DCT

4:26-cv-01100

Near Field Electronics LLC v. Finish Line Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:26-cv-1099, E.D. Tex., 08/19/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of Near Field Communication (NFC) components in its point-of-sale systems for contactless payments infringes five patents related to integrated circuit architecture, multi-protocol communication, and power management.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the design of versatile and efficient integrated circuits capable of managing different communication protocols and power states, which are fundamental to modern electronics like NFC payment terminals.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that four of the five asserted patents expired between 2021 and 2023. For these patents, Plaintiff seeks damages only for the period between August 19, 2020, and their respective expiration dates.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-06-21 '201 Patent Priority Date
2000-07-25 '071 Patent Priority Date
2000-08-28 '727 Patent Priority Date
2002-06-28 '350 Patent Priority Date
2004-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 Issued
2004-05-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Issued
2005-01-11 '531 Patent Priority Date
2005-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 Issued
2006-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 Issued
2008-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 Issued
2020-08-19 Start of Alleged Infringement Period
2021-11-21 '071 Patent Expiration
2022-01-31 '201 Patent Expiration
2022-04-14 '727 Patent Expiration
2023-08-12 '350 Patent Expiration
2026-03-19 '531 Patent Expiration
2026-08-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 - "Dual Mode USB-PS/2 Device"

  • Issued: February 10, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint states that conventional peripheral devices supporting multiple communication protocols, such as USB and PS/2, required additional external components, which increased cost, used more board space, and involved complex firmware that could compromise performance Compl. ¶11 '201 Patent, col. 1:28-49
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an integrated circuit for a peripheral device that can automatically select and operate in one of a plurality of signaling protocols using a single set of I/O pins Compl. ¶10 The circuit automatically selects the appropriate protocol mode (e.g., USB or PS/2) in response to the signaling of a connected bus, eliminating the need for extra components and simplifying the design '201 Patent, abstract '201 Patent, col. 2:51-56
  • Technical Importance: The invention offered a more integrated and cost-effective method for peripheral devices to achieve compatibility with multiple PC interface standards, thereby maximizing connectivity and simplifying hardware design '201 Patent, col. 1:24-27

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 Compl. ¶31
  • The essential elements of claim 14 are:
    • (A) detecting a signaling protocol of a bus connected to an integrated circuit that operates in a plurality of signaling protocols; and
    • (B) configuring said integrated circuit to communicate in one of said plurality of signaling protocols in response to said detected signaling protocol of said connected bus, wherein each of said selected protocols operate over said connected bus through a single set of pins.
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis Compl. ¶32

U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 - "Real-time I/O Processor Used to Implement Bus Interface Protocols"

  • Issued: May 25, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional bus interfaces were either protocol-specific, making them inflexible, or user-programmable in a limited way that was difficult to manage and insufficient for complex signaling protocols '071 Patent, col. 1:14-48
  • The Patented Solution: The complaint describes the invention as a real-time input/output (I/O) processor that acts as a master device to manage communication with external devices Compl. ¶15 The '071 patent achieves this with a programmable general-purpose interface (GPIF) having a limited instruction set capable of generating interface-specific waveforms and responding to external events in real-time, allowing control outputs and data path decisions to be changed each clock cycle (Compl. ¶15; Compl. ¶16, Compl. ¶¶col. 6:4-16).
  • Technical Importance: This programmable architecture provided a flexible and high-speed alternative to rigid, protocol-specific hardware, enabling a single design to support multiple or evolving bus protocols Compl. ¶16

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 15 Compl. ¶36
  • The essential elements of claim 15 are:
    • (A) reading an instruction; and
    • (B) performing one of a first instruction and a second instruction based on said instruction, wherein (i) said first instruction generates a plurality of first control signals to said external bus and (ii) said second instruction generates a plurality of second control signals in response to an input signal from said external bus.
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis Compl. ¶37

U.S. Patent No. 6,959,350 - "Configurable USB Interface With Virtual Register Architecture"

  • Issued: October 25, 2005
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges that conventional USB controllers required hard-coded endpoint configurations, which necessitated writing and maintaining different, error-prone HDL code for each controller version Compl. ¶¶19-20 The patented invention provides a configurable bus interface controller that uses an HDL-based configuration package to generate circuitry for different USB endpoints, allowing flexible configuration without requiring separate HDL code for each endpoint Compl. ¶¶19, 21
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 Compl. ¶41
  • Accused Features: The use of NFC Front-end components to perform the claimed method during contactless payment transactions Compl. ¶41

U.S. Patent No. 6,996,727 - "Power Supply for Universal Serial Bus Interface with Programmable Bus Pullup Resistor"

  • Issued: February 7, 2006
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint states that prior technology provided only a constant voltage supply with no low-power mode Compl. ¶25 The patent discloses a power supply architecture that operates in two modes: a standard mode and a power-down (standby) mode that significantly reduces current consumption by turning off the main supply while using a programmable resistor to maintain the necessary pullup function during idle states Compl. ¶24
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 Compl. ¶46
  • Accused Features: The use of NFC Front-end components to perform the claimed method during contactless payment transactions Compl. ¶46

