DCT
8:22-cv-01874
RJ Technology LLC v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RJ Technology LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kobre & Kim LLP
- Case Identification: 8:22-cv-01874, C.D. Cal., 12/09/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Apple maintains regular and established places of business in the district (including numerous retail stores and corporate offices) and has committed acts of infringement there, such as selling and importing the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods products, which contain rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, infringe a patent related to methods for improving battery capacity and cycle life.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of lithium-ion batteries, seeking to increase their energy density and longevity by manipulating charge voltage and internal material ratios, a critical factor in the competitive mobile electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit is the U.S. counterpart to a Chinese patent that has been the subject of an infringement lawsuit brought by the inventors against Apple in China since March 2018. It further alleges that Apple unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the Chinese patent before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). This history is cited as the basis for Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-09-28 | Earliest Priority Date (’641 Patent) |
| 2010-07-06 | '641 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-21 | Plaintiff’s founders initiate patent lawsuit against Apple in China |
| 2018-06-06 | Apple files request for declaration of invalidity of Chinese Patent with CNIPA |
| 2019-04-15 | CNIPA issues decision largely upholding validity of Chinese Patent claims |
| 2019-10-31 | Date of iFixit teardown article for AirPods Pro cited in complaint |
| 2021-10-21 | Date of MacRumors teardown article for Apple Watch Series 7 cited in complaint |
| 2022-10-19 | Original U.S. complaint served on Apple |
| 2022-12-09 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 - “Secondary Lithium Ion Cell or Battery, and Protecting Circuit, Electronic Device, and Charging Device of the Same,” issued July 6, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that conventional secondary lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries had their charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2V or less. This was based on the prevailing view that higher voltages would cause irreversible structural changes to the electrode materials and decomposition of the electrolyte, which would severely shorten the battery's usable life. This limitation meant that a significant portion of the battery materials' theoretical energy capacity was left unutilized. (’641 Patent, col. 2:44-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to increase a Li-ion battery's capacity and energy density by intentionally operating it with a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2V (but below 5.8V). To counteract the potential negative effects on cycle life, this is combined with a specific adjustment to the internal construction of the battery: the ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material is set within a specific range (1:1.0 to 1:2.5). The patent asserts this combination allows for higher energy extraction without the expected degradation in performance. (’641 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-25).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a potential pathway to improve battery performance using existing, well-understood materials, rather than relying on the development of entirely new and unproven electrode chemistries. (’641 Patent, col. 2:59-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5 and dependent claim 12.
- Independent Claim 5:
- A secondary lithium ion cell or battery, characterized in that
- the secondary lithium ion cell or battery has a charge cut-off voltage of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V, and
- a ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material of the secondary lithium ion cell or battery is from 1:1.0 to 1:2.5, as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V.
- The complaint notes infringement of "at least" claims 5 and 12, reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶5).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies four categories of accused products: "Accused Smartphone Products" (various iPhone models), "Accused Tablet Products" (various iPad models), "Accused Smart Watch Products" (various Apple Watch models), and "Accused Headphone Products" (various AirPods models). (Compl. ¶¶17, 23, 29, 35).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused functionality is the use of rechargeable Li-ion batteries within these popular consumer electronic devices. The complaint alleges that the performance characteristics of these batteries, such as their capacity and ability to retain charge over many cycles, are essential to the products' commercial success and consumer appeal. (Compl. ¶¶3, 8). The complaint uses the iPhone 11 Pro, iPad Air (4th Gen), Apple Watch Series 7, and AirPods Pro as exemplars for their respective product categories. (Compl. ¶¶18, 24, 30, 36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'641 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A secondary lithium ion cell or battery... | The accused products contain rechargeable (secondary) Li-ion batteries. | ¶19 | col. 1:9-11 |
| ...the secondary lithium ion cell or battery has a charge cut-off voltage of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V... | The complaint presents a photograph of a battery from an iPhone 11 Pro, which displays a labeled upper charge limit of 4.4V. (Compl. ¶20, p. 7). | ¶20 | col. 10:6-8 |
| ...and a ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material of the secondary lithium ion cell or battery is from 1:1.0 to 1:2.5, as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V. | The complaint alleges, without presenting supporting documentary or physical evidence, that the ratio of electrode materials in the accused batteries falls within the claimed range of 1:1.0 to 1:2.5 when calculated according to the claim's methodology. | ¶21 | col. 10:8-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary technical question is how Plaintiff will prove the claimed ratio of electrode materials. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that this limitation is met but provides no public-facing evidence, such as a chemical analysis from a product teardown, to support it. (Compl. ¶21). The case may depend on evidence obtained through discovery regarding the internal design and composition of Apple's batteries. Another question is whether Apple’s marketing claim that its batteries retain "up to 80% of its original capacity at 500 complete charge cycles" (Compl. ¶22) satisfies the limitation of dependent claim 12, which requires maintaining "at least 75.83% of capacity after 400 cycles" (Compl. ¶11).
