Multimodal LLC v. Koninklijke Philips NV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00458, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and has caused harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products from Defendant infringe a patent related to an object-recognition lock system that uses an object's surface texture as a key.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns biometric and object-based security systems, using optical scanning of micro-textures to grant or deny physical access, as an alternative to traditional keys or combination locks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763, "Object-recognition lock," issued May 16, 2006.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the drawbacks of conventional security locks. Key-operated locks require physical keys that can be lost or copied, and spare keys are often hidden in obvious places (’763 Patent, col. 1:26-36). Combination locks can be "picked," and the combination must be changed if compromised (’763 Patent, col. 1:37-46). Existing pattern-recognition systems were described as expensive and limited in the patterns they could identify, such as only human eyes (’763 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a lock system that uses any common object with a unique surface texture (e.g., a rock, a key, a finger) as its "key" (’763 Patent, col. 5:18-25). The system comprises a scanner that generates an image signal of the object's "micro-textured surface," a controller that compares this texture to a pre-stored reference texture, and a lock assembly that actuates when the textures match (’763 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system operates by analyzing variations in the height and depth of surface features at a microscopic level, specifically within a 5 to 500 micron range (’763 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology proposes a flexible and inexpensive security method that eliminates the need for traditional keys and allows a user to designate almost any unique physical object as a key, including temporary ones (’763 Patent, col. 7:31-40).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). The patent's lead independent claims are method claim 1 and apparatus claim 8.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • 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
    • actuating the lock if the object's surface texture matches the reference texture
    • wherein the comparison occurs at a "micro-level in which depths of features of the surface texture and features of the reference texture are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns"
  • Independent Claim 8 (Apparatus):
    • a scanner for generating an image signal of an object's surface texture
    • a controller to determine the surface texture from the signal and compare it to a reference texture
    • a lock assembly, coupled to the controller, operable when the surface texture matches the reference texture
    • a user interface to establish and change settings for the controller
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices" made, used, or sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶11).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It does not, however, provide any technical description of how these products operate or what their specific functions are. The complaint also makes no allegations regarding the market context or commercial importance of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the general allegations in the complaint body. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and importing the accused products, and also by having its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific infringement allegations against claim elements.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific product information, the central disputes will likely focus on the fundamental applicability of the patent to whatever products are eventually accused.
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused products perform "surface texture" recognition as claimed. Practitioners may question if a product that, for example, reads a QR code, barcode, or other engineered pattern falls within the scope of a patent that describes scanning the "micro-textured surface" of objects like rocks, wood, or a human palm (’763 Patent, col. 5:20-22).
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary hurdle will be demonstrating that any accused scanning technology operates at the specific "micro-level" required by the claims, i.e., detecting surface feature variations "in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns" (’763 Patent, col. 8:1-3). The complaint provides no facts to suggest the accused products perform this specific function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "surface texture... at a micro-level"
• Context and Importance: This term, and its explicit definition, is the core of the invention and appears in the patent's independent claims (e.g., Claim 1). The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the accused products can be shown to analyze surface features within the specific dimensional range defined by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its narrow, numerical definition could be a significant barrier to proving infringement if the accused products operate on a different scale or principle.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a wide variety of examples for the "key" object, including "a rock or stone, a body part (e.g., an elbow, palm, or finger), wood, metal, or plastic objects" (’763 Patent, col. 5:20-22). A party might argue this broad list suggests the term should not be limited to only naturally occurring textures, but any surface with sufficient microscopic irregularity.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves provide a strict, numerical limit. Claim 1 requires comparing features where the "depths... are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns" (’763 Patent, col. 8:1-3). The specification repeatedly uses this range, describing "micro-textured surface 32" as comprising "very small ridges and valleys (e.g., generally in the range of about 5 µm to 500 µm)" (’763 Patent, col. 4:8-10). This explicit numeric range provides strong evidence for a narrow construction tied to these specific dimensions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement based on the filing of the complaint itself. It asserts that Defendant "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" at least since being served with the complaint and its associated claim charts (Compl. ¶15). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The central question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the yet-unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually perform the specific functions required by the patent. The case will depend on whether discovery reveals that Defendant's products employ a scanner and controller to analyze the physical micro-topography of an object's surface.
2. Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be the construction of "surface texture... at a micro-level." The outcome may hinge on whether Defendant's technology, whatever it may be, can be shown to operate within the narrow 5-to-500-micron dimensional range explicitly defined in the patent's claims and specification.
3. Pleading Adequacy: Given the absence of named products or specific factual allegations of infringement beyond incorporating an unfiled exhibit, an initial question for the court may be whether the complaint meets the plausibility standards for pleading patent infringement established by the Supreme Court in Iqbal/Twombly and subsequent Federal Circuit case law.