DCT
3:17-cv-04918
Pilot Inc v. Anker Technology Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pilot, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Anker Technology Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fernald Law Group LLP; Bradford, LTD
- Case Identification: 4:17-cv-04918, N.D. Cal., 08/23/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable automobile jump starters infringe a patent related to safety systems that prevent dangerous electrical discharges.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety circuits for portable, lithium-ion battery jump starters, a consumer product category where preventing incorrect connections or unintended power release is a key feature.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority from a Chinese application filed in 2014. The complaint alleges that the patent is not subject to any prosecution history disclaimers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-04-28 | Earliest Priority Date (’297 Patent, from CN App. 201420212173) |
| 2014-09-01 | Plaintiff's commercial embodiment ("LIGHTNING") first delivered |
| 2016-12-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,525,297 Issues |
| 2016-12-20 | Alleged infringement by Anker begins on or after this date |
| 2017-08-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,525,297 - "Automobile Charger"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional portable automobile chargers presented risks, including an inability to automatically detect whether a load (a car battery) is properly connected, whether the polarity is reversed, or whether there is a dangerous reverse current. For compact lithium battery systems stored in a vehicle, there was also a risk of unintended discharge (Compl. ¶7; ’297 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system of interconnected electronic modules controlled by a microcontroller. It uses a DC-to-DC module for stable voltage, a battery voltage detection module, a load detection module, and an automobile start control module. These components work in concert to verify proper connection and safe conditions before allowing the device to supply a charge, thereby preventing improper operation and protecting both the user and the vehicle (’297 Patent, col. 2:38-57, Fig. 1). The design uses an electronic switch instead of a mechanical one to control power flow, which can enhance safety and reduce product size (’297 Patent, col. 2:2-5).
- Technical Importance: The patented design provides a comprehensive safety system that automates checks for multiple failure conditions, which is critical for making high-amperage, portable consumer devices like jump starters safe and reliable for mass-market use (’297 Patent, col. 2:38-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A direct current power supply.
- A positive pole of the power supply connected simultaneously to a first lead of a DC to DC module, a first lead of a battery voltage detection module, and a first lead of a load module.
- A negative pole of the power supply connected simultaneously to a second lead of the DC to DC module, a first lead of a microcontroller, a first lead of an automobile start control module, and a second lead of the battery voltage detection module.
- A third lead of the DC to DC module connected to a second lead of the microcontroller.
- Three additional leads of the microcontroller connected respectively to a third lead of the battery voltage detection module, a second lead of the automobile start control module, and a first lead of a load detection module.
- A second lead of the load detection module connected simultaneously to a third lead of the automobile start control module and a second lead of the load module.
- The load module includes an automobile storage battery and an automobile engine and is located on one end of an automobile.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but notes infringement of "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Anker Portable Jump Starter" (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a portable automobile charging device that includes a "safety switch" on its jumper cables to prevent unintended discharge (Compl. ¶18). Anker is alleged to market this as an "Advanced Safety" feature that protects against "surges and short circuits, as well as inverse current" (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff alleges that upon inspection of the product's printed circuit board (PCB), the accused product utilizes the same electrical configuration patented by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶19). A visual in the complaint depicts the PCB from the accused device, which Plaintiff contends contains the infringing circuitry (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused product's PCB, mapping components to the elements of Claim 1. The following table summarizes the infringement theory presented in the complaint's text and that visual.
