1:26-cv-00766
InVue Security Products Inc v. Indyme Solutions LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: InVue Security Products Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: Indyme Solutions, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Shaw Keller LLP
- Case Identification: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Indyme Solutions, LLC, 1:26-cv-00766, D. Del., 06/29/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Indyme Solutions, LLC, is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its LIVE Locks product line and OneKEY app do not infringe three of Defendant's patents related to systems for providing self-service access to locked retail merchandise.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the retail industry's challenge of securing high-value merchandise from theft while still allowing convenient access for legitimate customers to prevent lost sales.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this action arises from a dispute initiated by Defendant, including communications to Plaintiff's customer (Walmart) about an RFP process, a formal notice letter alleging infringement sent on June 1, 2026, and an in-person approach of Plaintiff's employees at a trade show. The complaint also notes that Defendant is engaged in a "parallel enforcement campaign" against a third party, Darko Inc., involving the same patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-07-26 | Priority Date for '694 and '910 Patents |
| 2022-01-01 | InVue launches its LIVE Locks product line (approximate date) |
| 2022-05-20 | Priority Date for '661 Patent |
| 2024-03-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,928,694 Issued |
| 2024-03-01 | Indyme contacts Walmart regarding RFP process (approximate date) |
| 2024-03-22 | InVue sends cease and desist letter to Indyme |
| 2024-04-02 | Indyme responds to InVue's letter |
| 2025-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 12,271,910 Issued |
| 2025-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 12,417,661 Issued |
| 2025-10-29 | Indyme files suit against Darko Inc. |
| 2026-06-01 | Indyme sends formal notice letter to InVue |
| 2026-06-09 | Indyme counsel approaches InVue employees at NRF Protect Expo |
| 2026-06-15 | InVue sends response letter to Indyme |
| 2026-06-29 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,928,694 - System providing self-service access to locked merchandise
- Issued: March 12, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "universal paradox in retail stores" where protecting merchandise from theft by locking it up inconveniences legitimate shoppers, leading to significant lost sales that can exceed the savings from theft prevention '694 Patent, col. 1:21-26 '694 Patent, col. 2:1-6
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that grants self-service access to locked fixtures by uniquely identifying a shopper, assessing their behavior during access, and storing this data in a database. An algorithm then uses this information, such as by generating a "trusted shopper score," to determine future access privileges, thereby balancing convenience for legitimate shoppers with security against theft '694 Patent, abstract '694 Patent, col. 3:1-15
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to eliminate the fundamental trade-off between loss prevention and sales preservation by enabling automated, differentiated access based on shopper behavior.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 ('694 Patent, Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A merchandise fixture which restricts access to merchandise.
- Receiving personal identifying information of an individual attempting to access the merchandise.
- Automatically enabling access to the merchandise, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as a user interface for entering or receiving information.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement of other claims, including dependent claims 2-39 ('694 Patent, Compl. ¶25; '694 Patent, Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,910 - System providing self-service access to locked merchandise
- Issued: April 8, 2025
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its related patent, the '910 Patent addresses the conflict between securing merchandise and the negative impact on sales and customer experience caused by the inconvenience of requiring store associate assistance '910 Patent, col. 1:22-43
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where access is predicated on a user "opting in" to the system. It involves providing a database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method, receiving identifying information from a person seeking access, authenticating that the person is in the opt-in database, and then automatically enabling access to the locked merchandise '910 Patent, claim 1 The system may also use sensors to detect user behavior after access is granted '910 Patent, claim 40
- Technical Importance: This approach formalizes a quid pro quo, where shoppers explicitly trade personal data for the convenience of unfettered access, creating a pre-vetted pool of users.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 40 ('910 Patent, Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- Providing a merchandise display with locked merchandise.
- Providing a database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method.
- Receiving personal identifying information correlated to the opt-in data.
- A means of authenticating the individual is in the database.
- Automatically enabling access for authenticated individuals.
- Independent Claim 40 adds a further limitation of "providing at least one sensor for detecting behavior of an individual interacting with merchandise."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement of other claims, including dependent claims 2-39 ('910 Patent, Compl. ¶30; '910 Patent, Compl. ¶31).
