DCT
2:22-cv-08642
Waverly Licensing LLC v. Aukey LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Waverly Licensing LLC (CA)
- Defendant: Aukey Group Holding Limited, Aukey Trading Corporation, and Aukey, L.L.C. (collectively, "Aukey") (CA)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08642, C.D. Cal., 12/29/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in the Central District of California, including physical locations and employees, and derives substantial revenue from the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s dual-port car chargers, when used with devices like smartphones, infringe a patent related to a method for charging a battery-operated device that involves verifying a charger's identity against a list of authorized chargers before accepting power.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns intelligent charging systems that manage power transfer by first authenticating the power source, a feature intended to enhance safety and compatibility in a market with numerous third-party charging accessories.
- Key Procedural History: The active complaint is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was allowed over extensive prior art and has been cited in 355 subsequent patents, and that it was examined by three different patent examiners.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-12-25 | Patent Priority Date ('246 Patent) |
| 2021-03-02 | Issue Date ('246 Patent) |
| 2022-12-29 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,938,246 - "Method and Apparatus for Charging a Battery-Operated Device," issued March 2, 2021 ('246 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a battery-operated device ("slave") to ensure that a power source ("master") is authorized before accepting a charge from it. This prevents a device from drawing power from an unknown or potentially unsafe charger ('246 Patent, col. 4:15-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a battery-operated device that, before charging, receives an "identification" from the connected charger. The device then checks this identification against a pre-stored "list of charger identifications." Only if a match is found does the device proceed to accept energy from the charger to power its circuitry and charge its battery ('246 Patent, Abstract). This process creates a "gatekeeping" function to control the charging process.
- Technical Importance: This authentication method provides a mechanism for controlling which accessories can charge a device, which could enhance safety, performance, and interoperability in an ecosystem of diverse third-party chargers ('246 Patent, col. 4:15-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as exemplary of Defendant's infringement (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A battery-operated device comprising a battery, electronic circuitry, and a converter.
- The device is configured to receive a "charger identification" from a charger.
- The device is configured to determine if that "charger identification" is in a "list of charger identifications" for authorized chargers.
- In response to a positive determination, the device is configured to receive energy from the charger, generate power using the converter, charge the battery, and power its electronics.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Aukey 'CC-A3 Dual-Port (USB-C/USB-A) Car Charger - 30W'" as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a car charger with both USB-C and USB-A ports designed for fast-charging devices such as smartphones and tablets (Compl. ¶¶12-14).
- The charger is advertised as supporting multiple charging technologies, including "USB Power Delivery" (USB PD) 3.0 and "Programmable Power Supply" (PPS) (Compl. ¶15; p. 10). The complaint includes a screenshot from the product webpage highlighting its support for "powerful PD 3.0" and "PPS" (Compl. p. 10).
- The complaint's infringement theory relies on the interaction between the accused charger and a compatible device (e.g., a smartphone) (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that this interaction follows the USB PD standard, which involves the charger (Source) and the device (Sink) exchanging messages to negotiate charging capabilities and the specification revision level before power is fully transferred (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'246 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...the battery-operated device configured to: receive a charger identification from a charger; | A smartphone receives messages from the accused charger according to the USB PD standard. These messages allegedly contain a "specification revision value" which functions as the "charger identification" (Compl. ¶¶16, 21(iv)). The complaint provides a snippet from the USB PD specification describing this communication (Compl. p. 12). | ¶¶16, 21(iv) | col. 4:15-20 |
| determine whether the charger identification is in a list of charger identifications... | The smartphone determines if the received "specification revision value" is on a list of supported revision values. If the charger's value is not supported (e.g., an outdated version), the smartphone allegedly considers the charger unauthorized and communication fails (Compl. ¶21(v)-(vi)). | ¶21(v)-(vi) | col. 4:15-20 |
| in response to determining that the charger identification is in the list of charger identifications: receive the energy from the charger... | After the specification revision level and power requirements are successfully negotiated (the alleged "determination"), the smartphone receives energy from the accused charger to power its systems and charge its battery (Compl. ¶¶16, 21(vii)). | ¶¶16, 21(vii) | ’246 Patent, Abstract |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The core of the dispute may center on whether the USB Power Delivery protocol's "specification revision" negotiation meets the claim requirements. A primary question is: does the term "charger identification", as described in the patent, read on a generic protocol version number (e.g., "PD 3.0") shared by all compliant products, or does it require an identifier unique to the specific charger unit?
- Technical Questions: A related question is whether a smartphone's logic for supporting a set of protocol standards (e.g., USB PD 2.0 and 3.0) constitutes the claimed "list of charger identifications". The complaint's theory equates following a communication protocol with checking an item against a list of authorized entities. The factual basis for this equivalence may be a point of contention.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "charger identification"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. Its construction will determine whether the "specification revision value" from the USB PD standard can be considered an infringing feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory hinges on a broad interpretation that extends beyond unique device IDs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes "identifying information" as potentially including "capabilities" of the device, which could be argued to encompass its protocol version ('246 Patent, col. 4:10-13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of identifying information such as "MAC ID" and "serial number," which are unique to a particular hardware unit, not a class of products ('246 Patent, col. 4:10-13). The abstract's use of "a charger identification" could suggest a singular, unique identifier.
The Term: "list of charger identifications"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is coupled to "charger identification". The infringement case depends on this "list" being interpreted as a set of supported protocol standards, rather than a whitelist of specific, pre-authorized charger units.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the form of the "list," which could allow for it to be a set of supported technical standards stored in a device's firmware.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context of preventing "non-authorized masters" from charging a device suggests a security function, where the "list" would function as an access control list containing identifiers of trusted, individual chargers ('246 Patent, col. 4:15-20).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant advertises an infringing use and provides products that, when used as intended with a smartphone, perform the patented method (Compl. ¶¶27, 29). The alleged factual basis appears to be Defendant's marketing of its charger's USB PD compatibility, which allegedly instructs users on how to carry out the infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent following the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶25). The complaint also makes a conclusory allegation of willful blindness based on a purported "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the following central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent term "charger identification", which the specification exemplifies with unique identifiers like a MAC ID, be construed broadly enough to cover a generic, industry-standard "specification revision value" exchanged during a USB Power Delivery handshake?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the interaction between the accused charger and a smartphone involve the discrete, sequential logic of the patent—(1) receive an ID, (2) check the ID against a list of authorized entities, (3) charge only if authorized—or does the USB PD protocol represent a more integrated negotiation that does not map onto the patent's claimed structure?