FedEx Supply Chain Logistics Electronics Inc v. Apkudo Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apkudo, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00396, N.D. Tex., 04/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas based on Defendant maintaining regular and established places of business in Coppell and Irving, Texas, where acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's device evaluation and reconditioning platform, which includes AI-powered robotics, infringes six patents related to RF testing fixtures, automated warehouse product picking, and the systematic removal and auditing of personal data from electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to the reverse logistics and processing of returned electronic devices, focusing on systems for automated, high-throughput testing, sorting, cosmetic inspection, and data sanitization.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between the parties, beginning with a 2019 subcontract agreement under which Defendant provided device processing automation services for Plaintiff's customer, T-Mobile. Plaintiff alleges that through this multi-year engagement, Defendant gained knowledge of Plaintiff's patented technologies which it now allegedly uses without authorization.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-11-05	Earliest Priority Date ('360 and '662 Patents)
2010-11-05	Earliest Priority Date ('973 and '923 Patents)
2014-01-01	T-Mobile agreement with Plaintiff's predecessor
2015-08-28	Priority Date ('239 Patent)
2015-12-04	Priority Date ('357 Patent)
2016-05-10	'360 Patent Issued
2016-05-17	'662 Patent Issued
2016-11-08	'357 Patent Issued
2017-02-21	'973 Patent Issued
2018-03-20	'923 Patent Issued
2018-06-12	'239 Patent Issued
2019-01-01	Plaintiff and Defendant execute subcontract agreement
2023-01-01	Supplement to subcontract executed
2026-04-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,335,360 - "Method for RF Testing Utilizing a Test Fixture," Issued May 10, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes radio frequency (RF) testing of wireless devices as "time consuming and difficult because of different antenna pattern radiation, antenna positioning within each wireless device, and the necessity of repeating testing for multiple wireless devices" '360 Patent, col. 1:41-45
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for RF testing that uses a physical "test fixture" '360 Patent, abstract The fixture has a base plate that receives an RF antenna, and the electronic device is positioned above this antenna for testing '360 Patent, abstract This standardized setup is intended to make testing more efficient, consistent, and accurate, particularly when testing multiple similar devices '360 Patent, col. 3:25-29
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a repeatable testing environment, which is valuable when tests must be reproduced by different parties, such as original equipment manufacturers and service providers, to verify compliance or communication failures '360 Patent, col. 3:39-45

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶45
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for performing radio frequency (RF) testing of an electronic device comprising:
  • receiving an RF antenna in a base plate of a test fixture;
  • positioning the electronic device above the RF antenna, with the device being a computing or telecommunications device for wireless communication; and
  • performing the RF testing.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the '360 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,341,662 - "Method for Performing RF Testing," Issued May 17, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like the related '360 Patent, this patent addresses the time and difficulty associated with consistently testing wireless devices that have varying antenna positions and radiation patterns '662 Patent, col. 1:33-37
• The Patented Solution: The invention builds on the test fixture concept by adding specific structural elements for alignment. The claimed method involves a base plate that "defines a grid of grooves," and uses "one or more guides" that connect to the base plate to secure the electronic device in a precise position above the RF antenna during testing '662 Patent, abstract '662 Patent, col. 4:51-58
• Technical Importance: The use of a grooved grid and guides enhances the repeatability and precision of device placement, which improves the consistency and efficiency of the testing regime across many devices '662 Patent, col. 3:18-22

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶59
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for performing RF testing of an electronic device comprising:
  • receiving an RF antenna in a base plate, wherein the base plate defines a grid of grooves;
  • receiving one or more guides for connection to the base plate for securing the electronic device above the RF antenna; and
  • securing the electronic device on the base plate to perform the RF testing utilizing the one or more guides.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the '662 Patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,487,357

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,487,357, "Method and Apparatus for Picking Products," issued November 8, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in manual warehouse product picking, where an employee must travel to a location, select a product, and transport it to a loading area '357 Patent, col. 1:20-25 The invention describes an automated apparatus, such as a robotic vehicle, that uses a "virtual stack" (a 3D representation of products) to guide a robotic arm in selecting products that have passed an inspection and arranging them into a corresponding physical stack '357 Patent, cl. 1
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶73
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "AI-powered robotics" and "Robotic Full Automation (RFA) line," which allegedly process large volumes of mobile devices automatically Compl. ¶¶38-39

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,575,973

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,575,973, "System and Method for Systematically Removing Customer Personal Information from an Electronic Device," issued February 21, 2017.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the privacy risks and legal compliance issues associated with personal data remaining on returned electronic devices '973 Patent, col. 1:43-56 The claimed solution is a method for "flashing" a device to remove customer private information (CPI), creating an "audit trail" of the removal, performing "trend analysis" on that trail to identify systemic issues, and "reconfiguring the flashing program" to improve its effectiveness based on those trends '973 Patent, cl. 1
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶87
• Accused Features: The complaint targets Defendant's "Device Passport Platform" and its associated device evaluation and reconditioning services, which involve processing and clearing data from returned devices Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶40

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,921,923

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,921,923, "Auditing Electronic Devices for Customer Personal Information," issued March 20, 2018.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses the need to ensure personal data is cleared from returned electronic devices '923 Patent, col. 1:35-43 It claims an "auditing device" comprising logic that uses a "plurality of libraries" to detect CPI, records detections in an "audit trail," performs "trend analysis" on the trail, and "adjust[s]" the libraries to more effectively remove CPI in the future based on that analysis '923 Patent, cl. 1
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶101
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "Device Passport Platform," which provides diagnostic and lifecycle records for evaluated devices Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶40

