Multimodal LLC v. ASSA ABLOY Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Assa Abloy Inc. (Oregon)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00457, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to object-recognition locks that use an object's unique surface micro-texture for authentication.
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the field of biometric and object-based security systems, which replace traditional keys or passcodes with unique physical authenticators.
• 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. 7,045,763 - Object-recognition lock

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the drawbacks of conventional security systems: traditional keys can be lost or copied, combination codes can be forgotten or 'picked,' and existing pattern-recognition systems (like retinal scanners) are often expensive and limited to recognizing only specific types of patterns (e.g., only eyes) (’763 Patent, col. 1:11-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a lock system that uses a scanner to capture the unique 'surface texture' of an ordinary object, such as a rock, a piece of wood, or a person's palm (’763 Patent, col. 5:18-26). The system generates an image signal from this scan, which a controller compares to a previously stored 'reference texture.' If the scanned texture matches the reference, the controller actuates the lock mechanism (’763 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-37).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a flexible and inexpensive security alternative by enabling nearly any object with a distinct, stable micro-texture to function as a unique 'key' (’763 Patent, col. 7:46-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not explicitly identify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference an unprovided exhibit containing claim charts (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’763 Patent recites the following essential elements:
  • scanning an object for at least one surface texture of the object;
  • generating at least one image signal indicative of the at least one surface texture;
  • comparing the at least one surface texture of the object indicated by the at least one image signal with a reference texture;
  • actuating the lock if the at least one surface texture of the object matches the reference texture;
  • wherein the comparison is performed at a 'micro-level' where the surface features are in a range of 5 to 500 microns.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional dependent or independent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to 'Exemplary Defendant Products' but does not name or describe any specific products, instead referencing charts in an 'Exhibit 2' that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided 'Exhibit 2' to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit is not available, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the 'Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '763 Patent' and 'satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '763 Patent Claims' (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: Given the absence of identified products, a threshold question is what specific products are accused and what technical evidence will be offered to demonstrate that they perform the steps of the asserted claims.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether any accused product, once identified, performs a comparison of physical surface features at the specific 'micro-level' claimed in the patent (i.e., in the range of 5 to 500 microns), as this is a specific quantitative limitation of the asserted independent claim (’763 Patent, col. 8:1-3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: 'surface texture'

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's inventive concept. Its construction will define the types of physical characteristics that can be considered an infringing feature. The dispute will likely focus on what kind of scanned data qualifies as a 'surface texture' versus other forms of biometric or object identification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term generally as "variations in the height and/or depth of various features on the surface at a micro-level" (’763 Patent, col. 2:40-44) and provides a wide range of examples for the object source, including a rock, body part, wood, or plastic (’763 Patent, col. 5:19-21).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly tie the term to a 'micro-level' and, in claim 1, explicitly quantify this as a feature-depth range of 5 to 500 microns (’763 Patent, col. 8:1-3). This numeric range could be argued to narrow the scope of what constitutes a 'surface texture.'

Term: 'object'

• Context and Importance: This term defines the scope of items that can serve as the 'key.' The breadth of this term is important, as the patent distinguishes itself from prior art limited to specific items like human eyes (’763 Patent, col. 1:53-56).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "nearly any object 14 or objects to be used" is enabled by the invention (’763 Patent, col. 7:35-37) and lists diverse examples (’763 Patent, col. 5:19-21), suggesting a broad and flexible meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also notes that the object's micro-textured surface should be one that is "not substantially altered over time or as a result of normal wear and tear" (’763 Patent, col. 5:27-29), which could be used to argue for the exclusion of certain types of objects.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes 'product literature and website materials' that instruct end users to operate 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 (unprovided) claim charts constitutes 'actual knowledge' and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: The most immediate issue stems from the complaint's vagueness. A primary question for the early stages of the case will be whether the Plaintiff can provide sufficient factual and technical evidence to identify specific accused products and plausibly allege how their specific functionalities map onto the limitations of the asserted claims.
• Technical Scope: Assuming specific products are identified, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the accused technology's method of sensing and authenticating fall within the patent's specific claim language, particularly the requirement to compare a 'surface texture' at a 'micro-level' defined as 5 to 500 microns?