DCT
2:20-cv-07811
Quirky IP Licensing LLC v. Mary Elle Fashions Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Quirky IP Licensing, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mary Elle Fashions, Inc. d/b/a Meridian Electric Company (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hecht Partners LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-07811, C.D. Cal., 08/26/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Los Angeles and has engaged in acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s flexible power strip product infringes three utility patents and three design patents related to reconfigurable, multi-segment power strips.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations of conventional power strips, where bulky power adapters can obstruct adjacent outlets, by using pivoting segments to allow for flexible configurations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents all claim priority to a single parent application filed on April 27, 2011, which suggests a common inventive concept and a shared priority date across the patent family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-04-27 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2011-05-01 | Plaintiff's "Pivot Power" product first offered for sale |
| 2012-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,262,399 issues |
| 2012-09-25 | U.S. Patent No. D667,795 issues |
| 2013-03-12 | U.S. Patent No. D677,630 issues |
| 2013-09-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,529,289 issues |
| 2015-12-29 | U.S. Patent No. D746,234 issues |
| 2017-09-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,755,388 issues |
| 2020-08-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,262,399 - "Reconfigurable Plug Strip"
- Issued: September 11, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of conventional, rigid plug strips where outlets are fixed, causing bulky power adapters to obstruct adjacent outlets and limiting where the strip can be placed (’399 Patent, col. 1:10-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a power strip comprised of multiple, distinct housing segments that are coupled for pivotal movement. This modular and flexible design allows the strip to be bent into various shapes (e.g., circular or zigzag), which prevents outlet obstruction and allows it to fit around furniture or in tight spaces (’399 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-36; Fig. 2C-2D).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides enhanced flexibility and utility for a common consumer electronics accessory, increasing the number of usable outlets in practice (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying any particular claim (Compl. ¶27). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Key elements of Claim 1 include:
- A first housing segment containing a first live and a first neutral conductive connector.
- A second housing segment coupled to the first for pivotal movement, containing a second live and a second neutral conductive connector.
- The second live/neutral connectors having a portion in "slidable conductive engagement" with a corresponding portion of the first live/neutral connectors, allowing power transfer between the pivoting segments.
U.S. Patent No. 8,529,289 - "Reconfigurable Plug Strip"
- Issued: September 10, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’289 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’399 Patent, addresses the identical problem of outlet obstruction by large power adapters on fixed-orientation power strips (’289 Patent, col. 1:16-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention, as described in the ’289 Patent, is a power strip with pivotally connected housing segments. The claims of this patent focus more specifically on the mechanical structure of the pivot, describing one housing segment defining an "arcuate channel" and an adjacent segment having an "arcuate portion" disposed within that channel to facilitate the pivotal motion (’289 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:2-15).
- Technical Importance: This patent details a specific mechanical implementation for achieving the flexibility and reconfigurability of the power strip concept (Compl. ¶16, 18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶32). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Key elements of Claim 1 include:
- A first housing segment with a receptacle, "defining an arcuate channel."
- A second housing segment with a receptacle, including a "substantially arcuate portion disposed in the arcuate channel" to allow the second segment to pivot relative to the first.
- An electrical connection assembly defining a signal path between the receptacles and a signal port coupler.
U.S. Patent No. 9,755,388 - "Reconfigurable Plug Strip"
- Issued: September 5, 2017 (Compl. ¶12)
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’388 Patent addresses the same technical problem of outlet obstruction with a solution centered on pivotally connected housing segments. The claims recite specific mechanical and electrical features to enable this reconfigurability (’388 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶37).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the entirety of the Meridian Flexible Power Strip of infringing the ’388 Patent (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Design Patents D667,795, D677,630, and D746,234 - "Reconfigurable Plug Strip"
- Issued: Sep. 25, 2012; Mar. 12, 2013; Dec. 29, 2015 (Compl. ¶13-15)
- Technology Synopsis: These patents claim the ornamental designs for reconfigurable plug strips, protecting their specific visual appearance rather than their functional or structural features. The complaint includes figures from the '630 and '234 patents to illustrate the claimed designs (Compl. p. 12-13).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim of each design patent (Compl. ¶42, 47, 52).
- Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the Meridian Flexible Power Strip is alleged to infringe the claimed designs (Compl. ¶42, 47, 52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Meridian Flexible Power Strip" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a flexible power strip marketed with the phrase "Pivots Around Furniture And Hard To Reach Places" (Compl. ¶27). Visual evidence from the product's packaging shows a multi-segment power strip with four grounded AC outlets and two USB ports, advertised as a surge protector (Compl. p. 6). Another image from the packaging lists features including "4 Grounded Outlets," "2 USB Ports," and that it "Pivots Around Furniture And Hard To Reach Places" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint includes an image showing the product in its retail packaging, which depicts the device coiled into a semi-circular shape (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following summaries are based on the general allegations and visual evidence provided in the complaint.
