DCT

2:22-cv-08471

Shenzhen Carku Technology Co Ltd v. Pilot Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08471, C.D. Cal., 05/22/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Pilot, Inc. residing in the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a manufacturer of portable jump starters, seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendant’s patent on automobile chargers and that the patent is invalid, and further alleges tortious interference and unfair competition related to Defendant's enforcement activities on the Amazon marketplace.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns safety features in portable lithium-ion battery jump starters, which use microcontrollers to manage the connection and charging of a depleted vehicle battery.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history involving Defendant's enforcement of a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,046,653), which was later mostly invalidated by the PTAB. Plaintiff alleges Defendant leveraged prior enforcement actions under the old patent to improperly trigger delistings of Plaintiff's products under the newly issued patent-in-suit via Amazon's IP enforcement system. The complaint notes that a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent-in-suit was filed. The provided patent file includes an Inter Partes Review Certificate (US 11,376,971 K1) which, despite bearing a future issue date of April 18, 2025, states that all patent claims (1-30) have been disclaimed as a result of IPR proceeding IPR2023-00810. This development, if confirmed, would render the patent infringement and invalidity counts moot.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-04-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’971 Patent
2020-06-01 Pilot initiates UPNE proceeding for related '653 Patent (approx. date)
2020-10-02 UPNE evaluator finds for Pilot on '653 Patent
2022-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,376,971 Issues
2022-07-19 Pilot requests delisting of Carku products, allegedly referencing prior '653 Patent proceedings
2022-08-31 Counsel for Carku's customers writes to Amazon arguing non-infringement of '971 Patent
2022-10-03 PTAB invalidates most claims of the related '653 Patent
2023-05-22 First Amended Complaint Filed
2023-05-22 IPR Petition (IPR2023-00810) filed against '971 Patent
2023-11-03 Hulkman APEX ruling on '971 patent allegedly occurs

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,376,971 - Automobile Charger

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,376,971, "Automobile Charger," issued July 5, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes common problems with conventional portable jump starters, including the inability to automatically detect if a load (a car battery) is connected, if the clamps are connected with reverse polarity, or if the internal battery's state is suitable for providing a high-current jump start (Compl. ¶¶ 66-68; ’971 Patent, col. 1:24-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "intelligent" automobile charger that uses a microcontroller to manage a set of electronic modules. These modules detect the battery voltage, the presence and polarity of the connection to the car, and then use an electronic switch (rather than a mechanical relay) to control the flow of power, thereby preventing damage from user error or improper conditions (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15). The system is designed to provide power only when conditions are deemed safe and appropriate by the microcontroller (’971 Patent, col. 4:26-33).
  • Technical Importance: The use of microcontroller-based logic and electronic switches aimed to make portable jump starters safer and more reliable, protecting both the device itself and the vehicle's electronics from damage caused by common mistakes like reversed clamps (’971 Patent, col. 2:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for all claims (1-30) and specifically recites independent claims 1, 17, and 18 (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 77).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • a battery connected to a voltage regulator
    • the battery capable of supplying power to a microcontroller and an automobile battery
    • a load detector circuit to detect correct connection
    • a microcontroller generating an output signal when the battery has a predetermined voltage
    • switching circuitry to connect the battery to the automobile battery when the microcontroller generates the output signal
  • Independent Claim 17:
    • a first battery connected to a voltage regulator
    • the first battery capable of supplying power to a microcontroller and an automobile battery
    • a battery level detector
    • a load detector to detect a type of connection
    • a microcontroller generating an output signal only when the battery has a predetermined voltage
    • switching circuitry to connect the first battery to the automobile battery when the microcontroller generates the output signal
  • Independent Claim 18:
    • an output port
    • an internal power supply connected to a voltage regulator
    • a load detection sensor to detect the presence of a vehicle battery
    • a reverse polarity sensor to detect proper connection
    • a power switch
    • a microcontroller configured to turn on the power switch in response to signals from the load and reverse polarity sensors indicating a proper connection

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Carku Jump Starters," which are hand-held, lithium-battery-powered devices manufactured by Plaintiff Carku and sold by its various customers on Amazon and other channels (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 70). The complaint includes a detailed table identifying scores of specific products by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN), brand/model name, and internal Printed Circuit Board (PCB) number (Compl. ¶58, pp. 15-30). This table lists products sold under brands such as Fanttik, AstroAI, Yesper, Gooloo, Autogen, and others (Compl. ¶58, pp. 15-30).

