THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH LTD., 

Defendant.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-630

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff files this complaint for patent infringement against defendant and alleges as 

follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with an office at 1 East Broward 

Boulevard, Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301.

2. Defendant Roche Diagnostics GMBH Ltd is a foreign entity to Texas. Upon 

information and belief, Defendant does business in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas, 

directly or through intermediaries.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et 

seq. Plaintiff is seeking damages, as well as attorney fees and costs. 

4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal 

Question) and 1338(a) (Patents). 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous 

and systematic business contacts with the State of Texas. Further, this Court has personal 

jurisdiction over Defendant based on its commission of one or more acts of infringement of Patents 

in this District and in the State of Texas.

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
Original Complaint 2

6. Defendant directly conducts business extensively throughout the State of Texas, by 

distributing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and advertising its services in the State of 

Texas and in this District. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily made its business services, 

including the infringing systems and services, available to residents of this District and into the 

stream of commerce with expectation and intention that they will be purchased and/or used by 

consumers in this District.

7. On information and belief, Defendant retains employees specifically in this District 

for the purpose of servicing customers in this District, and generates substantial revenues from its 

business activities in this District. 

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because, 

among other things, defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, as it is a 

foreign entity such that venue is proper in this District.

PATENTS-IN-SUIT

9. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, U.S. Patent No. 8,651,369 

(hereinafter “the ’369 Patent”), and 8,936,190 (collectively “the Symbology Patents”). The ’369

Patent is attached as Exhibit 1, and the ’190 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2.

10. The Symbology Patents are valid, enforceable, and were duly issued in full 

compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code.

11. Plaintiff possesses all rights of recovery under the Symbology Patents, including 

the exclusive right to recover for past, present and future infringement.

12. The inventor of the Symbology Patents, Mr. Leigh M. Rothschild, was Chairman 

and Chief Executive Officer of IntraCorp Entertainment, Inc., a consumer software company with 

worldwide product distribution. From October 1998 through February 2004, Mr. Rothschild was 

also Chairman and founder of BarPoint.com, a NASDAQ publicly traded wireless company that 

was the leader and early creator of connecting symbology, such as barcodes, to the Internet.

13. Mr. Rothschild chairs the Rothschild Family Foundation, which endows 

outstanding charities and institutions around the world.

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
Original Complaint 3

14. The ’369 Patent contains twenty-eight claims including three independent claims 

and twenty-five dependent claims.

15. The priority date of the ’369 Patent is at least as early September 15, 2010. As of 

the priority date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and nonroutine.

16. Plaintiff alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’369 Patent.

17. The Symbology Patents teach a system and method for enabling a portable 

electronic device to retrieve information about an object when the object’s symbology, e.g., a 

barcode, is detected. See ’369 Patent, Abstract. According to one embodiment a method is 

provided in which symbology associated with an object is detected and decoded to obtain a decode 

string. Id. The decode string is sent to one or more visual detection applications for processing, 

wherein the one or more visual detection applications reside on the portable electronic device, and 

receiving a first amount of information about the object from the one or more visual detection 

applications. Id.

18. As noted, the claims of the Symbology Patents have a priority date at least as early 

as September 15, 2010. The present invention allows for users to quickly and conveniently obtain 

information about an object utilizing a portable electronic device that detects symbology 

associated with the object. ’369 Patent, 1:55-60; 2:46-54.

19. The system(s) and methods of the Symbology Patents include software and 

hardware that do not operate in a conventional manner. For example, the software is tailored to 

provide functionality to perform recited steps and the hardware (e.g., portable electronic device)

is configured (and/or programmed) to provide functionality recited throughout the claims of the 

Symbology Patents.

20. The features recited in the claims in the Symbology Patents provide improvements 

to conventional hardware and software systems and methods. The improvements render the 

claimed inventions of the Symbology Patents non-generic in view of conventional components.

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
Original Complaint 4

21. The features and recitations in the claims of the Symbology Patents are not those 

that would be well-understood, routine, or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at the 

time of the invention.

22. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’369 Patent, 

the United States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art 

references found during the search: US 2007/0216226; US 2007/0291534; US 2008/0201310; US 

2009/0099961; US 2010/0280896; and US 2010/0280960.

23. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough 

search for all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the 

United States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’369 Patent to issue. In so doing, it 

is presumed that Examiner Trail used her knowledge of the art when examining the claims. K/S 

Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further presumed 

that Examiner Trail had experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner properly 

acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the ’369 Patent are novel and non-obvious,

including over all non-cited art which is merely cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. 

Likewise, the claims of the ’752 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited 

contemporaneous state of the art systems and methods, all of which would have been known to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art, and which were therefore presumptively also known and 

considered by Examiner Trail.

