8:23-cv-02439
Socket Solutions LLC V. Top Greener Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Socket Solutions, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Top Greener Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Martin J. Foley, a PLC; Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-02439, C.D. Cal., 12/21/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant resides in Irvine, California, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electrical outlet extenders infringe a patent related to thin, wall-hugging electrical outlet covers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electrical outlet covers designed to conceal standard wall outlets for aesthetic and safety purposes while providing relocated electrical receptacles via an extension cord, enabling furniture to be placed nearly flush against a wall.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has complied with patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 for its own "Sleek Socket®" products, which may provide constructive notice to the public. The complaint also includes a count for false advertising under the Lanham Act, alleging Defendant falsely markets its products with an unauthorized safety certification mark.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-14 | ’080 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-11-29 | ’080 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-12-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,509,080 - Functional Indoor Electrical Wall Outlet Cover
(issued Nov. 29, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes two problems with traditional electrical plugs: they extend several inches from the wall, preventing furniture from being placed flush against it and creating wasted space, and the exposed outlet receptacles pose a safety hazard to children (’080 Patent, col. 5:20-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a thin cover that plugs into and completely conceals a standard wall outlet. An integral, flat electrical cord runs from the cover to a power strip or other receptacles, providing power remotely (’080 Patent, Abstract). A key feature enabling the thin profile is the use of internal electrical connection pins that are "bent at approximately ninety degree angle," which prevents the cover from adding significant bulk or extending far from the wall surface (’080 Patent, col. 5:16-20). This design allows for both improved aesthetics and child safety while maintaining the outlet's functionality (’080 Patent, col. 5:46-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach addresses a common domestic and commercial need for safer, less obtrusive, and more aesthetically pleasing access to wall-outlet power, particularly in spaces where furniture placement is a concern (’080 Patent, col. 5:22-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶3).
- Independent Claim 19 of the ’080 Patent recites:
- An apparatus for hiding a standard indoor electrical wall outlet... comprising:
- a. a cover comprising: (i) a frontplate; and (ii) a backplate comprising at least one set of electrical prongs...
- b. an electrical cord extending from the backplate... comprising at the cord's proximal end: at least one hot pin, at least one neutral pin and optionally a ground wire... respectively connected to or associated with the... prongs...
- and comprising at the cord's distal end at least one receptacle,
- and wherein the height of the hot pin, neutral pin, and any ground wire is approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the "at least claim 19" language suggests additional claims may be asserted later (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as "Top Greener Outlet Extenders," also referred to as "Infringing Outlet Covers" (Compl. ¶3, ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are electrical wall outlet covers that plug into a standard outlet to conceal it, while an extension cord provides power to a set of remote receptacles (Compl. ¶2, ¶26). Plaintiff alleges these products are "designed to look essentially identical to the Sleek Socket® products," which embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶27). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website depicting a white, rectangular cover with a thin cord leading to a three-receptacle power strip (Compl. ¶26). The complaint also notes the accused products compete directly with Plaintiff's products and are sold through Defendant's website and various major retail outlets (Compl. ¶7, ¶25, ¶29). A screenshot from Defendant's website promotes the product with an image of a child safely near the covered outlet, with the text "Enhanced Safety" overlaid (Compl. ¶51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’080 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for hiding a standard indoor electrical wall outlet... comprising: a. a cover comprising: (i) a frontplate; and (ii) a backplate comprising at least one set of electrical prongs... | The accused "Top Greener Outlet Extenders" are described as a cover that plugs into a standard electrical wall outlet and fully conceals it. The presence of prongs is inherent in its function as a plug-in device. | ¶2, ¶26 | col. 9:1-5 |
| b. an electrical cord extending from the backplate... comprising at the cord's proximal end: at least one hot pin, at least one neutral pin and optionally a ground wire... | The accused product includes an extension cord that provides power from the wall cover. The complaint alleges the product practices each limitation of the claim, which would include the internal pin structure. | ¶2, ¶26, ¶28 | col. 9:8-16 |
| and comprising at the cord's distal end at least one receptacle, | The accused product's extension cord terminates in a power strip with multiple receptacles. | ¶26 | col. 9:16-17 |
| and wherein the height of the hot pin, neutral pin, and any ground wire is approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord. | The complaint does not provide specific technical details or diagrams of the accused product's internal construction but alleges it is "essentially identical" to Plaintiff's patented product and infringes every limitation of the claim. | ¶27, ¶28 | col. 9:17-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused product's internal components meet the specific dimensional limitation of claim 19: "wherein the height of the hot pin, neutral pin, and any ground wire is approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord." The complaint alleges this is met by claiming the products are "essentially identical" (Compl. ¶27), but provides no direct evidence, such as a cutaway diagram or technical specification. Discovery will be necessary to determine the actual internal construction of the accused product.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of the term "approximately." The degree of deviation from "the same or less than" that is permissible under this term could be a point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord"
- Context and Importance: This limitation, found in independent claim 19, appears to define the key technical feature that enables the invention's thin, wall-hugging profile. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether the measured internal dimensions of the accused product satisfy this relative-size requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a potential point of non-infringement if the accused device's internal pin/wire assembly is thicker than its cord.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "approximately" suggests the patentee did not intend to be held to a precise mathematical relationship. The specification's general focus is on the functional outcome of achieving a thin profile that does not "add bulk or cause the cover to extend significantly beyond the outer surface" ('080 Patent, col. 5:18-20), which may support a construction that allows for minor variations as long as this functional goal is met.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the thin profile to a specific structural arrangement: electrical pins "bent at approximately a ninety degree angle" ('080 Patent, col. 5:16-18, col. 8:39-41). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed in light of this specific embodiment, tying the "height" of the pins to the configuration that results from such a bend. The patent distinguishes itself from prior art based on this thinness, suggesting the limitation is not merely incidental but a critical part of the invention.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. Count II). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant "actively encourages its customers to use" the infringing products and provides instructions for use on its website, Amazon listings, and product packaging (Compl. ¶45-46, ¶60).
Willful Infringement
While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges facts that could support a willfulness claim. Specifically, the inducement count alleges that "Top Greener is aware of Socket Solutions' '080 Patent" (Compl. ¶61). This allegation of knowledge, if proven to be pre-suit, could form the basis for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on the specific technical implementation of a consumer electronics product. The key questions for the court will likely be:
A central evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: Does the internal construction of the "Top Greener Outlet Extender" meet the dimensional requirements of claim 19? The complaint’s assertion that the products are "essentially identical" will need to be substantiated with evidence of the accused product's actual internal pin and wire dimensions relative to its cord thickness.
A core issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly should the term "approximately the same or less than" be interpreted? The resolution of this question will define the scope of the patent's protection and may be determinative of infringement.
The case also presents a notable false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. The resolution of the allegations that Defendant is using a fraudulent "ETL" safety certification mark (Compl. ¶31, ¶40) will proceed in parallel with the patent dispute and may introduce different strategic considerations for the parties.