Functionality and Market Context

The Carku Jump Starters contain a microcontroller and circuitry to manage the delivery of power from an internal battery to clamps for connecting to a vehicle (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that these products are a major product line for Carku and that their delisting from Amazon, allegedly at Pilot's request, has caused significant lost sales (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 47). An email from Amazon, included as a visual in the complaint, confirms that a number of Carku-made products sold by various entities were removed from its website pending resolution of the patent dispute (Compl. p. 31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart but makes several narrative arguments for non-infringement.

’971 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Plaintiff's Non-Infringement Position Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a battery connected to a voltage regulator... In certain accused products, switching circuitry is placed between the battery and the voltage regulator, which Plaintiff argues does not meet this limitation. ¶75 col. 5:11-14
a load detector circuit to detect when the jumpstarter is correctly connected to the automobile battery; Plaintiff alleges its products lack the claimed circuit because the circuitry alleged to be a load detector does not identify a correct connection of the load. ¶72 col. 6:1-4
said at least one microcontroller generating, when the battery has said at least one predetermined voltage, an output signal; In Plaintiff's products, the microcontroller allegedly requires other conditions to be met, in addition to the predetermined voltage, before generating an output signal. ¶74 col. 5:19-22
switching circuitry... to operatively connect the battery to the automobile battery when said at least one microcontroller generates the output signal... In Plaintiff's products, the switch allegedly does not turn on merely upon generation of the output signal; other conditions in the circuitry must also be satisfied. ¶71 col. 5:23-28

(Note: The non-infringement arguments for claims 17 and 18 rely on the same core technical distinctions cited for Claim 1, as the limitations are similar.)

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute raises questions about the required relationship between components. Does the term "connected to," as used in the patent, permit intervening circuitry between the battery and the voltage regulator, as Plaintiff alleges exists in its products (Compl. ¶75)?
    • Technical Questions: A central issue is whether the accused products' safety logic functions in the specific manner required by the claims. The complaint raises the question of whether the Carku microcontroller's signal generation is contingent only on voltage, as Claim 1 may require, or on a combination of factors (Compl. ¶74). Further, there is a question of causation versus timing: does the switch activate because the signal is generated, or does it activate only when the signal and other independent conditions are met (Compl. ¶71)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "connected to" (e.g., "a battery connected to a voltage regulator," Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff's non-infringement argument for several products hinges on the allegation that "switching circuitry is interposed between the battery [and] the voltage regulator" (Compl. ¶75). The definition will determine if such an arrangement falls inside or outside the claim scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the overall system in block diagrams (e.g., Fig. 1) and focuses on the functional relationship between modules, which may support an interpretation that "connected to" means electrically coupled in a way that allows the intended function, even with intervening components.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed circuit diagram in Figure 2 shows specific components and layouts. A party could argue that the specific embodiments, such as the direct link shown between the battery "BT+" and the input of the voltage regulator "U1" through resistor "R1", imply that "connected to" requires a more direct link without interposed control circuitry (’971 Patent, Fig. 2).

  • The Term: "when the microcontroller generates an output signal" (e.g., Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff argues that its switch does not turn on simply upon the signal's generation, but requires "other conditions" to be satisfied (Compl. ¶71). The construction of "when" is therefore key—is it purely a timing requirement (the connection happens at the same time as the signal) or a causation requirement (the signal is the sole trigger for the connection)?

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's focus on the microcontroller's role in "conduct[ing] the corresponding control" could support a reading where the signal is the primary authorization, even if other safety checks are implemented in the circuitry (’971 Patent, col. 3:6-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "to operatively connect... when... generates" suggests a direct causal link. The description that the "start control model is automatically activated" when a load is correctly connected implies the microcontroller's decision is the determinative event (’971 Patent, col. 4:28-30).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not indirectly infringe the ’971 Patent (Compl. p. 40). The complaint does not, however, provide a detailed factual basis for this specific declaration, focusing its technical arguments primarily on why its products do not meet the limitations required for direct infringement.

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

The procedural posture, particularly the alleged outcome of the IPR, dramatically shifts the focus of this case away from a typical patent dispute.

  • A central threshold question is one of mootness: given the IPR certificate in the record indicating that all claims of the ’971 Patent have been disclaimed, are the declaratory judgment counts for non-infringement and invalidity now moot? If so, the case will pivot entirely to the commercial tort claims.
  • The primary remaining issue would be one of wrongful enforcement: did Pilot engage in tortious interference or unfair competition by allegedly using misleading statements and prior enforcement history on a different patent to have Carku's products delisted from Amazon under the ’971 Patent, which has now itself been disclaimed?
  • This leads to a key evidentiary question regarding damages: what is the quantum of economic harm Carku suffered from the Amazon delistings, and can Carku establish a causal link between that harm and Pilot's specific alleged misrepresentations, as distinct from Amazon's own independent enforcement policies?