USB Tech LLC v. Kingston Technology Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: USB Technologies, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Kingston Technology Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of J. Curtis Edmondson
• Case Identification: 8:17-cv-02235, C.D. Cal., 12/22/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is headquartered, resides, conducts business, employs personnel, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s dual-interface flash drives, which feature both USB and Lightning connectors, infringe a patent related to flash memory cards with dual interfaces and automatic switching capabilities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves portable data storage devices capable of connecting to different electronic hardware ecosystems, such as standard computers via USB and Apple products via the Lightning connector.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,809,866 - "Double Interface SD Flash Memory Card"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,809,866, "Double Interface SD Flash Memory Card", issued October 5, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market where devices with Secure Digital (SD) card slots (like digital cameras) and devices with Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports (like computers) were common, but transferring data between them was inconvenient. This required users to purchase and use a separate card reader or adaptor, adding cost and complexity (’866 Patent, col. 1:35-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single flash memory device that incorporates the circuitry for two different interfaces (e.g., SD and USB) on one circuit board. The core innovation is an "interface detection and switching circuit" that automatically determines which type of port the device is plugged into—for instance, by detecting a specific "initializing signal"—and then configures the device's microprocessor to use the correct communication protocol for that interface (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-12; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This integrated approach was intended to eliminate the need for external adaptors, thereby reducing consumer cost and simplifying the process of exchanging data between otherwise incompatible systems (’866 Patent, col. 2:5-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶2).
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A double interface flash memory card with a first transmission interface, a circuit board, a microprocessor, and flash memory.
  • A first bus interface circuit for a system interface circuit of the flash memory card.
  • A second bus interface circuit for other information apparatuses.
  • An interface detection and switching circuit that electrically connects to the interfaces and bus circuits.
  • The detection and switching circuit detects an "initializing signal" and switches between the first or second bus interface circuit based on whether the signal is generated.
  • A microprocessor that automatically detects, determines, and supports a connection and switches the circuitry to support data transmission over the selected interface.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Kingston's "DataTraveler Bolt Duo" flash memory storage drives, including Part Number C-USB3L-SR32G-EN (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are dual-ended flash drives featuring a standard USB connector on one end and an Apple Lightning connector on the other (Compl. ¶16; Exhibit B, p. 2). This allows the drive to be used for data storage and transfer with both standard computers and Apple devices like iPhones and iPads (Compl. ¶21). Internally, the product contains a printed circuit board (PCB) with a central processing unit (CPU) that manages the connections to the USB and Lightning interfaces (Compl. ¶18). The product packaging shows the dual-connector design and advertises its compatibility with Apple devices (Compl. Exhibit B, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the patent's applicability to a USB/Lightning product. The patent is titled "Double Interface SD Flash Memory Card" and its specification consistently describes an invention combining an SD card interface with a USB interface. The complaint alleges Claim 1's "first bus interface circuit" reads on the accused product's USB interface. This raises the question of whether the claim scope is limited by the specification's heavy focus on an SD interface, even though the term "SD" is not explicitly in Claim 1.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the switching circuit to operate by "detecting if there is an initializing signal." The complaint alleges the accused CPU operates based on an "initialization signal received through the Switching controller" (Compl. ¶23). A key technical question will be what evidence supports the existence and function of this specific "initializing signal" mechanism in the accused product, as opposed to other potential methods of interface detection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first bus interface circuit especially for a system interface circuit of the flash memory card"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical. To succeed, Plaintiff must argue that this language is broad enough to encompass the accused product's USB interface. Defendant may argue the term is implicitly limited to the SD card interface that is the focus of the patent's specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of its construction could determine whether the patent reads on the accused technology at all.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 does not contain the words "Secure Digital" or "SD," instead using the more generic phrase "system interface circuit of the flash memory card."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and detailed description repeatedly and consistently frame the invention as solving the problem of interoperability between SD cards and USB devices. The specification explicitly identifies the "first bus interface circuit 20" as "a SD bus interface circuit" (’866 Patent, col. 3:1-3).

• The Term: "initializing signal"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the claimed switching function. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product's method for selecting an interface meets this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic and could be interpreted to mean any signal sent upon connection that initiates communication.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example, stating that for an SD card, the system detects "an initialization signal (74 pulses/s)" (’866 Patent, col. 4:36-38). A party could argue this example narrows the scope of the term to a specific type of protocol-initiating signal, rather than just the physical detection of a connection.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The heading for Count I in the complaint references 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (induced infringement) (Compl. p. 3). However, the factual allegations within the complaint focus exclusively on Defendant's direct acts of making, using, and selling the accused products. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of inducement, as it does not allege specific facts regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patent or intent to encourage infringement by others (e.g., via user manuals or advertisements instructing infringing use).

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "system interface circuit of the flash memory card", which is described throughout the patent specification in the context of an SD card, be construed broadly enough to read on the USB interface of the accused USB/Lightning drive?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: what proof can be offered that the accused product's CPU-based switching function operates by "detecting if there is an initializing signal," as required by the claim, versus an alternative technical method for sensing which connector is physically engaged?