24. The claims of the ’369 Patent were all properly issued, and are valid and 

enforceable for the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable 

for purposes of seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics 

Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(“[A]n expired patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does 

have value beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an 

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
Original Complaint 5

action for past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations 

omitted).

25. The ’369 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Allyson 

Trail. During the examination of the ’369 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for 

prior art in the following US Classifications: 235/375; 235/379; 705/14.1; 709/39; and 709/80.

26. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’369 Patent, 

the United States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art 

references found during the search: US 2007/0216226; US 2007/0291534; US 2008/0201310; US 

2009/0099961; US 2010/0280896; and US 2010/0280960.

27. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough 

search for all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the 

United States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’369 Patent to issue. In so doing, 

it is presumed that Examiner Trail used her knowledge of the art when examining the claims. K/S 

Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further presumed 

that Examiner Trail had experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner properly 

acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the ’369 Patent are novel and non-obvious, 

including over all non-cited art which is merely cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. 

Likewise, the claims of the ’369 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited 

contemporaneous state of the art systems and methods, all of which would have been known to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art, and which were therefore presumptively also known and 

considered by Examiner Trail.

28. The claims of the ’369 Patent were all properly issued, and are valid and 

enforceable for the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable 

for purposes of seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics 

Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(“[A]n expired patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does 

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
Original Complaint 6

have value beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an 

action for past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations 

omitted).

29. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’369 Patent is no earlier than 

September 15, 2030.

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or 

otherwise provides QR codes associated with an application of Defendant (the “Accused 

Instrumentalities”), including ‘NAVIFY Pass’ mobile application, which infringes at least Claim 

1 of the ’369 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’190 Patent.

COUNT ONE

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,651,369) 

31. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs above, the same as 

if set forth herein. 

32. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in 

particular under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 

33. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’369 Patent (Exhibit 1), at least 

as of the service of the present complaint.

34. Accordingly, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, the ’369 Patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues 

to infringe one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’369 Patent by making, using, 

importing, selling, and/or offering for sale (as identified in the Claim Chart attached hereto as 

Exhibit 3) the Accused Instrumentalities.

35. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine 

of equivalents, one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’369 Patent, by having its 

employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
Original Complaint 7

36. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached Claim Chart

(Exhibit 3) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

37. Exhibit 3 includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 of the ’369

Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities. As set forth in this chart, the Accused Instrumentalities 

practice the technology claimed by the ’369 Patent. Accordingly, the Accused Instrumentalities 

incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of exemplary claim 1 of the ’369 Patent.

38. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim chart 

of Exhibit 3.

39. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement.

COUNT TWO

(Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,936,190) 

40. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs above, the same as 

if set forth herein. 

41. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in 

particular under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 

42. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’190 Patent (Exhibit 2), at least 

as of the service of the present complaint.

43. Accordingly, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, the ’190 Patent in 

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues 

to infringe one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’190 Patent by making, using, 

importing, selling, and/or offering for sale (as identified in the Claim Chart attached hereto as 

Exhibit 4) the Accused Instrumentalities.

44. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine 

of equivalents, one or more claims, including at least Claim 1, of the ’190 Patent, by having its 

employees internally test and use the Accused Instrumentalities.

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
Original Complaint 8

45. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached Claim Chart

(Exhibit 4) and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

46. Exhibit 4 includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary claim 1 of the ’190

Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities. As set forth in this chart, the Accused Instrumentalities 

practice the technology claimed by the ’190 Patent. Accordingly, the Accused Instrumentalities 

incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of exemplary claim 1 of the ’190 Patent.

47. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim chart 

of Exhibit 4.

48. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement.

49. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is 

enjoined by this Court. 

50. The ’190 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with 

Title 35 of the United States Code. 

51. A copy of the ’190 Patent, titled “System and Method for Presenting Information 

About an Object on a Portable Electronic Device,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

52. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Plaintiff and is 

liable for infringement of the ’190 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

53. Defendant has committed these acts of literal infringement, or infringement under 

the doctrine of equivalents of the ’190 Patent, without license or authorization.

54. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’190 Patent, injured Plaintiff has 

suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to 

compensate for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs. 

55. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

56. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any continuing and/or future 

infringement of the ’190 Patent up until the date that Defendant ceases its infringing activities.

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
Original Complaint 9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

57. Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by 

jury of any issues so triable by right.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to:

(a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all cases of action asserted herein;

(b) Enter an Order enjoining Defendant, its agents, officers, servants, employees, 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receives notice of 

the order from further infringement of Symbology Patents (or, in the alternative, awarding Plaintiff 

running royalty from the time judgment going forward);

(c) Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendants infringement in accordance with 

35 U.S.C. § 284;

(d) Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under law 

or equity.

Dated: December 27, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9