DCT
8:17-cv-02193
Zagg Inc v. Anker Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zagg Inc (Delaware) and Mophie, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Anker Technology Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong) and Fantasia Trading LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Case Identification: 8:17-cv-02193, C.D. Cal., 12/15/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper based on Defendants' continuous and systematic business activities in the district, including importing, offering for sale, and selling accused products directly to consumers and retailers through online stores and the stream of commerce.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ protective battery cases for smartphones infringe six patents related to the mechanical design, electrical interfaces, and functionality of such cases.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns external battery cases that both physically protect a smartphone and provide supplemental power to extend its operational life, a significant market in the mobile device accessory industry.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-01-18 | Priority Date for all asserted patents |
| 2015-03-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,971,039 Issued |
| 2015-07-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,077,013 Issued |
| 2015-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,088,028 Issued |
| 2015-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,088,029 Issued |
| 2015-10-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,172,070 Issued |
| 2016-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,406,913 Issued |
| 2017-12-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,971,039 - “Battery Pack, Holster, and Extendible Processing and Interface Platform for Mobile Devices,” Issued March 3, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of modern mobile devices consuming power quickly, which limits their usefulness, coupled with the difficulty of replacing internal batteries once depleted (’039 Patent, col. 1:25-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a battery pack integrated into a form-fitting protective case for a mobile device (’039 Patent, col. 2:48-54). As illustrated in Figure 1, the case is constructed in two separable sections (a top and bottom) that slide together to enclose the device, securing it physically while connecting it electrically to an internal battery through an internal interface (’039 Patent, col. 5:4-15). An external interface allows the internal battery to be recharged and permits data pass-through to the enclosed mobile device without needing to remove it from the case (’039 Patent, col. 6:11-16).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for extended device use without significantly increasing the bulk of the mobile device, while preserving access to device features like cameras and buttons through openings in the case (’039 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 14 (Compl. ¶23).
- Essential elements of Claim 14 include:
- A lower case portion with a base surface, a battery, electronic circuitry, and a lower sidewall with inner and outer connectors.
- An upper case portion with an upper sidewall and an open side end.
- The upper case portion slides onto the lower case portion.
- When seated, the portions form a seam across the back of the case.
- When seated, open-polygon-shaped openings on each portion merge to form a single front opening with a closed shape, through which the device screen is visible.
- The battery cell is positioned under the back of the mobile device's housing.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,077,013 - “Battery Pack, Holster, and Extendible Processing and Interface Platform for Mobile Devices,” Issued July 7, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same power-depletion problem as the ’039 Patent, where powerful mobile devices quickly drain their internal batteries, limiting their utility (’013 Patent, col. 1:28-44).
- The Patented Solution: This invention is a battery case that provides supplemental power and data pass-through, similar to the ’039 Patent. The key distinction articulated in the asserted claim is the inclusion of a flexible upper wall designed to facilitate the insertion and removal of the mobile device into the case (’013 Patent, col. 6:40-44). The design, shown in figures such as FIG. 8, allows the upper flange (612) to flex away to create an opening for the mobile device to be inserted (’013 Patent, col. 3:61-65).
- Technical Importance: The flexible wall provides a structural solution to the practical challenge of inserting a rigid mobile device into a tightly form-fitting protective case without requiring a multi-part separable design.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A battery case comprising a battery and walls (back, bottom, upper, right, left) to position adjacent to the mobile device.
- A front opening configured so the device display is visible.
- A device interface to engage the mobile device for providing electrical power and permitting data transfer.
- An external interface to recharge the battery and enable communication with an external device.