U.S. Patent No. 7,373,531 - "Signal Detection Method, Frequency Detection Method, Power Consumption Control Method, Signal Detecting Device, Frequency Detecting Device, Power Control Consumption Device and Electronic Apparatus"

  • Issued: May 13, 2008
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for detecting signals and power status by monitoring the "through current" in a circuit Compl. ¶28 By applying an input signal to transistor gates and detecting whether a current flows, the device can determine the presence or state of the signal, which then allows for power consumption to be reduced by stopping or lowering the power supply Compl. ¶¶28-29
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 2 Compl. ¶51
  • Accused Features: The use of NFC Front-end components to perform the claimed method during contactless payment transactions Compl. ¶51

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "NFC Front-end components, including without limitation the NXP PN512 NFC Front-End," collectively termed the "Relevant Instrumentalities" Compl. ¶31

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these components are used by Defendant to "process contactless credit card payment transactions at a point of sale" Compl. ¶31 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant put these components into use in the regular course of its business operations Compl. ¶33 The allegations position the Accused Instrumentalities as integral components within Defendant's retail payment infrastructure, with functionality "materially similar" to the specified NXP component Compl. ¶31

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement analysis exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them in the filing Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶47 Compl. ¶52 The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

U.S. Patent No. 6,691,201 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities directly infringe at least claim 14 when used to process contactless payments Compl. ¶31 The infringement theory suggests that the accused NFC front-end (the "integrated circuit") detects the communication protocol of a contactless payment card (the "bus") and configures itself to communicate using that protocol over a single set of pins, thereby performing the steps of the claimed method Compl. ¶¶31, 33

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether the process of an NFC reader communicating with various types of contactless cards falls within the scope of "automatically selecting one of said plurality of signaling protocols." The defense may argue this term, as taught in the patent, is limited to distinct wired protocols like USB and PS/2, not variations within the NFC standard.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's theory presumes a sequence of "detecting" and then "configuring." An evidentiary question will be whether the accused NFC components actually perform these discrete steps in the claimed order during a payment transaction.

U.S. Patent No. 6,742,071 Infringement Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claim 15 when processing NFC payments Compl. ¶36 The narrative theory posits that the processor within the accused NFC front-end "read[s] an instruction" and, based on that instruction, performs one of two operations: either generating control signals to the external bus (e.g., to initiate communication with a card) or generating control signals in response to an input from the bus (e.g., data from the card), thus mapping to the claimed method steps Compl. ¶¶36, 38

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the general operation of the accused processor constitutes the specific architectural flow of claim 15. The defense could argue that the claim requires a specific decision-gate structure ("performing one of a first instruction and a second instruction") that is absent in the accused devices' more complex, general-purpose processing.
    • Technical Questions: A factual issue will be whether the instruction set and logic of the accused NFC components, such as the NXP PN512, align with the "first instruction" and "second instruction" as functionally defined in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from '201 Patent, claim 14: "plurality of signaling protocols"

    • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against the NFC-based accused products hinges on the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification is grounded in the context of switching between wired USB and PS/2 protocols. A narrow construction limited to such distinct, wired standards could present a challenge to the plaintiff's case, whereas a broader construction encompassing different modes or types within a wireless standard like NFC would support it.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to any specific protocols, referring generally to "a plurality of signaling protocols" '201 Patent, claim 14
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Dual Mode USB-PS/2 Device", and the background and detailed description focus exclusively on the technical problem and solution of integrating USB and PS/2 functionality '201 Patent, title '201 Patent, col. 1:15-27 '201 Patent, col. 2:36-42

  • Term from '071 Patent, claim 15: "reading an instruction"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the entry point for the claimed method, and its construction is critical for determining if the accused processor performs the claimed steps. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specialized I/O processor with a unique, limited instruction set, contrasting it with standard microprocessors. A narrow construction tying the term to this specific architecture could favor the defendant.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim phrase "reading an instruction" is facially broad and does not, on its own, specify the source or type of instruction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a "specialized input-output processor with two instructions" ("branch on signal" and "wait N clocks") and contrasts the invention with "standard microprocessor input/output systems" '071 Patent, col. 5:6-7 '071 Patent, col. 7:18-22 This context suggests that "reading an instruction" may refer to the operation of this specialized processor, not a general-purpose CPU.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for each asserted patent Compl. ¶¶31, 36, 41, 46, 51 It does not allege facts to support separate claims for induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, in the prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks a "declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees" Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the technological context of early 2000s wired computer peripherals (e.g., the '201 patent's "plurality of signaling protocols" for USB/PS/2) be construed to encompass the functionality of modern, general-purpose NFC transceivers used in retail payment systems?
  • A second key issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the operational logic of the accused commercial NFC components, such as the NXP PN512, map onto the specific, and in some cases highly specialized, processor architectures and method steps recited in the asserted claims (such as the two-instruction I/O processor of the '071 patent), or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical design?
  • Finally, a procedural question may arise regarding pleading sufficiency: given that the infringement allegations are made "upon information and belief" and supported by as-yet-unseen claim charts, the court may need to assess whether the narrative theories provide a plausible basis for infringement, particularly for patents with highly specific technical requirements.