Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Go Green Mobile Power LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Go Green Mobile Power, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Budo Law P.C.; RABICOFF LAW LLC
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01351, C.D. Cal., 02/11/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is incorporated in California, maintains an established place of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable solar light tower products infringe two patents related to the design and operation of such systems.
• Technical Context: The patents concern portable, solar-powered lighting systems, which serve as renewable energy alternatives to traditional diesel-powered generators used for temporary, remote, or nighttime illumination at locations such as construction sites.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 9,428,100 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,733,963. Consequently, both patents share the same specification, drawings, and priority date, suggesting a close technological relationship, with potential differences focused on the scope of the claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,733,963

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,733,963, "Portable solar light tower," issued May 27, 2014 (’963 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the high and volatile cost of diesel fuel required to run conventional generators for portable lighting systems, such as those used for nighttime road construction (’963 Patent, col. 1:20-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, portable light tower mounted on a trailer. It uses one or more solar panels to charge an onboard battery bank, which in turn powers high-output LED floodlights (’963 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed for transportability, featuring a telescoping tower that can be lowered and solar panels that can be folded into a protected, vertical position for travel and then unfolded to a horizontal position for charging (’963 Patent, col. 2:14-24).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a portable lighting solution that is quiet, produces no emissions, and utilizes a renewable energy source, offering an alternative to systems dependent on fossil fuels (’963 Patent, col. 1:40-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least those identified in an exhibit incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A substantially horizontal portable base plate that is part of a trailer.
  • First and second solar panels coupled to opposite sides of the base plate.
  • A light coupled to the base plate.
  • The solar panels are configured to be in a "substantially vertical orientation" in a closed position and "rotatable to a substantially horizontal orientation" in an open position.
  • In the closed position, the solar panels "face inward toward the trailer."
  • The solar panels "fold out over fenders of the trailer."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 9,428,100

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,428,100, "Portable solar light tower," issued August 30, 2016 (’100 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation with a shared specification, the ’100 Patent addresses the same problem of costly diesel-powered lighting for applications like nighttime construction (’100 Patent, col. 1:25-33).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is identical in concept to that of the ’963 Patent: a trailer-based, solar-powered light tower with a foldable mast and deployable solar panels for charging onboard batteries (’100 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:36-47).
• Technical Importance: The technical importance is the same as described for the ’963 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims identified in an exhibit incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A portable base that is part of a trailer.
  • A plurality of solar panels coupled to the base.
  • A light coupled to the base.
  • The plurality of solar panels "fold out over fenders of the trailer."
  • At least one solar panel is "rotatable from a horizontal position to a substantially vertical position, wherein the substantially vertical position faces inward toward the trailer."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Go Green Products" (Compl. ¶¶13, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide a self-contained technical description of the accused products or their market position. Instead, it alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents and incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary... Claims to the Exemplary Go Green Products" (Compl. ¶¶19, 29). These charts, designated as Exhibits 3 and 4, were not filed with the complaint. Based on the subject matter of the patents, the accused products are presumably portable solar-powered lighting towers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not provided with the publicly filed document; therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s infringement theory is that Defendant’s "Go Green Products" directly infringe the patents-in-suit by making, using, selling, or importing products that satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶13, 23). The specific, element-by-element mapping of accused product features to claim limitations is contained within the non-public Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶19, 29).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The claims of both patents recite specific structural and kinematic limitations. For example, ’963 Patent claim 1 requires solar panels to rotate from a "substantially vertical" closed position to a "substantially horizontal" open position. Conversely, ’100 Patent claim 1 requires rotation from a "horizontal position to a substantially vertical position." The analysis may raise the question of whether the accused product's mechanism for storing and deploying its solar panels meets these precise, and seemingly distinct, descriptions of movement and orientation.
• Technical Questions: Both asserted independent claims require the solar panels to "fold out over fenders of the trailer." A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products have structures that function as "fenders" and that the solar panels move "over" them in the manner contemplated by the patents. The physical operation and geometry of the accused device's deployment mechanism will be central to this inquiry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "fold out over fenders of the trailer" (appears in ’963 Patent, cl. 1; ’100 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes a specific spatial relationship between the solar panels and the trailer chassis during deployment. Its construction is critical because infringement may depend on whether the accused product's panels move into a position that can be characterized as "over" the trailer's "fenders." Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the claimed action to specific structural features of the trailer base.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term does not require the panels to be directly above the fenders, but rather to extend laterally outward from the trailer body in the general area of the wheels, consistent with deploying for use (’963 Patent, col. 4:14-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 8, depict the solar panels (106) folded down into a horizontal plane that is physically above the location of the wheels and fenders (108) (’963 Patent, Fig. 8). This embodiment may be used to argue that the term requires the panels to be positioned directly above the fenders.

• The Term: "substantially vertical orientation" (’963 Patent, cl. 1) / "substantially vertical position" (’100 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the storage or closed state of the solar panels. The dispute will likely involve the degree of verticality required to meet the "substantially" qualifier and whether the accused product’s storage configuration achieves this.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "substantially" is a term of degree, suggesting that an exact 90-degree vertical orientation is not required. Any upright or near-vertical storage position that protects the panels as described in the specification could be argued to fall within the claim scope (’963 Patent, col. 4:8-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the panels folding "up to a vertical (or closed) position for transport" (’963 Patent, col. 4:17-18). A party might argue this implies a position that is functionally vertical to minimize the transport profile and protect the panel faces, potentially excluding significantly angled storage positions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant's sale of the products along with "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to operate them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶16-17, ¶¶26-27). The contributory infringement allegation asserts that the accused products "are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶¶18, 28).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its service provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of the patents and that any subsequent infringement is therefore intentional (Compl. ¶¶15-16, ¶¶25-26). This establishes a basis for post-filing willfulness. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could permit recovery of attorney fees (Compl. p. 7).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural and kinematic infringement: The asserted claims recite highly specific mechanical configurations and motions for the solar panels (e.g., rotating between "substantially vertical" and "substantially horizontal" positions, and "folding out over fenders"). The case will likely turn on whether the accused product’s deployment mechanism performs these exact geometric and motion-based functions or if there is a material difference in its structure or operation.
• A second central issue will be one of claim differentiation and scope: The ’100 Patent issued from a continuation of the ’963 Patent application, yet their respective independent claims describe the panel rotation differently. A key question for the court will be to construe these limitations and determine if they cover different scopes of infringing activity, and whether the accused product falls within one, both, or neither of these scopes.
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff presents to meet its burden. As the complaint’s infringement allegations are contained entirely within non-public exhibits, the case will depend on the evidence produced during discovery to show that the accused products' physical operations align with the detailed claim limitations.