DCT
8:18-cv-02168
Innovenu Ltd v. Best Choice Products Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Innovenu, Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Best Choice Products, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson LLP
- Case Identification: 8:18-cv-02168, C.D. Cal., 12/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is incorporated in California, has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remotely controlled children's ride-on toys infringe a patent related to safety systems for such toys.
- Technical Context: The technology involves wireless remote control systems that allow a supervising adult to override a child's operation of a ride-on toy, particularly by providing a fail-safe mechanism to stop the toy if it travels out of the remote's range.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in 2002. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-12 | U.S. Patent No. 6,915,871 Priority Date (Provisional App.) |
| 2005-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. 6,915,871 Issued |
| 2018-12-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,915,871 - "Method and Apparatus for Improving Child Safety and Adult Convenience While Using a Mobile Ride-On Toy"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,915,871, "Method and Apparatus for Improving Child Safety and Adult Convenience While Using a Mobile Ride-On Toy", issued July 12, 2005.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while mobile ride-on toys are enjoyable for children, they can be dangerous, and a supervising adult would wish to "gain some control over the ride-on toy in order to protect the child's safety" (’871 Patent, col. 1:36-40). Prior art systems are described as having drawbacks, such as requiring continuous signal transmission from a remote to enable the toy's operation, which drains batteries and is impractical (’871 Patent, col. 1:50-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising a wireless remote control unit for an adult and a toy control unit installed in the ride-on toy (’871 Patent, col. 2:37-41). The system allows an adult to remotely force the toy to slow down or stop, but a key aspect is its fail-safe capability: the toy control unit is designed to automatically stop the toy if it "loses communication with the wireless remote control unit," for instance, by exceeding a predetermined range (’871 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-25). This automatic stop function upon loss of signal is presented as a central safety feature.
- Technical Importance: The invention's approach provides a safety mechanism that defaults to a "stop" condition upon loss of the supervisory control signal, which can be distinguished from prior art that required a continuous "go" signal from the adult supervisor (’871 Patent, col. 1:56-60; col. 2:30-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 15 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent claim 15 include:
- setting the controlling instructions by operating a wireless remote control unit;
- repeatedly and automatically performing wireless communication between the remote control unit and the toy control unit;
- the toy control unit automatically activating a control function on the toy in case wireless communication is not received; and
- the toy control unit activating a control function on the toy according to instructions received via wireless communication.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "12V Truck SUV Ride-On Car" as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is described as an electric-powered, ride-on toy for children that includes both in-car controls for the child and a remote-control option for a parent (Compl. ¶¶15, 18). According to product details included in the complaint, a parent can use the "provided remote control" to steer the vehicle, and a switch on the vehicle's dashboard is used to select between manual and remote control modes (Compl. p. 4, Fig. 1; p. 7, Fig. 5). Figure 1 in the complaint depicts the accused "12V Kids Truck SUV Ride-On Car w/ 2 Speeds, Lights, AUX" (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges that the remote control functionality is marketed as a safety feature, quoting product text stating "parents can always ensure the safety of their child" (Compl. ¶17; p. 5, Fig. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) setting the controlling instructions by operating a wireless remote control unit; | Defendant’s Truck SUV is sold with a remote controller that operates the toy. Figure 3 is a product description screenshot that notes the toy can be "controlled by a parent with the provided remote control" (p. 5). | ¶16 | col. 15:14-16 |
| b) repeatedly and automatically performing wireless communication between said wireless remote control unit and said toy control unit... | The complaint alleges that repeated and automatic communication is needed for safe control and that the remote is equipped with an antenna for RF communication. Figure 4 shows a diagram of the remote controller with its antenna highlighted (p. 6). | ¶17 | col. 15:17-22 |
| c) said toy control unit automatically activating at least one control function over said ride-on toy in case said wireless communication is not received; | The complaint alleges that when the remote control is selected and the toy moves out of range, "operation of the toy truck is automatically halted to ensure safety of the child." Figure 5 shows the dashboard switch for selecting remote or manual control (p. 7). | ¶18 | col. 15:23-26 |
| d) said toy control unit activating at least one control function over said ride-on toy, according to instructions received via said wireless communication. | The remote controller sends wireless instructions to the toy to cause it to move forward/reverse and turn left/right based on user input. Figure 7 in the complaint provides a diagram of the remote controller's directional buttons (p. 8). | ¶19 | col. 15:27-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The central infringement allegation for claim 15(c) is that the accused toy "is automatically halted" when it moves out of range of the remote (Compl. ¶18). A key technical question will be what evidence supports this assertion. The analysis will likely focus on whether the toy's control unit affirmatively activates a "control function" (such as applying a brake or reversing current) upon signal loss, or whether it merely ceases to receive "go" commands and coasts to a stop, which may not meet the claim limitation.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of claim 15(b), which requires "repeatedly and automatically performing wireless communication," may be disputed. The complaint alleges this is necessary for safe operation (Compl. ¶17), but it is a question of fact whether the accused product's communication protocol meets this limitation. The court may need to determine if a simple, on-demand, one-way transmission from the remote satisfies this element, or if a more complex, continuous, or two-way "handshake" protocol as described in some of the patent's embodiments is required (’871 Patent, FIG. 3-5).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "in case said wireless communication is not received"
Context and Importance: This term from claim 15(c) is critical as it defines the trigger for the claimed automatic safety function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines what type of communication failure engages the infringement analysis—whether it is limited to a complete signal loss from going out of range, or if it could also include intermittent packet loss or other transmission failures.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the toy stops "if it loses communication with the wireless remote control unit (due to distance, or screening, or low battery power, or for any other reason)" (’871 Patent, col. 3:17-22), suggesting the cause of the lost communication is not limiting.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and summary repeatedly frame the invention in the context of a "predetermined range limit" being reached (’871 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-16). A party could argue this context limits the term's meaning to signal loss caused by exceeding a set distance.
The Term: "automatically activating at least one control function"
Context and Importance: This term from claim 15(c) is central to the operation of the safety feature. The dispute will likely hinge on what actions by the toy's control unit qualify as "activating" a "control function." This will be a primary focus, as it distinguishes between a passive system that simply stops receiving commands and an active safety system that takes affirmative steps.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes control functions broadly, including "slowing down or stopping" by "eliminating or reversing the electrical current to the motor" (’871 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2). This could support an argument that simply cutting power to the motor constitutes "activating" a control function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses specific embodiments, such as applying an "electro-mechanical safety break" (’871 Patent, col. 3:3; FIG. 7). A party could argue that the term requires an affirmative action beyond merely ceasing to provide power, pointing to these more specific mechanisms as defining the claimed "control function."
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint alleges only a single count of direct infringement and does not plead sufficient facts to support separate claims for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused toy's control system, upon losing its connection to the remote, affirmatively and automatically execute a "control function" as required by claim 15(c)? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating whether the toy actively brakes or halts, versus merely coasting to a stop after no longer receiving motive commands.
- A secondary issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the phrase "repeatedly and automatically performing wireless communication" from claim 15(b) be construed to cover a simple one-way, on-demand communication protocol? Or does the patent's language and specification require a more sophisticated, continuous, or two-way communication link, potentially creating a mismatch with the accused product's functionality.