Voltstar Tech Inc v. NIMBLE for Good PBC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Voltstar Technologies, Inc. (Illinois)
  • Defendant: Nimble for Good, PBC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw, PLLC.
• Case Identification: 8:23-cv-02098, C.D. Cal., 11/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having allegedly committed acts of infringement and maintaining a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "WALLY SUBNANO" line of compact wall chargers infringes a reissue patent related to the specific dimensional and functional characteristics of small-form-factor electrical plugs.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer electronics accessory market, specifically for AC-to-DC power adapters, where intense competition drives innovation toward miniaturization, portability, and user convenience.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, RE48,794, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581. The complaint notes that the reissue process amended a key limitation in Claim 1, narrowing the claimed dimensional requirements for the charger housing. This amendment will likely be a central focus in determining the scope of the asserted claim.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E - "Charger Plug with Improved Package"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes multiple problems with prior art electrical chargers. They are often bulky, protruding from the wall in a way that is "unsightly" or susceptible to being struck, and their width can block the use of adjacent electrical outlets (’794 Patent, col. 1:41-59). Furthermore, their manufacturing, which often involves insert-molding electrical blades and manually soldering connections, is described as costly, time-consuming, and prone to error (’794 Patent, col. 2:7-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "reduced plug-size charger" designed to be compact and simplify manufacturing (’794 Patent, Abstract). It features a housing with specific dimensional constraints to ensure it does not interfere with adjacent outlets. The design also facilitates a more efficient assembly process by using separate, slidably mounted blades that connect to the internal circuit board via solder-less spring contacts, avoiding the complexities of insert molding and hand soldering (’794 Patent, col. 3:45-56). Figure 3, for example, illustrates the internal assembly with blades (12), spring contacts (16), and the internal circuit board (18) within a housing half.
• Technical Importance: The patented approach provides a technical framework for creating smaller, less obtrusive, and potentially more cost-effective power adapters, addressing a key consumer demand in the market for portable electronics.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’794 Patent, Compl. ¶34).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A charger plug with a housing and "first and second separate blade members" for connecting to a power source.
  • A DC connector for providing power to a rechargeable device.
  • The housing having a specific size, with a "longitudinal length" of less than 2.0 inches and a "width of the housing outer profile" of less than 1.75 inches.
  • The housing's "outer profile having no interference with an adjacent receptacle of the power source located on all sides of the first receptacle."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "WALLY SUBNANO 20" and "WALLY SUBNANO 30" chargers (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "reduced plug-size charger plug[s]" used to connect devices like mobile phones to an AC wall outlet for charging (Compl. ¶19-20, ¶26-27). The complaint highlights two key functional aspects that mirror the patent's claims: first, that the chargers do not block or interfere with adjacent outlets when plugged in, and second, that they possess specific compact dimensions (Compl. ¶20, ¶24, ¶27, ¶31).
• The complaint includes visual evidence of the accused products. For example, an image shows the WALLY SUBNANO 20 charger and its retail packaging, which highlights its "20W" power output (Compl. p. 5, fig. at ¶18). A similar image is provided for the WALLY SUBNANO 30, showing a nearly identical form factor (Compl. p. 7, fig. at ¶25). These images establish the general size and shape of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts illustrating infringement are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3; however, these exhibits were not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶22, ¶29). The infringement theory must therefore be drawn from the narrative allegations in the complaint's body.

The complaint’s infringement theory for Claim 1 of the ’794 Patent centers on the external characteristics of the accused chargers. For both the WALLY SUBNANO 20 and WALLY SUBNANO 30, the plaintiff alleges that the products meet the dimensional limitations of Claim 1(i), providing specific measurements: a longitudinal length of approximately 1.215 inches and 1.206 inches, respectively (both less than the claimed 2.0 inches), and a width of approximately 1.184 inches and 1.128 inches, respectively (both less than the claimed 1.75 inches) (Compl. ¶24, ¶31).

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the accused chargers meet the functional limitation of Claim 1(ii), stating that upon being plugged into a wall outlet, they do "not block or interfere with the use of adjacent outlets" (Compl. ¶20, ¶27). The complaint is silent regarding the internal construction of the accused products, such as whether they use "separate blade members" or the specific type of internal electrical connections required by other limitations of the claim.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the proper methodology for measuring the "longitudinal length" and "width of the housing outer profile" on the curved surfaces of the accused products. The precise definition of the "outer profile" will be critical to determining if the accused products' dimensions fall within the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations focus exclusively on the external size and non-interference function. A significant technical question for discovery will be whether the accused chargers meet all other limitations of Claim 1, particularly those related to the internal structure (e.g., "first and second separate blade members"). The absence of any allegations on this front suggests a potential point of non-infringement that Defendant may explore.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"width of the housing outer profile"

Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for one of the two explicit dimensional limitations in the asserted claim (Claim 1(i)). The method of measuring this "width" on a product that may not have flat, parallel sides will be a critical issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could directly determine whether the accused products' measured dimensions (e.g., 1.184 inches) satisfy the "less than 1.75 inches" limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be interpreted practically in light of the patent's purpose, which is to avoid blocking adjacent outlets. This could support a definition that considers the main, functional body of the housing, potentially excluding minor, non-interfering elements from the measurement. The specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of reducing the overall "package size" ('794 Patent, col. 1:19-20).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term must be strictly construed to mean the absolute maximum dimension across any two points on the housing's exterior surface, as the term "profile" implies the overall shape. The claim language does not explicitly permit excluding any portion of the housing from the "outer profile" measurement.

"no interference with an adjacent receptacle"

Context and Importance: This is a negative functional limitation in Claim 1(ii) that defines a key performance characteristic of the invention. Its meaning is crucial, as "interference" can be subjective.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background clarifies the problem being solved is a plug that "provides little or no interference with use of an adjacent receptacle" ('794 Patent, col. 1:47-49). This context suggests "interference" means physical obstruction that prevents a standard plug from being fully inserted into an adjacent outlet.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that "no interference" sets a high bar, meaning more than just the absence of a hard block. It could be argued to mean no contact or difficulty whatsoever when using any type of standard plug in the adjacent outlet. The claim requires this for receptacles "on all sides," which could invite disputes over what constitutes a "side" in duplex or quad outlet configurations.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as knowledge of the patent combined with acts encouraging infringement by others.

Willful Infringement

The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement (Compl. ¶C, p. 9). However, the complaint does not allege a factual basis for willfulness, such as Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of the ’794 Patent or a prior offer to license.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and measurement: How should the term "width of the housing outer profile" be defined, and based on that definition, do the accused products' physical dimensions fall within the strict numerical boundaries ("less than 1.75 inches") recited in the reissued claim?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of completeness of infringement: While the complaint focuses on the external dimensions and non-interference properties of the accused chargers, can the plaintiff prove through discovery that the products’ internal components and construction also satisfy every other limitation of Claim 1, such as the use of "separate blade members"?