DCT

2:24-cv-10896

Electronic Edison Transmission Tech LLC v. Belkin Intl Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-10896, C.D. Cal., 12/18/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless charging power banks infringe a patent related to methods for transferring power between two mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns wireless power transfer, specifically enabling one portable electronic device with a substantial battery to charge another portable device that has a low battery.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the asserted patent, the U.S. Patent Examiner considered and cited three prior art references before allowing the claims to issue, creating a presumption of validity over that art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-09-03 ’603 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-20 ’603 Patent Issued
2024-12-18 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,448,603, Transferring Power to a Mobile Device, issued September 20, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the common scenario where a user’s mobile device (like a phone) has a low battery, but no traditional power source is available, while another of the user's devices (like a laptop) has a substantial charge ( ’603 Patent, col. 1:23-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for a "donor" mobile device to wirelessly transfer power to a "receptor" mobile device. This is accomplished using software applications on both devices to configure and manage the power transfer, which can occur via technologies like inductive or capacitive coupling ('603 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-63). For example, a laptop computer can act as a donor to wirelessly charge a mobile phone acting as a receptor, as illustrated in the patent’s Figure 1 ('603 Patent, col. 3:49-53).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enables device-to-device power sharing, untethering users from fixed power outlets and extending the operational life of portable electronics in mobile environments ('603 Patent, col. 3:60-col. 4:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 6, and 8, and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 33). Claim 1 is presented as the primary example.
  • The essential elements of independent method Claim 1 include:
    • configuring a donor wireless power transfer mechanism on the donor mobile device using a wireless transmit application;
    • configuring a receptor wireless power transfer mechanism on the receptor mobile device using a wireless receive application;
    • transferring power from the donor mobile device to the receptor mobile device;
    • receiving and converting the received power into electric current using the receptor mechanism;
    • wherein the donor mechanism includes a primary coil and donor circuit elements, and the receptor mechanism includes a secondary coil, receptor circuit elements, and a capacitor that stores a charge to increase battery life when discharged.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names "wireless charging power banks such as BoostCharge and BoostCharge Pro" as the accused products ("Products") (Compl. ¶ 25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are used to infringe the ’603 Patent. The infringement narrative describes a system where a Belkin BoostCharge Pro power bank is configured with firmware for wireless charging (Compl. ¶ 26). However, the complaint then describes the power transfer occurring between a Google Pixel 8 smartphone (as the donor) and Google Pixel Buds (as the receptor) using Qi wireless power via magnetic induction (Compl. ¶¶ 27-29). The complaint alleges that Belkin manufactures the Pixel 8 and Pixel Buds, a point which may become a subject of factual dispute (Compl. ¶ 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not attached to the filed document. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

Narrative Summary of Alleged Infringement of Claim 1

Plaintiff alleges that Belkin performs the steps of Claim 1. The "configuring a donor" step is allegedly met by Belkin "configuring the BoostCharge Pro with firmware that configures the magnetic power bank for the wireless charging" (Compl. ¶ 26). The "configuring a receptor" step is allegedly met by Belkin "configuring the Pixel Buds with a wireless receive application in its firmware" (Compl. ¶ 27). The "transferring power" and "receiving and converting" steps are allegedly met when a "Pixel 8 smartphone transfers power to the Pixel Buds through Qi wireless power transfer using magnetic induction" (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29). Finally, the "wherein" clause detailing the hardware components (primary coil, secondary coil, capacitor) is allegedly met by Belkin "manufacturing the Pixel 8 smartphone and the Pixel Buds with the claimed hardware" (Compl. ¶ 30).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Attribution Questions: The complaint’s infringement narrative appears to involve products not manufactured by Belkin (the Pixel 8 and Pixel Buds). The allegation that Belkin itself manufactures these Google products is a specific factual claim that may be challenged (Compl. ¶ 30). The complaint appears to anticipate a dispute over who performs each claimed step by including a section on divided infringement, arguing that Belkin directs or controls end users who complete the infringing method (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that Belkin’s firmware for its power bank constitutes "configuring a donor wireless power transfer mechanism on the donor mobile device," when the complaint identifies a different device (a Pixel 8 smartphone) as the one that ultimately transfers the power and contains the "primary coil"? (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28, 30).
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a power bank, such as the accused BoostCharge products, qualifies as a "donor mobile device" within the meaning of the patent, which provides examples such as laptops and other smart devices with general-purpose computing capabilities ('603 Patent, col. 3:49-56).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "mobile device"

  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical, as it defines the universe of both the "donor" and "receptor" apparatuses. The infringement allegation centers on a Belkin power bank acting as, or in concert with, a "donor mobile device." Whether a power bank falls within the patent's definition of "mobile device" will be a key issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the invention can apply to "any mobile device such as a laptop computer, notebook computer, tablet computer, mobile phone, portable gaming system or the like" ('603 Patent, col. 3:52-56). Plaintiff may argue that a portable power bank is "like" these devices in the context of portable power sources.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All specific examples provided in the patent are smart devices with operating systems, processors, and user interfaces, capable of running "software applications" ('603 Patent, col. 7:20-34). Defendant may argue that a power bank, which primarily serves a single function, is not a "mobile device" in the manner contemplated by the inventors.

The Term: "configuring... using a wireless transmit application"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires "configuring" the power transfer mechanism via a software "application." The complaint alleges this is satisfied by Belkin providing "firmware" for its power bank (Compl. ¶ 26). Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between embedded firmware and a user-facing software "application" could be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "application" is not explicitly defined, and Plaintiff could argue it broadly covers any software code that performs a function, including firmware.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "wireless transmit software application" as allowing a user to "input a threshold" to manage the power transfer, which suggests a higher-level, user-interactive program rather than low-level, non-interactive firmware ('603 Patent, col. 7:48-55).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Belkin distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶ 36). It also advances a divided infringement theory, arguing that Belkin is liable for directing end users to perform certain steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶ 23). The complaint further alleges that Belkin has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" post-service, supporting a claim for post-filing willfulness and potential enhanced damages (Compl. ¶ 37).

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

  1. A question of attribution: Can the Plaintiff establish that Belkin is directly liable for a method that, as alleged in the complaint, involves components within and actions performed by third-party products (Google's Pixel 8 and Pixel Buds)? This will likely depend on the viability of the divided infringement theory and the factual support for the allegation that Belkin manufactures those third-party products.
  2. A question of definitional scope: The case may turn on claim construction. Specifically, can the term "mobile device", exemplified in the patent as a smart device like a laptop or phone, be construed to read on a single-purpose power bank? Similarly, does embedded "firmware" satisfy the claim limitation of a "wireless transmit application", which the patent describes in the context of user-configurable software?