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of the phrase "as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V." A potential dispute is whether this phrase describes an inherent, objective property of a battery that can be measured and calculated post-manufacture, or if it requires proof that the accused infringer actually used this specific calculation as part of its design methodology.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "charge cut-off voltage"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The complaint uses evidence of a battery’s labeled "upper charge limit" to meet this limitation. (Compl. ¶20). Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a manufacturer's labeled maximum voltage is equivalent to the "charge cut-off voltage" as defined and used within the patent's specific context.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently uses the term in a general sense to mean the voltage at which charging is terminated, suggesting it is a fundamental operational parameter of the battery. (’641 Patent, col. 2:44-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes elevating the "charge cut-off voltage" in the context of specific formation and testing procedures, which could support an argument that the term is tied to the patent's disclosed methodology, not just a generic rating. (’641 Patent, col. 3:43-46).
The Term: "ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material ... as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V"
- Context and Importance: This entire phrase functions as a single, complex limitation. Its construction is critical because it defines not only a physical property (the ratio) but also the specific method by which that property must be determined. Infringement of this element cannot be observed directly and will depend entirely on the accepted meaning and application of this calculation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "theoretical capacities" as "the capacities of the positive electrode and the negative electrode calculated with an charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V," which may support the view that this is an objective, standardized calculation that can be applied to any battery. (’641 Patent, col. 3:5-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing view may be that the term "theoretic capacity" has a particular meaning in the art that requires more than a simple measurement, or that the patent's own examples, which show specific ratios being selected before testing, imply the ratio is a design choice rather than a post-hoc measurement. (’641 Patent, col. 6:30-33).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe. The factual basis for this claim is that Apple provides user guides and marketing materials that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner—specifically, by charging the Li-ion batteries. (Compl. ¶¶43-44). The complaint includes a screenshot from an iPhone User Guide instructing users on how to "Charge the iPhone battery." (Compl. ¶44, p. 15).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge of the ’641 Patent. The complaint alleges Apple gained this knowledge on or around March 21, 2018, when it was sued in China for infringement of the patent’s Chinese counterpart. (Compl. ¶45). The complaint further alleges that Apple's knowledge was reinforced through its participation in subsequent invalidity proceedings in China and, in any event, by the service of the complaint in the present U.S. action. (Compl. ¶¶46-50).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence, likely through expert analysis of internal specifications obtained in discovery, to demonstrate that Apple's batteries meet the specific "ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material" required by claim 5? The complaint's public-facing allegations for this element are currently conclusory.
- A core legal issue will be one of claim construction: does the phrase "as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V" describe an objective characteristic that can be measured on any finished product, or does it define a specific design methodology that Apple must be shown to have used? The outcome of this construction could determine the scope of evidence required to prove infringement.
- A key question for damages will turn on willfulness: to what extent does knowledge and litigation of a foreign counterpart patent establish the "knowledge of the patent and of his infringement" required for willful infringement under U.S. law? The court's decision on this issue, based on the extensive history of the dispute in China, will likely be a primary driver of the case's value.