'297 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A novel automobile charger which comprises a direct current power supply, comprising: a positive pole of the direct current voltage connected with a first lead of a DC to DC module, a first lead of a battery voltage detection module, and a first lead of a load module simultaneously, | The complaint alleges the Anker product is an automobile charger with a power supply whose positive pole connects to various modules as claimed (Compl. ¶32(a)-(b)). Figure 1 on page 9 of the complaint is an annotated photograph of the accused product’s circuit board showing callouts that identify specific electrical leads allegedly meeting this limitation. | ¶32(b); p. 9 | col. 4:5-9 |
| a negative pole of the direct current power supply connected with a second lead of the DC to DC module, a first lead of a microcontroller, a first lead of an automobile start control module and a second lead of the battery voltage detection module simultaneously; | The complaint alleges the negative pole of the Anker product's power supply connects to the specified modules simultaneously (Compl. ¶32(c)-(e)). The annotated Figure 1 further identifies these components and their alleged connections on the Anker PCB. | ¶32(c)-(e); p. 9 | col. 4:9-14 |
| a third lead of the DC to DC module connected with a second lead of the microcontroller, and three additional leads of the microcontroller connected with a third lead of the battery voltage detection module, a second lead of the automobile start control module and a first lead of a load detection module respectively, | The complaint alleges the Anker product's microcontroller is connected to the other specified modules as claimed (Compl. ¶32(f)-(g)). The annotations in Figure 1 on page 9 of the complaint purport to show these specific connections between the microcontroller (labeled U2) and other components on the board. | ¶32(f)-(g); p. 9 | col. 4:14-22 |
| wherein a second lead of the load detection module is connected with a third lead of the automobile start control module and a second lead of the load module simultaneously; | The complaint alleges the Anker product's load detection and start control modules are interconnected as claimed (Compl. ¶32(h)). | ¶32(h) | col. 4:22-25 |
| the load module including an automobile storage battery and an automobile engine is located on one end of an automobile. | The complaint alleges this element is met when the Anker product is used as intended with an automobile, with the car's battery and engine constituting the "load module" (Compl. ¶31, 32(i)). | ¶32(i) | col. 4:26-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The final limitation requires a "load module including an automobile storage battery and an automobile engine." A central question will be whether this limitation can be met by the combination of the accused Anker jump starter and the end-user's vehicle. The dispute may focus on whether Anker can be held liable for directly infringing a system claim when it only makes and sells one component of that system, with the final assembly being performed by the end-user.
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that Anker's PCB is a "copy" of the patented configuration (Compl. ¶21). A key technical question will be whether the components on Anker's board, and the electrical traces connecting them, actually perform the specific functions and create the exact network of "simultaneous" connections required by the claim. The defense may argue that while its device has safety features, its circuit architecture differs from the precise topology claimed in the '297 patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "load module including an automobile storage battery and an automobile engine"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining infringement. If the "load module" must be part of the product sold by the defendant, there is likely no infringement, as Anker sells a portable device. If, however, the "load module" is understood to be the vehicle that the accused device is designed to connect to, infringement may be found when the product is used as intended. Practitioners may focus on this term as it goes to the heart of whether the claim covers the combination of the accused product and a user's vehicle.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself states the load module "is located on one end of an automobile" (’297 Patent, col. 5:25-26), which suggests the claim contemplates a system that is only fully formed when the portable charger component is connected to a vehicle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the preamble recites "A novel automobile charger" and that all subsequent elements must be part of that charger. The specification's summary also describes "the load module which comprises the automobile storage battery and the automobile engine is located on the end of the load module," which could be argued as circular and ambiguous (’297 Patent, col. 2:54-57).
The Term: "simultaneously"
Context and Importance: This term appears three times in Claim 1 to describe electrical connections. Its interpretation will define the required circuit topology. Whether it requires a strict, literal, single-node electrical connection or allows for functionally equivalent but structurally different connections will be a key point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "simultaneously" should be interpreted functionally to mean that the components are electrically common or connected to the same power/ground plane, even if not at a single physical point.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description show specific connections to common points in a circuit diagram (’297 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:5-14). A party could argue that "simultaneously" requires a direct, shared electrical node, and that any intervening components would defeat this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Anker's "instruction manual, videos, packaging and other promotional materials" instruct users to connect the Portable Jump Starter to automobile engines, thereby causing them to complete the infringing system (Compl. ¶31, 36).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that any infringement occurring after Anker's receipt of the complaint will be willful, deliberate, and intentional (Compl. ¶37). This appears to be a claim for post-filing willfulness only.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope and direct infringement liability: Can the claim for an "automobile charger," which includes an "automobile storage battery and an automobile engine" as an element, be directly infringed by a defendant who only manufactures and sells the portable power pack, where the final claimed system is only assembled by the end-user?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fidelity: Assuming the claim scope covers the product-plus-vehicle combination, will discovery and expert analysis demonstrate that the specific components and electrical pathways on Anker's printed circuit board function and interconnect in the precise manner required by the claim's "simultaneously" connected limitations, or is the architecture functionally similar but structurally distinct?
- A third question relates to inducement: If direct infringement is found to occur only at the hands of the end-user, does the evidence of Anker's instructional materials rise to the level of specific intent required to prove induced infringement?