DCT

8:15-cv-02080

Gryphon Mobile Electronics LLC v. Volitiger Power Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:15-cv-02080, C.D. Cal., 12/15/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Central District of California based on the defendant being a California corporation that has purposefully availed itself of the district by transacting business and selling products to residents through its own and third-party websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s line of mobile charging devices infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a portable power bank.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of portable battery chargers, a high-volume consumer electronics category where visual appearance can be a key market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-08-14 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D711,318
2014-08-19 U.S. Design Patent No. D711,318 Issued
2015-10-01 Plaintiffs allegedly learned of Defendant's infringing activities (approx.)
2015-12-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D711,318 S - “MOBILE CHARGING DEVICE”

Issued August 19, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '318 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it claims a specific ornamental design for an article of manufacture—a mobile charging device—thereby providing a unique aesthetic appearance for the product category (’318 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The claimed design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics of the mobile charging device as depicted in the patent's figures. Key features include a rectangular housing with rounded vertical edges; a front face featuring a recessed panel with a series of parallel vertical ribs; a circular power button located above this panel; and a side face containing two USB ports, a DC input, and a row of circular indicator lights (’318 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The overall design creates a distinct visual impression for the device.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific visual identity for a portable power bank, which may serve to distinguish the product in a competitive consumer electronics market (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the '318 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
  • The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a mobile charging device, as shown and described" (’318 Patent, CLAIM). The scope of this claim is defined by the seven figures provided in the patent. Key visual elements that constitute the overall design include:
    • The overall rectangular shape with rounded side profiles.
    • The ribbed texture within a recessed panel on the front face.
    • The specific arrangement of ports and indicator lights on one of the side faces.
    • The placement of a circular power button on the front face.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "Super Tiger," "King Tiger," "Professional Tiger," and "Volitiger Never Stop Jump Starter" mobile charging devices (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "mobile charging devices" (Compl. ¶11). Plaintiffs allege that these products "appeared to embody the design claimed in the ‘318 Patent" and characterize them as "direct knock-offs of Gryphon’s PowerAll charger," which itself is alleged to be an embodiment of the patented design (Compl. ¶¶7, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed element-by-element analysis. Instead, it presents a narrative infringement theory. The core of the allegation is that the accused devices are "direct knock-offs" that embody the patented design, and that this embodiment constitutes direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶13, 16). The legal test for design patent infringement—the "ordinary observer" test—will require a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused products to determine if an ordinary observer would find the two designs substantially the same.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Volitiger devices is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '318 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.
  • Technical Questions: The dispute is not technical but aesthetic. The factual determination will depend on a visual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the '318 Patent, focusing on similarities and differences in shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patents, the "claim" is primarily defined by the drawings rather than textual language, limiting the scope of traditional claim construction. However, the identity of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

The Term: "mobile charging device"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase, appearing in the patent's title and its single claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied (’318 Patent, Title, CLAIM). Practitioners may focus on this term because it frames the scope of the relevant prior art that an ordinary observer would be aware of when comparing the patented design to the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific textual definition, which could suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the field of consumer electronics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures themselves provide a specific visual context for the term, depicting a portable, handheld battery pack with specific inputs (DC) and outputs (USB) consistent with charging mobile electronic devices like phones and tablets (’318 Patent, FIG. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by "manufacturing, importing, marketing, advertising and distributing, or by knowing aiding and abetting" the distribution of products embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶¶13, 25-27). The complaint does not plead specific facts showing an intent to encourage infringement by others beyond the act of selling the allegedly infringing products themselves.

Willful Infringement

The complaint asserts that the infringement has been "deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶17). The basis for this allegation appears to be the claim that the accused products are "direct knock-offs" of Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of the patent (Compl. ¶16).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the ordinary observer test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused Volitiger products substantially the same as the design claimed in the '318 Patent? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the products, focusing on the combination of their shape, front-face ribbing, and port layout.
  • A key evidentiary question will concern the role of prior art: The scope of the patented design's protectable features will be viewed in the context of prior art designs for mobile chargers. The degree of similarity required for infringement will depend on how novel the patented design is when compared to what came before it.
  • A central factual dispute will be the basis for willfulness: Beyond the allegation that the accused products are "knock-offs," the court will need to assess what evidence exists to establish that the defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '318 Patent and its infringement, which is required to support the claim for enhanced damages.