Kreative Power LLC v. Monoprice Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kreative Power, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Monoprice, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
• Case Identification: 3:14-cv-02991, N.D. Cal., 06/27/2014
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant is a California corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has transacted significant business, committed alleged acts of infringement, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "6 Outlet Desktop Hub w/ Dual USB" product infringes one utility patent and one design patent related to compact, conical-shaped surge protectors.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of electrical power distribution devices, specifically power strips or surge protectors designed to provide multiple outlets in a compact form factor capable of accommodating large AC power adapters.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant on April 8, 2014, putting Defendant on notice of the asserted patents prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,112,097 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2006-09-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,112,097 Issued
2011-04-19	U.S. Patent No. D653,215 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2012-01-31	U.S. Patent No. D653,215 Issued
2014-04-08	Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant
2014-06-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,112,097, “COMPACT ELECTRICAL POWER OUTLET SYSTEM,” Issued September 26, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional, rectangular power strips are often "long and large in size" to accommodate the bulky bodies of modern plug-in power supplies, making them inconveniently large (’097 Patent, col. 2:45-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "relatively compact and small" power outlet system with a base that is "substantially round in shape" (’097 Patent, col. 2:48-50, 5:44-45). Electrical receptacles are mounted on the curved side surface, providing space for multiple large plugs, while a central power switch is located on the top surface under a movable cover (’097 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-65). The design also incorporates a specific internal wiring scheme using circular conductors (’097 Patent, col. 4:15-20).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a space-saving alternative to traditional linear power strips, addressing the proliferation of electronic devices that rely on large AC adapters (’097 Patent, col. 2:32-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’097 patent (Compl. ¶26). The analysis below focuses on the sole independent claim, Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A base with opposed top and bottom surfaces and a "substantially round" side surface.
  • A plurality of electrical receptacles mounted in the side surface.
  • A power input.
  • An electrical system with a power switch on the top surface, providing power to the receptacles via a "circular ground conductor, a circular neutral conductor, a circular hot conductor."
  • The power switch is located on a "hold-down knob" and is adapted to emit light.
  • A "movable cover" that is "hingedly attached to the base" and is adapted to cover the switch and transmit some of its light.

U.S. Design Patent No. D653,215 S, “SURGE PROTECTOR WITH USB CHARGING PORT,” Issued January 31, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article. This patent concerns the unique aesthetic design of a surge protector.
• The Patented Solution: The ’215 patent claims the specific ornamental design for a surge protector as depicted in its seven figures (’215 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design consists of a truncated conical body on a flared circular base, with six recessed, angled power outlets arranged radially around the body. The top of the device features a domed power button situated beneath a hinged, translucent cover (’215 Patent, Fig. 1). The design as depicted also includes USB ports, which contribute to its overall appearance.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product's "proprietary design" has been a factor in its "significant commercial success," indicating its market importance (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
• The claim of the ’215 patent is for "The ornamental design for a 'surge protector with USB charging port,' as shown and described" (’215 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "6 Outlet Desktop Hub w/ Dual USB" manufactured and sold by Monoprice (Compl. ¶21, ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The device is described as an electrical power outlet and surge protector (Compl. ¶24).
• It is sold nationwide through online channels, including monoprice.com and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶26).
• The complaint alleges the accused product is "substantially similar, and in fact nearly identical, to the patented design of Kreative's '215 patent" (Compl. ¶21-22). The complaint provides photographs as Exhibit H that allegedly compare the plaintiff's and defendant's products (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide element-by-element infringement allegations or a claim chart for the '097 patent. It generally alleges that the accused product infringes one or more claims (Compl. ¶26). Due to the lack of specific factual allegations mapping claim limitations to accused product features, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention (’097 Patent):

  • Structural Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product contains the specific structures recited in Claim 1. Key questions include: does the accused product have a "hold-down knob" on which its power switch is located, and is its power switch cover "hingedly attached" in the manner claimed?
  • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the internal wiring of the accused product utilizes a "circular ground conductor, a circular neutral conductor, [and] a circular hot conductor" as required by the claim (’097 Patent, col. 5:4-6). Proving this element may require discovery of the product's internal construction.

• Identified Points of Contention (’215 Design Patent):

  • The core of the design patent infringement claim is the allegation that the accused product is "substantially similar, and in fact nearly identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶21-22).
  • Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question is whether an "ordinary observer," taking into account prior art, would be deceived into believing the Monoprice product is the Kreative product because of the similarity in their designs. The analysis will focus on the overall visual appearance, including the product's conical shape, the arrangement and style of the power outlets, and the design of the top-mounted switch and cover.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’097 Patent

• The Term: "hold-down knob"

  • Context and Importance: This term from Claim 1 defines the structure upon which the power switch is mounted. Its construction will be critical, as its presence and form in the accused product is a potential point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a specific structural feature, not a generic description of a top surface.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an objective to "provide a hold-down point for facilitating removal of the electrical plugs," a functional description that could potentially read on any part of the top surface that a user could press down on (’097 Patent, col. 2:9-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the power switch as being located "on a hold-down knob" which is "surrounded by an annular knob shoulder" (’097 Patent, col. 5:8-9). The patent figures depict a distinct, raised circular structure (27A, 27B) that could be construed as the required "knob," potentially limiting the term to a similar physical structure.

• The Term: "circular ground conductor, a circular neutral conductor, a circular hot conductor"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase in Claim 1 describes the internal wiring of the device. The configuration of the conductors is a potentially significant technical limitation that may distinguish the invention from products with different internal layouts.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "circular" refers to the general path of the wiring as it connects the radially-distributed outlets, not necessarily requiring a single, unbroken, perfectly circular piece of metal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 3 and 4 explicitly show three distinct, continuous, ring-shaped conductors (42, 44, 46) (’097 Patent, Fig. 3, 4). This could support an interpretation that the claim requires these specific, continuous ring structures, as opposed to a series of separate wires connecting the outlets in a circular pattern.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Monoprice induced infringement by its distributors and retailers and also contributorily infringed both the '097 and '215 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 43). The allegations are based on Monoprice allegedly encouraging infringing sales with knowledge of the patents and intent to infringe, and by selling components "especially made or adapted for use in the infringement" (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 43).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patent counts (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 33, 39, 44). The allegations are based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint cites the April 8, 2014 cease and desist letter as establishing pre-suit knowledge, and alleges that Monoprice continued its infringing conduct after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 23).

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

• A primary issue for the ’215 design patent will be a visual comparison: Are the alleged ornamental similarities between the accused product and the patented design—particularly their overall conical shape, outlet configuration, and top assembly—so close that they would confuse an ordinary observer, or do sufficient differences exist to distinguish them?
• A key question for the ’097 utility patent will be one of structural and technical correspondence: Does the accused product embody the specific combination of features recited in Claim 1, including a "hold-down knob" for the power switch and an internal wiring system using "circular... conductors," or does its construction materially differ?
• A central question for damages will be one of scienter: Can Kreative demonstrate that Monoprice’s alleged infringement was willful, particularly in light of the allegation that it continued to sell the accused product after receiving a cease and desist letter, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?