’399 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first housing segment, said first housing segment having a first plug face including at least a first live receptacle... and a first neutral receptacle... | The accused product comprises multiple linked segments, each with a receptacle for a plug. | ¶21, 27; p. 6 | col. 13:8-14 |
| a second housing segment... said second housing segment coupled to said first housing segment for pivotal movement relative to said first housing segment | Adjacent segments of the accused product are visibly connected by a pivot, allowing the strip to bend and reconfigure. | ¶27; p. 6 | col. 13:30-32 |
| a second portion in slidable conductive engagement with said third portion of said first live conductive connector | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the internal mechanism for electrical transfer between segments. | ¶26-27 | col. 13:45-48 |
’289 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first housing segment having a first receptacle... the first housing segment defining an arcuate channel... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the internal mechanical structure of the pivot, such as an "arcuate channel." | ¶32 | col. 13:2-7 |
| a second housing segment having a second receptacle... the second housing segment... including a substantially arcuate portion disposed in the arcuate channel defined by the first housing segment to allow the second segment to pivot... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the internal mechanical structure of the pivot, such as an "arcuate portion." | ¶32 | col. 13:8-12 |
| an electrical connection assembly disposed in the first and second housing segments and configured to define a signal path... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the internal electrical wiring or connection assembly. | ¶32 | col. 13:19-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will likely be the internal construction of the Meridian Flexible Power Strip. The complaint provides no evidence regarding the product's internal electrical or mechanical components. Discovery will be necessary to determine whether the accused product’s mechanism for pivoting and transferring power meets the specific limitations of the asserted claims.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the utility patents may turn on the interpretation of claim terms describing the connection between segments. A key question for the ’399 Patent is whether the accused product’s internal electrical connection constitutes "slidable conductive engagement." For the ’289 Patent, the question is whether its pivot mechanism can be characterized as having an "arcuate channel" and a corresponding "arcuate portion."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"slidable conductive engagement" (’399 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to how the ’399 Patent claims to transfer electricity between pivoting segments. The infringement analysis for this patent will likely depend heavily on whether the accused product's internal power transfer mechanism falls within the court's construction of this phrase.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the function as enabling electrical coupling while allowing movement, stating the second connector has a portion "in slidable conductive engagement with the third portion of said first conductive connector" (’399 Patent, col. 2:50-53). A party could argue this language covers any electrical contact that is maintained while one part slides relative to another.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment using a track-and-contact system (e.g., live track 542 and live track contact 544), which a party could argue limits the term's scope to such structures (’399 Patent, col. 7:31-42; Fig. 8A-8C).
"arcuate channel" (’289 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanical structure of the pivot itself. Whether the accused product infringes the ’289 Patent may depend on whether its physical pivoting joint can be defined as an "arcuate channel."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to this feature as a "rotation track" (’289 Patent, col. 5:58), which could support an interpretation covering any curved groove or guide that facilitates rotational movement between segments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict a specific C-shaped channel in the housing (e.g., item 512 in Fig. 4A), which a party could argue limits the term to the particular shape and configuration shown in the patent's disclosed embodiments (’289 Patent, Fig. 4A).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all six patents-in-suit. The basis for this allegation is that Meridian provides "instructions, manuals, and technical assistance" that allegedly direct and encourage end-users and others to use the accused product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement," but it does allege that Meridian acts "knowingly" (Compl. ¶24). Furthermore, the Prayer for Relief requests an award of "compensatory damages... trebled as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284," which is a remedy for cases of willful or egregious infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint lacks any detail on the internal workings of the accused product. The viability of the infringement claims against the utility patents will depend entirely on what discovery reveals about the product's internal mechanical pivot and electrical transfer mechanisms.
- A key legal question will be one of claim scope: For the utility patents, the case will likely turn on the construction of key terms defining the pivotal connection, such as "slidable conductive engagement" ('399 Patent) and "arcuate channel" ('289 Patent). The dispute will be whether these terms are broad enough to read on the accused product's design or are limited to the specific embodiments shown in the patents.
- For the design patents, the core question will be one of visual identity: Does the overall ornamental appearance of the Meridian Flexible Power Strip create the same visual impression as the designs claimed in the asserted design patents, from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison for the court's initial consideration by including a figure from the '630 patent (Compl. p. 12, FIG.1).