DCT
2:22-cv-02219
Shenzhen Gooloo E Commerce Co Ltd v. Pilot Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (China) and Hulkman LLC (California)
- Defendant: Pilot, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tucker Ellis LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-02219, C.D. Cal., 04/04/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Pilot, Inc. residing and conducting business within the Central District of California, where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action allegedly occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their portable vehicle jump starter products do not infringe Defendant's patent and that the patent's claims are invalid, following a history of litigation and enforcement actions by the Defendant.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns intelligent, portable, lithium-battery-powered jump starters that incorporate safety and control features managed by a microcontroller.
- Key Procedural History: This case is heavily influenced by prior and parallel proceedings. Defendant Pilot previously initiated an Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation (UPNE) proceeding against Plaintiff Gooloo, obtaining a favorable finding on claim 7 of the patent-in-suit against Gooloo's older products. Following the filing of this declaratory judgment action, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate for two consolidated IPRs (IPR2021-00777 and IPR2021-01232) filed against the patent-in-suit. The certificate cancelled a majority of the patent's claims, including all three independent claims (1, 7, and 17). While the certificate stated that dependent claim 3 was "found patentable," public records indicate the patent owner subsequently filed a terminal disclaimer for this claim. These post-filing events may render the core infringement and validity disputes moot.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-30 | Carku begins selling E-Power 01 jump starter (alleged prior art) |
| 2014-01-31 | Carku begins selling E-Power 21 jump starter (alleged prior art) |
| 2014-04-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’653 Patent |
| 2018-08-14 | ’653 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-10-02 | Amazon UPNE evaluator finds for Pilot on Claim 7 of the ’653 Patent |
| 2020-12-31 | Carku begins supplying "Redesigned Products" to Gooloo |
| 2021-04-07 | IPR Petition (IPR2021-00777) filed against ’653 Patent |
| 2021-07-17 | IPR Petition (IPR2021-01232) filed against ’653 Patent |
| 2022-04-04 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
| 2024-05-22 | Patent Owner files disclaimer for Claim 3 of the ’653 Patent |
| 2024-10-01 | Inter Partes Review Certificate issues, cancelling claims 1, 4-20 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,046,653, "Automobile Charger," issued August 14, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional portable automobile chargers as lacking the intelligence to automatically perform critical safety checks. These include detecting whether a load (i.e., a car battery) is properly connected, if the polarity is reversed, if there is a dangerous reverse current, or if the charger's own battery is in a suitable state to provide a high-current jump start (’653 Patent, col. 5:11-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "novel automobile charger" that integrates a microcontroller to manage a system of modules, including a power converter, a battery voltage detector, and a load detector (’653 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This configuration allows the device to intelligently assess connection status and battery levels before using an electronic switch to safely deliver power, thereby preventing user error and protecting both the device and the vehicle (’653 Patent, col. 5:31-47; col. 6:12-25).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from simple power packs to "smart" charging devices capable of automated safety monitoring and control, aiming to make portable jump starters safer and more reliable for consumers (’653 Patent, col. 5:21-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 100, 110, 122). The patent contains three independent claims.
- Independent Claim 1 (Cancelled): An apparatus claim reciting a specific circuit architecture for an "automobile charger," defining the precise connections between the poles of a first battery and the leads of a power converter, battery level detector, microcontroller, switching circuit, and load detector.
- Independent Claim 7 (Cancelled): An apparatus claim for a "charging device" defined by its functional components:
- 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 (Cancelled): A method claim that mirrors the functional elements of claim 7, comprising the steps of detecting a battery level, detecting a load connection type, generating a corresponding output signal, and selectively connecting the power source based on that signal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Gooloo's Redesigned Products" (e.g., GP2000, GP4000) and "Hulkman Jump Starters" (e.g., Alpha 85, Alpha 85S, Alpha 100) (Compl. ¶¶ 96, 155).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are portable, lithium-battery-powered vehicle jump starters manufactured by Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. and sold by Plaintiffs primarily through the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 20, 80). The "Redesigned Products" were allegedly developed specifically to be non-infringing after an adverse Amazon UPNE decision concerning Gooloo's prior products (Compl. ¶62). The Hulkman products are alleged to be functionally "essentially the same" as the Gooloo Redesigned Products (Compl. ¶80). A central technical allegation for non-infringement is that the "load detector" in these products is a standalone circuit that is not connected to and does not provide signals to the microcontroller (MCU), unlike the architecture required by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶96).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a declaratory judgment action, the analysis focuses on the Plaintiffs' allegations of non-infringement. Given the subsequent cancellation of all asserted claims by IPR, the infringement analysis presented at the time of filing is likely moot but is summarized below to reflect the original dispute.