U.S. Patent No. 12,417,661 - Theft deterring product display
- Issued: September 16, 2025
Technology Synopsis
The patent describes a system where a user requests access to a locked display by scanning a code (e.g., a QR code) with their device, which directs them to a web portal '661 Patent, col. 14:3-12 The user enters identifying information, such as a phone number, and in return receives a unique digital key via the portal or a text message. This key is then presented to a reader on the display to unlock it '661 Patent, col. 14:13-18 The system is architected around an "access cloud" that manages authentication and key generation, which may reduce the need for a dedicated mobile app or a persistent internet connection at the retail fixture itself '661 Patent, abstract '661 Patent, col. 2:21-30
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 10, and 18 Compl. ¶¶36, 38
Accused Features
Plaintiff alleges its products do not infringe because they do not "require a user to input a phone number in order to request the unique digital key" or provide the key "upon receiving the phone number via the web portal" Compl. ¶36 This points to a dispute over the specific workflow for user identification and key delivery.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Plaintiff's "LIVE Locks product line" and the associated "OneKEY app" Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶15
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the LIVE Locks as a "family of digital smart locks that integrate with InVue's management software" Compl. ¶10 Plaintiff InVue is positioned as a "global provider of intelligent hardware and software technology for retail asset protection, access control, and loss prevention" Compl. ¶10 The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of how the accused products operate. Instead, it makes conclusory statements about what the products do not do in relation to the patent claims Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶36
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
11,928,694 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| automatically enabling access to the merchandise, wherein the individual utilizes a mobile device as a user interface for entering information into the system or receiving information from the system. | Plaintiff alleges its accused products do not practice this element because they do not involve a "mobile device" and an individual does not "utilize a mobile device as a user interface." | ¶24 | col. 20:40-46 |
12,271,910 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method. | Plaintiff alleges its accused products do not practice or include this element of the claim. | ¶30 | col. 19:49-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The non-infringement theories presented in the complaint are conclusory and raise immediate questions of claim scope. For the '694 patent, the dispute may center on whether the "OneKEY app" or its associated hardware qualifies as a "mobile device as a user interface" under a proper construction of that term Compl. ¶24 For the '910 patent, the core question is whether Plaintiff's system maintains or uses a "database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method" as required by the claim Compl. ¶30
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details about the accused products' actual operation. A key factual question will be what user interface and data architecture the LIVE Locks and OneKEY app system actually employs. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the merits of the non-infringement arguments.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"mobile device as a user interface" ('694 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's non-infringement argument for the '694 patent is based entirely on the assertion that its products do not use a "mobile device" or a "mobile device as a user interface" Compl. ¶24 The construction of this term is therefore dispositive for this patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "smart phone App's, and cell phones" as means for identifying an individual, and claim 1 itself refers to a "mobile device carried by individuals" '694 Patent, col. 3:34-35 '694 Patent, col. 20:41-42 This language may support an interpretation that covers a wide range of portable electronic devices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses using a "shopper's smart phone" to potentially "unlock a fixture from a remote location," which may suggest the term refers to a consumer's personal, general-purpose device rather than a proprietary, special-purpose tool provided by the store or the system vendor '694 Patent, col. 7:14-17 Practitioners may focus on this term because if InVue's "OneKEY" system relies on a proprietary handheld device for store associates or customers, its classification as a "mobile device" in the context of the patent will be a central issue.
"database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method" ('910 Patent, claims 1, 40)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's non-infringement defense for the '910 patent hinges on the absence of this feature Compl. ¶30 The definition of what constitutes an "opt-in" and a "database" for the purposes of the claim will be critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that authentication methods are accessed on an "opt-in basis" and that an alternative implementation might "require shoppers to register or 'opt-in' to the system (e.g., via a loyal shopper program...)" '910 Patent, col. 4:50-52 '910 Patent, col. 11:13-16 This could support a broad reading where any form of user registration for the service qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly ties the concept to formal databases like a "Registered Loyal Shoppers Database" or a "Known Offender Database" '910 Patent, col. 12:55-56 '910 Patent, col. 13:1-2 This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, formally established database created for the specific purpose of managing self-service access, rather than a general list of users.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
Defendant's June 1, 2026 notice letter alleged that Plaintiff's products "directly and indirectly infringe" the patents-in-suit Compl. ¶15 In response, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe "whether directly or indirectly, under any theory of induced or contributory infringement" Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶41 The complaint does not plead specific facts concerning indirect infringement allegations beyond referencing Defendant's notice.
Willful Infringement
This allegation is not applicable, as this is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement brought by the accused infringer.
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on claim construction and a subsequent factual analysis of the accused products' architecture. The key questions for the court will likely be:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mobile device as a user interface," as used in the '694 patent, be construed to cover the specific hardware and software interface of Plaintiff's LIVE Locks and OneKEY system? The answer may depend on whether the system uses a consumer's personal device or a proprietary tool.
A second central question will be one of factual architecture: does Plaintiff's system in fact create, maintain, or use a "database of individuals who have opted into the self-service method" as required by the '910 patent? This is a fact-intensive inquiry into the technical operation of the accused products that is not detailed in the complaint.
A third issue will be one of procedural mechanics: does the accused system's method for granting access mirror the specific sequence claimed in the '661 patent, particularly regarding the use of a phone number to trigger the delivery of a digital key via a web portal? The complaint's targeted denial suggests a dispute over this precise workflow.