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,998,239

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,998,239, "Automated Radio Frequency Testing Management System," issued June 12, 2018.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for automated systems to manage electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing in a world with a "multitude of RF applications" '239 Patent, col. 1:48-50 The claimed invention is a management system comprising a central database to store testing data, a server to configure tests and retrieve results, and at least one test station with a controller that communicates with the database and an RF test set to perform automated testing '239 Patent, cl. 1
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶115
• Accused Features: The complaint targets Defendant's comprehensive device evaluation and reconditioning platform, which allegedly includes automated RF testing functionalities Compl. ¶38

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Apkudo's Device Passport Platform and AI-powered robotics as well as other device evaluation and reconditioning products and services" Compl. ¶38

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as a comprehensive, integrated solution for processing returned electronic devices Compl. p. 13 The "AI-powered robotics" are alleged to form a "Robotic Full Automation (RFA) line" capable of processing over 250 mobile devices per hour with minimal human interaction Compl. ¶39 A screenshot from Defendant's website depicts this automated line Compl. p. 14 The "Device Passport Platform" is described as a software component providing "real-time visibility and control" over assets and creating a "persistent, verifiable record of a device's entire lifecycle" Compl. ¶40 A screenshot of the platform's dashboard shows features for "Device Passport Insights" and "Diagnostics Results" for individual devices Compl. p. 15

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'360 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method for performing radio frequency (RF) testing of an electronic device comprising: receiving an RF antenna in a base plate of a test fixture;	Defendant's automated robotics line allegedly uses test fixtures that incorporate an RF antenna into a base plate to perform device evaluation.	¶45	col. 2:50-51
positioning the electronic device above the RF antenna, the electronic device being at least one of a computing device or telecommunications device configured for wireless communication; and	Defendant's robotics line automatically positions returned mobile devices, which are telecommunications devices, above the RF antenna within the test fixture.	¶39; ¶45	col. 2:52-54
performing the RF testing.	Defendant's device evaluation services, as part of its automated platform, perform RF testing on the positioned devices.	¶38; ¶45	col. 2:54-55

'662 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method for performing RF testing of an electronic device comprising: receiving an RF antenna in a base plate, wherein the base plate defines a grid of grooves;	Defendant's automated testing fixtures allegedly utilize a base plate that contains a grid of grooves for device alignment.	¶59	col. 5:29-31
receiving one or more guides for connection to the base plate for securing the electronic device above the RF antenna; and	Defendant's fixtures allegedly use guides connected to the base plate to precisely position the electronic devices being tested.	¶59	col. 4:55-58
securing the electronic device on the base plate to perform the RF testing utilizing the one or more guides.	Defendant's robotics line secures the mobile devices in the test fixtures using the guides to perform RF testing.	¶39; ¶59	col. 4:62-67

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of the RF testing patents based on "information and belief." A central point of contention will be what evidence Plaintiff possesses to demonstrate that Defendant's proprietary, internal robotic systems use the specific "base plate", "grid of grooves", and "guides" structures recited in the claims.
• Scope Questions: The patents-in-suit depict a standalone, manually-operated "test fixture". A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's integrated, high-throughput robotic processing cells fall within the scope of this term as it is used and described in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "test fixture" (from '360 and '662 Patents)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the RF testing patents. Its construction will be critical to determining whether Defendant's automated robotic testing cells, which are part of a larger industrial processing line, meet the claim limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the invention as a "universal test stand, platform, or fixture," which suggests the term is not limited to a single specific structure '360 Patent, col. 3:36-37
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a discrete, portable apparatus that appears designed for benchtop or semi-automated use, which could support an argument that the term is limited to such standalone devices and does not cover integrated cells in a larger automated system '360 Patent, FIG. 1

The Term: "grid of grooves" (from '662 Patent)

Context and Importance

This structural limitation is a key point of distinction for the '662 Patent. Infringement will depend on whether the physical structure of Defendant's testing apparatus meets this definition.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the gridlines as potentially being "vertical and horizontal grooves, rails, through holes, markings, or protrusions," suggesting the term could encompass a variety of physical alignment features, not just incised channels '662 Patent, col. 5:29-31
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict a clear cross-hatched pattern of physical grooves in the base plate '662 Patent, FIG. 1 A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this illustrated embodiment.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing the Accused Products and Services to customers who then directly infringe by using the systems (Compl. ¶42; Compl. ¶43). The allegations are supported by claims that Defendant provides "operational instructions, manuals, technical specifications, demonstrations, [and] training" that instruct customers on the infringing use Compl. ¶43

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations are made for all asserted patents. The complaint establishes a basis for potential pre-suit knowledge by alleging that Defendant learned of Plaintiff's "patented processes, systems, software, designs, [and] techniques" through a multi-year subcontract agreement that began in 2019 Compl. ¶¶13-14 For post-suit willfulness, the complaint alleges knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint" Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶69 Compl. ¶83 Compl. ¶97 Compl. ¶111 Compl. ¶125

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

• A central issue will be one of technical evidence: What proof, beyond "information and belief," can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the internal mechanics of Defendant's proprietary robotic automation line practice the specific "base plate", "grid of grooves", and "guide" structures claimed in the RF testing patents?
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "test fixture", which is described in the patents' specifications and figures as a standalone apparatus, be construed broadly enough to read on the integrated, high-speed processing cells within Defendant's fully automated industrial line?
• A key question for damages will be one of pre-suit knowledge: To what extent will the alleged technology transfer during the prior subcontracting relationship between the parties support a finding of willful infringement, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages?