DCT
2:19-cv-09486
Pilot Inc v. Aukey Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pilot, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Aukey Technology Co, Ltd. and Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sheridan Ross P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-09486, C.D. Cal., 11/04/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having committed acts of infringement in the district and regularly conducting business there through an established distribution chain, including online retailers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Tacklife brand of portable automobile jump starters infringes a patent related to safety control circuitry that prevents improper or dangerous use.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety systems in portable, lithium-battery-based vehicle jump starters, a market segment where preventing electrical hazards like reverse polarity connections is a key feature.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. 10,046,653, is a continuation of an earlier patent. The complaint alleges Defendants were aware of and utilized the teachings of the patent family to design the accused products. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2021-00777, IPR2021-01232), which resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims. A disclaimer for claim 3, which was not asserted, was also filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-04-28 | Earliest Priority Date Claimed by ’653 Patent |
| 2014-09-01 | Plaintiff's "LIGHTNING Power Jump Starter" first delivered to customer |
| 2016-11-18 | ’653 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2016-12-20 | Issue Date of related U.S. Patent 9,525,297 |
| 2018-08-14 | ’653 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-11-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2021-04-07 | First IPR Petition Filed against ’653 Patent |
| 2024-10-01 | IPR Certificate Issued, cancelling asserted claims 7-11 and 17-20 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,046,653 - “Automobile Charger”
Issued August 14, 2018 (’653 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies risks associated with conventional automobile chargers, including their inability to automatically detect whether a load (like a car battery) is connected, whether it is connected with reverse polarity, or whether it has a reverse current, all of which can lead to damage or unsafe conditions (’653 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a charging device that uses a microcontroller as a central logic unit to manage power flow. The microcontroller receives input from a battery level detector (to check the charger’s own power) and a load detector (to check the connection to the car battery). Based on these inputs, it generates a signal to control switching circuitry, ensuring that power is only transferred from the portable charger to the vehicle battery when conditions are safe (’653 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This intelligent control is designed to prevent discharge if the cables are improperly connected or if other fault conditions are present (’653 Patent, col. 2:29-36).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for making compact, lithium-battery-based jump starters safer for consumers by building in automated checks to prevent common user errors like reversing the clamps on a car battery (’653 Patent, col. 2:7-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 7 (a device) and 17 (a method) (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 7 (device) requires:
- a battery level detector to detect a level of a first battery;
- a load detector to detect a type of connection of a load;
- a microcontroller to generate an output signal based on the level of the first battery and the type of connection of the load; and
- switching circuitry to selectively connect the first battery to the load based on the output signal.
- Independent Claim 17 (method) requires the steps of:
- detecting a level of a first power source;
- detecting a type of connection of a load;
- generating an output signal based on the level of the first power source and the type of connection of the load; and
- selectively connecting the first power source to the load based on the output signal.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 8-11 and 18-20 (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are various models of "Tacklife" brand portable jump starters, including the T6, T8, T8 MIX, T8 MAX, KP120, and KP200 (Compl. ¶26, Table 1).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are portable power packs with jumper cables designed to jump-start vehicles (Compl. ¶22). The complaint focuses on their "Smart" or "Intelligent" jumper cables, which are marketed as providing multiple safety protections, such as for reverse polarity, short circuits, and over-current (Compl. ¶¶24-25). Marketing materials, such as a graphic for the T6 model, explicitly list features like "Reverse Polarity Protection" and "Reverse Connection Protection" under the heading "SMART CLAMPS PROTECTION" (Compl. ¶25, p. 9). The products are alleged to use audio-visual indicators, such as flashing lights and beeps, to alert the user to both correct and incorrect connection states (Compl. ¶¶40-41).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’653 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a battery level detector to detect a level of a first battery; | The accused T6 product includes LED indicators on its housing that flash to depict the electrical power level of the internal lithium battery (the "first battery") when a power button is pressed (Compl. ¶34; Ex. D, p. 3). | ¶34 | col. 6:62-65 |
| a load detector to detect a type of connection of a load; | The "Smart" jumper cables feature audio-visual indicators that signal the connection status. For example, a flashing red light and beep indicate a reverse polarity connection, while a steady green light indicates a proper connection, thereby detecting the "type of connection" (Compl. ¶40-42). | ¶¶37, 42 | col. 5:58-65 |