- The upper wall is flexible to facilitate insertion of the mobile electronic device into the battery case.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,088,028
- Patent Identification: “Battery Pack, Holster, and Extendible Processing and Interface Platform for Mobile Devices,” Issued July 21, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a battery case constructed from two separable portions (an upper and lower portion, or a first and second portion) that slide or engage to form a closed cavity for the mobile device (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45). The design facilitates insertion of the device by separating the case into two pieces.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 44).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the two-part, separable design of the Anker Ultra Slim and Premium Extended Battery Cases infringes these claims (Compl. ¶41).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,088,029
- Patent Identification: “Battery Pack, Holster, and Extendible Processing and Interface Platform for Mobile Devices,” Issued July 21, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a battery case that includes a user input element, such as a switch or button, which allows a user to toggle the case between a "charging configuration" where it delivers power to the mobile device and a "non-charging configuration" where it does not (Compl. ¶54).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the user-operable charging toggle on the Anker Ultra Slim, Premium Extended, and PowerCore cases infringes this claim (Compl. ¶52).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,172,070
- Patent Identification: “Battery Pack, Holster, and Extendible Processing and Interface Platform for Mobile Devices,” Issued October 27, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a two-part battery case where the external interface is electrically coupled to the internal interface. This coupling enables the mobile device to communicate with an external device (e.g., for data synchronization) through the case's ports while the device remains mounted inside (Compl. ¶63).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 64).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the pass-through communication functionality of the Anker Ultra Slim and Premium Extended Battery Cases infringes these claims (Compl. ¶61).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,406,913
- Patent Identification: “Battery Case for Mobile Devices,” Issued August 2, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a two-part, slide-together battery case. The claim language is structurally very similar to that of the ’039 Patent, focusing on the bottom section containing the battery and connectors and a top section that slides on to complete the enclosure and form a visible seam across the back (Compl. ¶74).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the two-part, slide-together construction of the Anker Ultra Slim Extended Battery Case infringes this claim (Compl. ¶72).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies several accused products: the “Anker Ultra Slim Extended Battery Case for iPhone 6 / 6s,” the “Anker Premium Extended Battery Case for iPhone 6 / 6s,” the “PowerCore Case for iPhone 7 (4.7 inch), 80% Extra Battery,” and the “PowerCore Case for iPhone 7 (4.7 inch), 95% Extra Battery” (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 41, 52).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused products as protective battery cases for smartphones that provide both a protective enclosure and a portable backup battery source (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32). The infringement allegations detail specific functionalities, including: a two-part, slide-together construction (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 43, 74); an internal connector to charge the phone and an external connector to recharge the case battery (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34); pass-through data transfer capabilities (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 43, 63); and a user-operable button to control charging (Compl. ¶54). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’039 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lower case portion comprising: a base surface upon which a back of a housing of the electronic device will be placed against...a battery, enclosed in the lower case portion; electronic circuitry, coupled to the battery... | The accused case has a lower portion with a base surface, an enclosed battery, and electronic circuitry. | ¶25 | col. 9:43-58 |
| ...a lower sidewall, connected to the base surface at an end opposite of the top edge...an inner connector, on the lower sidewall...an outer connector, positioned on an outside bottom side of the lower case portion... | The lower portion of the accused case includes a lower sidewall with an inner connector for the phone and an outer connector on its exterior for charging/data. | ¶25 | col. 10:1-15 |
| an upper case portion comprising an upper sidewall...and an open side end, opposite of the upper sidewall... | The accused case includes a separable upper case portion with an upper sidewall and an open end. | ¶25 | col. 10:16-19 |
| wherein the upper case portion slides onto the lower case portion through the open side end in a direction along the base surface from the top edge to the lower sidewall... | The accused case's upper portion slides onto its lower portion to enclose the phone. | ¶25 | col. 10:19-24 |
| wherein when the upper case portion is seated against the lower case portion, the upper and lower case portions meet at and form a seam which extends across a back of the case... | When assembled, the upper and lower portions of the accused case form a seam across the back. | ¶25, p. 7:1-3 | col. 10:25-29 |
| when the upper case portion is seated against the lower case portion, a first open-polygon-shaped opening for the lower case portion merges with a second open-polygon-shaped opening for the upper case portion to form a front opening of the case through which a screen of the electronic device will be visible, the front opening having a closed shape... | When assembled, openings in the accused case's two portions combine to form a single closed-shape opening for the phone's screen. | ¶25, p. 7:3-8 | col. 10:29-39 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The analysis may focus on the specific geometry of the accused case. Does the sliding engagement mechanism of the accused product meet the claim limitation "slides onto the lower case portion through the open side end"?
