practice the technology claimed by the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an external exhibit (Exhibit 2) to detail its infringement theory, but this exhibit is not available for analysis (Compl. ¶17). The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims of the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶16). Without the claim charts or a more detailed description of the accused products, a specific element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused products, which are not described, actually perform scanning based on an object's "micro-textured surface." What evidence does Plaintiff possess to show that Defendant’s products generate an image signal based on surface feature depths, as required by the claims, rather than using another technology such as capacitive fingerprint sensing?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether the term "surface texture," as defined by the patent’s specific micro-level constraints (5 to 500 microns), can be construed to read on the sensing technology used in Defendant's products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "surface texture ... at a micro-level in which depths of features of the surface texture ... are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core technological principle of the patent. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the sensing technology in the accused products operates within this specific dimensional range. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue whether the patent covers a broad category of object-scanning locks or is limited to the specific optical-topographical method detailed in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the features as being "at a micro-level (e.g., generally in the size range of 5 microns (µm) to 500 µm)" (’763 Patent, col. 2:40-42). A party could argue that the use of "e.g." and "generally" suggests the numeric range is exemplary and not an absolute limitation on the scope of "micro-level."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly recites the "range of 5 microns to 500 microns" without qualifying language, which may support an argument that this range is a hard-and-fast requirement for infringement (’763 Patent, col. 8:1-3). The specification repeatedly refers to a "micro-textured surface" in this context, suggesting the invention is tied to this particular scale of analysis (’763 Patent, col. 4:5-12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its associated claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge," and that any subsequent infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

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

• A primary issue for the court will be one of evidentiary proof: given the lack of detail in the complaint, can the Plaintiff produce technical evidence demonstrating that the unspecified Anker products actually scan and analyze an object's "surface texture" in the specific manner claimed by the patent, as opposed to employing a distinct, non-infringing biometric or pattern-recognition technology?
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "surface texture at a micro-level"? The interpretation of this term, particularly the explicit "5 microns to 500 microns" range, will be critical in determining whether the accused technology falls within the boundaries of the patent’s claims or outside of them.