| a microcontroller to generate an output signal based on the level of the first battery and the type of connection of the load; | An annotated photograph of the T6 product's internal circuit board identifies a microcontroller which allegedly receives information from the battery and load detectors and produces a corresponding output signal to control power flow (Compl. ¶48, p. 20). | ¶48 | col. 6:14-22 |
| and switching circuitry to selectively connect the first battery to the load based on the output signal. | The same circuit board photograph identifies a relay as the "switching circuitry." This relay allegedly permits or blocks the flow of power to the load based on the signal it receives from the microcontroller (Compl. ¶49, p. 20). | ¶49 | col. 6:36-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute would likely concern the scope of the term "a load detector to detect a type of connection of a load." The question is whether the accused products' ability to detect various conditions (e.g., correct polarity, reverse polarity, low vehicle battery voltage) falls within the meaning of "type of connection" as used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are based on external observation, marketing materials, and a visual inspection of the accused product's circuit board. A key technical question is whether the identified "microcontroller" actually performs the logic required by the claim—specifically, whether it generates its output signal based on an analysis of both the internal battery level and the external load connection status, or if these functions operate independently. This image from the T6 owner's manual illustrates the user-facing indicators alleged to result from this detection process (Compl. ¶41, p. 17).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "detect a type of connection of a load"
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on this term. The case may turn on whether "type of connection" is broad enough to encompass the various fault states (e.g., reverse polarity, short circuit) that the accused products detect, or if it is limited to a narrower set of conditions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the invention as solving problems including the inability to "automatically detect whether a load is connected, whether an electrode is connected with an automobile storage battery reversely," which supports interpreting "type of connection" to include at least these different states (’653 Patent, col. 1:19-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states more simply that the load detection module "detects whether the load module is correctly connected" (’653 Patent, col. 2:6-8). A defendant could argue this limits the "types" of connection to a binary "correct" or "incorrect" state, potentially narrowing the claim's scope.
The Term: "microcontroller"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the claims require it to perform a specific, multi-input logic function. The dispute could center on whether the accused device uses a general-purpose microcontroller programmed to perform this logic, or a simpler, hard-wired application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) that a defendant might argue does not meet the definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "microcontroller" without providing a special definition, suggesting its plain and ordinary meaning as a compact integrated circuit designed to govern a specific operation in an embedded system. The block diagram in Figure 1 shows it as a central control unit receiving multiple inputs and generating multiple outputs (’653 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links the microcontroller to a specific set of rules, such as closing all outputs when the battery voltage is below 9V and recovering when it is above 10V (’653 Patent, col. 4:24-27). A party could argue that the term should be construed as being limited to a device that performs this specific set of disclosed functions.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges facts that could support an inducement theory, stating that the user is "instructed in the Owner's Manual" to connect the device in a way that performs the patented method (Compl. ¶39).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willfulness based on two grounds. First, it alleges pre-suit willfulness, claiming that "Aukey was aware of Pilot's patents and their disclosure and utilized the teachings of the '653 patent...to design the Accused Tacklife Jump Starters" (Compl. ¶21). Second, it alleges knowledge will exist at least from the date of service of the complaint, supporting a claim for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold, and likely dispositive, issue is the impact of the subsequent IPR proceedings. Given that all asserted claims of the ’653 Patent were cancelled after the complaint was filed, the lawsuit may not be able to proceed unless that decision is successfully appealed and reversed.
- Should the claims be revived, the case would turn on a question of definitional scope: can the claim term "detect a type of connection of a load" be construed broadly to cover the multiple, distinct safety-check states (e.g., reverse polarity, short circuit, low voltage) advertised by the accused products, or is it limited to a narrower set of functions explicitly detailed in the patent’s embodiments?
- Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: does the accused product's internal circuitry, as depicted in the complaint's teardown photograph (Compl. ¶49, p. 20), actually function as claimed? Specifically, can the plaintiff prove that the identified microcontroller bases its output signal to the switching relay on a combined analysis of both the internal battery level and the external load connection status, as required by the patent's independent claims?