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the openings in the accused product can be characterized as "open-polygon-shaped" and whether their combination forms a front opening with a "closed shape" as construed by the court.
’013 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a battery case for use with a mobile electronic device, the battery case comprising: a battery; a back wall...a bottom wall...an upper wall...a right side wall...a left side wall... | The accused PowerCore Cases are battery cases with a battery and walls configured to be positioned adjacent to the corresponding sides of a smartphone. | ¶34 | col. 5:10-19 |
| a front opening configured such that a display of the mobile electronic device is visible through the front opening; | The accused cases have a front opening that makes the phone's display visible. | ¶34 | col. 5:20-22 |
| a device interface configured to engage a corresponding interface on the mobile electronic device, wherein the battery is coupled to the device interface to provide electrical power...and wherein the device interface is configured to permit transfer of data... | The accused cases have an internal interface that connects to the phone to provide power and allow data transfer. | ¶34 | col. 5:23-31 |
| an external interface configured to recharge the battery, wherein the external interface is configured to enable the mobile electronic device to communicate with an external device; | The accused cases have an external interface for recharging the battery and for data pass-through to the phone. | ¶34 | col. 5:32-36 |
| wherein the upper wall is flexible to facilitate insertion of the mobile electronic device into the battery case. | The complaint alleges the upper wall of the accused PowerCore Cases is flexible to facilitate insertion of the phone. | ¶34, p. 9:1-2 | col. 5:37-40 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be factual: is the "upper wall" of the accused PowerCore Cases actually "flexible" in a manner that "facilitate[s] insertion" of the phone? The degree and mechanism of any flexibility will be a key evidentiary issue.
- Scope Questions: The dispute will likely turn on the construction of the term "flexible." Does it require a specific material property, a degree of movement, or merely a design that yields under pressure to allow insertion?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’039 Patent (Claim 14):
- The Term: "open-polygon-shaped opening"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the shape of the cutouts in the upper and lower case portions that, when combined, form the screen opening. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the accused product's openings can be fairly characterized as polygonal, which may be disputed if they feature curves or non-polygonal contours.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not define "polygon" or provide specific angle requirements, which may support an interpretation that covers any opening generally composed of straight-line segments, even if corners are rounded.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 3, depict openings with clear, distinct corners and straight edges, which may support a narrower construction limited to traditional geometric polygons.
For the ’013 Patent (Claim 1):
- The Term: "flexible"
- Context and Importance: This is the central inventive concept distinguishing this patent from a rigid case. Infringement hinges entirely on whether the accused product's "upper wall" is "flexible." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a one-piece case that requires some force to insert a phone infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept in functional terms, stating an upper flange "may flex ... to allow the mobile device to be inserted" (’013 Patent, col. 2:64-67). This functional language may support a broad construction that covers any material or design that bends or yields to permit insertion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment shown in Figure 8 depicts a distinct "upper flange 612" that appears designed to bend outwards. This could support a narrower construction requiring a specifically designed flexible member, as opposed to incidental flex in a thin plastic wall. The term appears in the context of avoiding a two-piece design, suggesting it must achieve the same ease of insertion as a separable case.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement, nor does it allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of structural interpretation: Do the multi-part, slide-together mechanics of the accused Anker cases meet the specific claim limitations of the ’039, ’028, and ’913 patents, particularly with respect to how the parts "slide" together and how their respective "open-polygon-shaped openings" merge to form a final screen aperture?
- A key question of claim scope will concern the term "flexible" in the ’013 Patent. The case will likely examine whether the material and design of the accused one-piece PowerCore cases exhibit flexibility that "facilitates insertion" as required by the claim, or if the term requires a more specific, engineered flexing mechanism absent in the accused products.
- A third area of focus may be on patent differentiation: Given the assertion of six patents with significant specification overlap and similar claiming strategies against the same product line, the case may involve distinguishing the precise scope of each patent and determining whether the accused products infringe the distinct elements claimed in each one (e.g., the user input toggle of the ’029 patent versus the pass-through charging of the ’070 patent).