Scanning Technologies Sues RFgen in Sacramento Over Six Barcode Look-Up Patents.

The parties and the court

The case is Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. The DataMAX Software Group, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03605 (E.D. Cal.), assigned to District Judge Dena M. Coggins and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. The complaint was first docketed as No. 2:26-at-01920. The complaint says Scanning Technologies is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and that it owns the six patents by assignment, including the right to recover for past, present, and future infringement. It alleges, on information and belief, that DataMAX is a California corporation with its principal place of business in El Dorado Hills, California, in this district, and that DataMAX does business as RFgen Software. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b). The complaint cites In re BigCommerce, Inc., 890 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and says DataMAX resides in the district because it is incorporated in California and has its principal place of business there. It invokes Local Rule 120(d) and says the action is properly commenced in Sacramento because that place of business is in El Dorado County. Subject matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

The patents

All six patents are titled Systems and methods for indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce. The complaint says they descend by continuation from Application No. 13/405,246, filed February 25, 2012, and share a specification. U.S. Patent 8,469,270 issued June 25, 2013. It has 28 claims, with independent claims 1, 13, and 19. The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, including at least claims 1 and 13, and says the claims expired on June 25, 2025. U.S. Patent 9,053,498 issued June 9, 2015. It has 20 claims, with independent claims 1, 9, and 14. The complaint alleges infringement of at least claims 1 and 9, and says the claims expired on July 17, 2023.

U.S. Patent 9,466,078 issued October 11, 2016. It has 16 claims, with independent claims 1, 7, and 12. The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 7 and gives February 25, 2032, as the nominal expiration date. U.S. Patent 9,934,528 issued April 3, 2018. It has 21 claims, with independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 17. The complaint alleges infringement of at least claims 7 and 17, and says the claims expired on May 11, 2026. U.S. Patent 10,600,101 issued March 24, 2020. It has 21 claims, with independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 17. The complaint alleges infringement of at least claims 1 and 7 and gives February 25, 2032, as the nominal expiration date. U.S. Patent 12,380,473 issued August 5, 2025, and the complaint attaches a certificate of correction issued October 7, 2025. The complaint says the certificate corrected claim 1 by cancelling the word "without" at column 12, line 30, and it asserts claim 1 as corrected for infringement on and after October 7, 2025. It has four claims, with independent claim 1. The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 and gives February 25, 2032, as the nominal expiration date. Google Patents lists the '078, '101, and '473 patents as active, with the same February 25, 2032, anticipated expiration.

What the lead patents cover

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,469,270 covers a system for indicating an existence of a link to information pertaining to an article of commerce. The system includes a mobile phone with a portable handheld housing, a communication interface for a communication network, a signal processing device, and a visual input device affixed in the housing, plus a local database. A server database stores a look-up table of Universal Product Code numbers and information link indicators. Each information link indicator is a status signal indicating the existence or absence of a link to information about the article, made via the communication network. The mobile phone downloads the look-up table when it is not being used for voice communication and stores the table in the local database. The visual input device scans a UPC symbol and decodes a UPC number. The signal processing device looks up that number in the local table to determine, from the information link indicator, whether a link exists, and it makes that determination without accessing the communication network. Claim 13 covers the corresponding method, including downloading and storing the look-up table when the mobile phone is not being used for voice communication, scanning and decoding a UPC symbol, and looking up the UPC number without accessing the communication network.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,053,498 covers a system built on a mobile device rather than a mobile phone alone, and on identification codes rather than Universal Product Code numbers. A visual input device captures an image of an article of commerce and decodes the image to obtain an identification code. A signal processing device looks up that code in a look-up table stored in a local database and determines, from an information link indicator, whether a link exists, without accessing the communication network. Claim 9 covers the method, including downloading the look-up table when the mobile device is not being used for voice communication, capturing and decoding the image, and looking up the identification code without accessing the communication network.

Claim 7 of U.S. Patent 9,466,078 covers a method that downloads a look-up table of identification codes and information link indicators when the mobile device is not being used for voice communication, captures an image with a visual input device, decodes an identification code, and looks up that code to determine whether information is accessible via the communication network, without accessing the communication network.

What the complaint alleges

The accused instrumentalities are the MobileEdge Suites of barcode-driven mobile applications, the RFgen Mobile Client on which those applications run, including versions offered through the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store, and the RFgen Mobile Unity Platform server software with which the applications communicate. The complaint alleges customers use them to scan barcodes on inventory items. It alleges the platform is designed to operate offline, and it quotes DataMAX materials that say "RFgen powered apps to run, both online and offline, regardless of operating system and device," and that describe synchronizing database tables to the mobile device. It alleges, on information and belief, that an online scan accesses enterprise information on the RFgen Mobile Unity Platform.

For the '270, '498, and '528 patents, the complaint alleges, on information and belief, infringement before expiration, including direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) when DataMAX personnel combined and operated the applications on a device under DataMAX's control while developing, testing, demonstrating, and supporting them. For the '078, '101, and '473 patents, it alleges, on information and belief, continuing direct infringement in the same internal use (for the '473 patent, on and after October 7, 2025), and induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) by supplying the applications and instructing customers to install and operate them, including offline. It alleges knowledge of those three patents at least as of service of the complaint, and specific intent or willful blindness. The complaint cites 35 U.S.C. 286 and Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011), for the point that an expired patent can support an action for past damages. It alleges compliance with 35 U.S.C. 287. Claim charts are attached as exhibits and incorporated by reference.

Relief requested

The prayer asks for judgment on all counts, an injunction against further infringement of U.S. Patents 9,466,078, 10,600,101, and 12,380,473, or in the alternative a running royalty from judgment forward, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, a declaration that the case is exceptional and attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs. Scanning Technologies demands a jury under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. Counsel are Stephen M. Lobbin of SML Avvocati P.C. and, with pro hac vice anticipated, René A. Vazquez of DNL Zito.

What it means

The complaint says the claims of the '270, '498, and '528 patents are expired, and it cites 35 U.S.C. 286 and Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011), for past damages on an expired patent. The prayer asks for an injunction, or in the alternative a running royalty, only as to the '078, '101, and '473 patents, and it asks for damages under 35 U.S.C. 284. The lead claims require a look-up that uses an information link indicator to determine whether a link exists or whether information is accessible, and they require that determination without accessing the communication network. Inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) is pleaded on the '078, '101, and '473 patents.

What to watch next

Watch for service on DataMAX and its answer or a Rule 12 motion. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.