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., 04/13/2023
- 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 the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s consumer electronic products containing rechargeable lithium-ion batteries infringe a patent related to methods for improving battery capacity and cycle life.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns optimizing the performance of rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, a foundational component for the portable electronics industry, by modifying their charge voltage and internal material composition.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges extensive prior litigation between the patent’s inventors and Apple in China concerning a counterpart Chinese patent. Plaintiff asserts that this litigation, which included appeals to the Supreme People's Court of China and an unsuccessful validity challenge by Apple, provided Defendant with pre-suit knowledge of the U.S. patent-in-suit, forming a basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-09-28 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 |
| 2010-07-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 Issues |
| 2018-03-21 | Plaintiff’s founders allegedly initiate patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in China |
| 2018-06-06 | Apple allegedly files request with China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to invalidate Chinese patent |
| 2019-04-15 | CNIPA allegedly issues decision largely upholding the validity of the Chinese patent |
| 2021-06-01 | Inventors allegedly renew patent infringement suit against Apple in China |
| 2022-10-19 | Plaintiff allegedly serves original complaint in the present U.S. action on Apple |
| 2023-04-13 | Plaintiff files Second Amended Complaint |
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 describes a technical barrier in the Li-ion battery industry where the charge cut-off voltage was conventionally limited to 4.2V. It was believed that exceeding this voltage, while theoretically possible, would damage the battery’s internal structure, decompose the electrolyte, and severely shorten its usable life, leaving a significant portion of the battery's potential capacity untapped (ʼ641 Patent, col. 1:41-51, col. 2:42-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by combining two key modifications: (1) increasing the charge cut-off voltage to a range greater than 4.2V but less than 5.8V, and (2) simultaneously adjusting the ratio of the mass of the positive electrode material to the negative electrode material to a specific range (1:1.0 to 1:2.5). This combination is described as enabling a substantial increase in the battery's specific energy and capacity without the expected degradation in cycle life ('641 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-25).
- Technical Importance: This patented approach claims to unlock greater performance from established battery chemistries, a critical advancement for extending the operational time of portable electronics ('641 Patent, col. 7:1-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5 and dependent claim 12 (Compl. ¶5, ¶11).
- Independent Claim 5 requires:
- A secondary lithium ion cell or battery,
- 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 from 1:1.0 to 1:2.5, which is calculated using a "theoretic capacity" with the charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V.
- The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of infringement for "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶21:12-13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses a wide range of Apple products, categorized as: "Accused Smartphone Products" (iPhone models 6 through 14); "Accused Tablet Products" (numerous iPad, iPad Air, iPad Mini, and iPad Pro models); "Accused Smart Watch Products" (Apple Watch Series 1 through 8, SE, and Ultra); and "Accused Headphone Products" (AirPods, AirPods Pro, and AirPods Max) (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23, 29, 35).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these products all contain rechargeable Li-ion batteries that practice the claimed invention. To support this, the complaint provides specific data for exemplar products. For example, it alleges the iPhone 11 Pro battery has an upper charge limit of 4.4V, as shown on the battery’s label (Compl. ¶20). An image from the product's battery label shows the text "充电限制电压4.40V" (charge limit voltage 4.40V) (Compl. p. 7).
- The complaint further alleges that these batteries meet the cycle life requirements of the claims, pointing to Apple's own marketing materials. For example, a screenshot from Apple's website states the iPhone battery "is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 500 complete charge cycles" (Compl. ¶22, p. 8). The complaint alleges these batteries are essential to the commercial success of Apple's products (Compl. ¶18-19).
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 complaint alleges that the Accused Products, such as the exemplified iPhone 11 Pro, contain a secondary (rechargeable) Li-ion battery. | ¶19 | col. 8:57-60 |
| 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, | The Li-ion battery in the iPhone 11 Pro is alleged to have an upper charge limit of 4.4V, which is within the claimed range. A photo of the battery label is provided as evidence (Compl. p. 7). | ¶20 | col. 10:5-6 |
| 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, | The complaint alleges, without providing direct physical evidence or test results, that the ratio of electrode materials in the iPhone 11 Pro battery is between 1:1.0 and 1:2.5. | ¶21 | col. 10:8-10 |
| as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V. | The complaint alleges the electrode material ratio is determined based on the calculation method specified in the claim, which is defined in the patent as being based on a theoretic capacity calculated at a 4.2V cut-off. | ¶21 | col. 3:5-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint provides photographic evidence for the "charge cut-off voltage" limitation by showing voltage ratings on battery labels, such as the 4.35V rating for the iPad Air (Compl. p. 9) and the 4.45V rating for the Apple Watch (Compl. p. 12). However, it makes only conclusory allegations regarding the "ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material" (Compl. ¶21, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39). A central evidentiary question is what proof Plaintiff can develop to show that this internal, physical ratio in the accused batteries meets the claimed range as calculated by the patent's specific methodology.
- Scope Question: For dependent claim 12, which requires maintaining "at least 75.83% of capacity after 400 cycles" ('641 Patent, col. 10:11-13), the complaint cites Apple's statements that its batteries retain "up to 80% of its original capacity at 500 complete charge cycles" (Compl. ¶22). This raises the question of whether Apple's marketing claims can be proven as a factual matter to meet the specific numerical limitation of the claim under the conditions defined by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- 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 term is a cornerstone of the claimed invention, linking the novel voltage range to a specific physical battery construction. Its construction is critical because the complaint's allegations for this element currently lack direct evidentiary support. Practitioners may focus on this term because its precise definition, particularly the method of "calculation," will determine the scope of evidence required to prove infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the patent provides its own definition, making the calculation straightforward. The specification states that ""theoretical capacities of positive electrode and negative electrode" means the capacities ... calculated with an charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V" ('641 Patent, col. 3:5-8). This suggests a definition that is self-contained within the patent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "material" is ambiguous and should be limited to only the "active" materials, or that the "calculation" must follow the precise laboratory-level steps and assumptions used in the patent's own examples ('641 Patent, col. 9-15), potentially creating a higher bar for proof.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple induces infringement by providing user guides and marketing materials that instruct and encourage customers to charge their devices, thereby causing them to use the batteries in an infringing manner. The complaint includes a screenshot from an iPhone user guide about charging the battery as an example (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).
- Willful Infringement: The claim for willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Apple had pre-suit knowledge of the '641 patent due to years of litigation in China over a counterpart patent, in which the '641 patent was allegedly identified in filings served on Apple (Compl. ¶¶ 45-50). The complaint further alleges that Apple's "evasive" discovery response regarding when it first became aware of the patent supports an inference of willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 53-56). Post-suit willfulness is alleged based on notice from the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶60).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of "technical proof": can the Plaintiff develop and present sufficient evidence, likely from destructive testing and expert analysis of the accused batteries, to prove that the internal "ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material" in Apple's products falls within the specific range required by claim 5, as defined by the patent's calculation methodology?
- A central question for willfulness will be one of "pre-suit knowledge": will the court determine that extensive litigation in China over a related patent, where the '641 patent was allegedly referenced, constitutes legally sufficient notice to Apple of the U.S. patent and its potential infringement, or will the factual record support Apple's position that it only meaningfully "reviewed" the patent after this lawsuit was filed?