’653 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| three additional leads of the microcontroller connected with ... a first lead of a load detector, respectively | The accused products' "load detector" (Reverse Connection Detection Circuit) is not connected to or coupled with the microcontroller (MCU) and does not send any signals to the MCU. | ¶96 | col. 7:11-15 |
| a second pole of the first battery connected with a second lead of the power converter, a first lead of a microcontroller, a first lead of a switching circuit and a second lead of the battery level detector | The ON/OFF switch in the accused products is connected between the positive poles of the device battery and the external load, not to the circuit components connected to the second (negative) pole as required by the claim. | ¶96 | col. 7:6-10 |
’653 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a microcontroller to generate an output signal based on the level of the first battery and the type of connection of the load | Because the load detector is not connected to the MCU, the MCU does not receive information about the "type of connection of the load." Therefore, the output signal it generates cannot be "based on" this information as the claim requires. | ¶97 | col. 8:36-40 |
| switching circuitry to selectively connect the first battery to the load based on the output signal | The switching action is not based on an output signal that considers the type of load connection, as this information is not available to the MCU. | ¶97 | col. 8:41-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The primary factual dispute originally framed by the complaint is whether an electrical or data connection exists between the accused products' load detection circuit and their central microcontroller. The complaint alleges no such connection exists (Compl. ¶96).
- Scope Question: A central legal question was whether the term "load detector" requires a functional, reporting connection to the microcontroller. The language of independent claims 1 and 7, which requires the microcontroller to act based on information from the load detector, suggests that a standalone circuit would not meet the claim limitations.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The construction of the following terms was central to the dispute as framed in the complaint.
- The Term: "load detector"
- Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the non-infringement argument. Plaintiffs' position hinges on their "Reverse Connection Detection Circuit" not being a "load detector" as claimed, because it allegedly does not communicate with the microcontroller. The term's construction would determine if the claim requires an integrated, reporting component or if a functionally separate circuit suffices.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a high-level functional description, stating the load detection module "detects whether the load module is correctly connected" (’653 Patent, col. 5:64-67). This language, in isolation, could be argued to encompass any component performing that function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both the claims and the specification point toward a narrower, integrated definition. Claim 1 explicitly recites a physical connection between a lead of the microcontroller and a lead of the load detector (’653 Patent, col. 7:13-15). Claim 7 requires the microcontroller's output to be "based on" the detection from the load detector (’653 Patent, col. 8:36-40). Further, the patent’s block diagram, Figure 1, depicts a clear connection between the "microcontroller (2)" and the "load detection module (5)" (’653 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Patentee Conduct: The complaint does not contain typical allegations of indirect or willful infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringers. Instead, it includes extensive allegations regarding the patentee's (Pilot's) conduct. Plaintiffs allege that Pilot engaged in bad faith enforcement by continuing to lodge infringement complaints on Amazon against the "Redesigned Products" despite allegedly knowing those products did not infringe and that the patent claims were invalid in view of prior art provided to Pilot (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 71-75). These allegations suggest Plaintiffs may pursue a motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 on the basis that the case is "exceptional."
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The procedural history, particularly the outcome of the IPR proceedings and the patentee's subsequent disclaimer, has fundamentally altered this case since its filing. The key questions are now primarily procedural and remedial rather than substantive.
- Mootness and Finality: A primary issue is whether the cancellation of all independent claims and the vast majority of dependent claims by the PTO, coupled with the disclaimer of the sole remaining patentable claim, renders the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action entirely moot. The court will need to determine if any justiciable controversy remains.
- Exceptional Case and Attorney's Fees: Given the complete invalidation of the asserted patent, a central question will be whether Defendant Pilot's litigation and enforcement conduct rises to the level of an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The court may examine whether Pilot's enforcement actions, particularly after being presented with non-infringement arguments for the redesigned products and substantial invalidity prior art, were objectively baseless or brought in subjective bad faith, potentially warranting an award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs.