DCT

3:19-cv-02516

George Betak v. Electric Motor Werks Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:19-cv-02516, N.D. Cal., 04/01/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California as all defendants are residents of California, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including the collaboration between the parties, occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks to be added as a co-inventor on five U.S. patents related to smart electric vehicle charging technology, alleging he significantly contributed to the conception of the claimed inventions but was improperly omitted by the defendants.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns networked electric vehicle (EV) charging systems that communicate with the power grid to optimize charging based on factors like electricity cost, grid stability, and user-defined preferences.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was initiated to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. The complaint alleges a history of collaboration between Plaintiff and Defendant Miftakhov on the "JuiceBox/JuiceNet" product line, which was allegedly built upon Plaintiff's inventive concepts. The dispute appears to have crystallized following the acquisition of Defendant Electric Motor Werks by Defendant Enel X. Plaintiff pleads that his omission as an inventor was without deceptive intent on his part, a requirement for correction, while also alleging facts that may suggest deceptive intent by the defendants.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-12-01 Defendant Miftakhov incorporates Electric Motor Werks Inc. (EMW).
2013-07-01 Plaintiff Betak first meets Defendant Miftakhov.
2014-05-15 Betak proposes making the JuiceBox product Wi-Fi-enabled and "connected."
2014-09-14 Earliest priority date for all five Patents-in-Suit.
2017-10-25 Enel X (then EnerNOC, Inc.) acquires EMW.
2018-06-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,987,941 issues.
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,025,277 issues.
2019-09-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,399,450 issues.
2019-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,431,997 issues.
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,464,428 issues.
2020-04-01 First Amended Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,399,450 - "Systems and Methods for Local Autonomous Response to Grid Conditions by Electric Vehicle Charging Stationsas [sic] and Other Similar Loads," issued September 3, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that conventional EV charging equipment does not automatically respond to local power grid conditions, creating potential strain on the grid, especially with widespread EV adoption (Compl. ¶¶ 21–22; ’450 Patent, col. 1:40-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses multiple electricity meters—one for the EV charger, one for the broader site, and one for on-site renewable generators—to provide data to a controller. This controller then uses the data to autonomously manage the EV charging rate to help stabilize the local grid (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 93; ’450 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 1). The system is designed to generate a "local autonomous response" to grid conditions without needing direct, real-time commands from a central utility operator (’450 Patent, col. 2:12-32).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows distributed EV chargers to act as a responsive, stabilizing force for the power grid, a crucial capability for integrating both large numbers of EVs and intermittent renewable energy sources (’450 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System): An EV charging system comprising:
    • A first electricity meter for a single EV charging station.
    • A second electricity meter for the entire site's grid connection.
    • A third electricity meter for a renewable generator.
    • An EV charging controller operatively coupled to the meters and operable to obtain readings and control the charging station based on those readings.
  • Independent Claim 10 (Method): A method mirroring the functionality of the system in claim 1.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,025,277 - "Systems and Methods for Electrical Charging Load Modeling Services to Optimize Power Grid Objectives," issued July 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a lack of sophisticated, data-driven optimization in EV charging. Existing systems do not effectively collect or analyze disparate data streams (e.g., user behavior, grid needs, environmental conditions) to make optimal charging decisions (’277 Patent, col. 2:12-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a cloud-based computerized system that aggregates a wide plurality of information, including grid data, user data, and environmental data. It uses an analytics module to identify "temporal models" from this data and a charging module to determine and control charging patterns for multiple charging assets across a network, thereby optimizing for specific grid objectives (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-67). The system is designed to move beyond simple binary control to holistic load management based on modeling and diverse data inputs.
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables a network of EV chargers to function as a centrally managed, dispatchable resource for the power grid, capable of providing advanced services like revenue maximization and environmental optimization (’277 Patent, col. 2:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶87).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System): A computerized system for electrical charging load modeling, comprising a cloud server with:
    • A data aggregation module to collect a plurality of information items.
    • An analytics module to identify a temporal model from the data.
    • A charging module to determine a charging pattern for a plurality of assets based on the model.
    • A charger asset module to control the assets according to the pattern.
    • A communication module to transmit control commands.
  • Independent Claim 12 (Method): A computer-implemented method mirroring the functions of the system in claim 1.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,987,941, "Systems and Methods for Local Autonomous Response to Grid Conditions by Electric Vehicle Charging Stations," issued June 5, 2018

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the ’450 Patent, introduces a system for generating a local, autonomous response to grid conditions. It describes using multiple electricity meters to provide a controller with the data needed to manage EV charging and stabilize the local grid without direct utility dispatch (Compl. ¶¶ 81, 83; ’941 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶81).
    • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges he conceived of the core "connected" EV charging system and the use of an electricity meter at the charging station to enable grid-responsive charging (Compl. ¶81).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,431,997, "Computerized Information System for Smart Grid Integrated Electric Vehicle Charging and Associated Method," issued October 1, 2019

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a user-facing information system for smart grid-integrated EV charging. It describes a user interface, for example on a mobile device, that allows an EV owner to set charging priorities and trade-offs (e.g., charging time vs. cost vs. use of green energy), which are then transmitted to a control server to manage the charging session accordingly (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 99; ’997 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 4).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 (Compl. ¶99).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Plaintiff conceived of the "user preference" approach for controlling the charging station, where software models and controls charging based on user-entered preferences and behavior (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 44, 99).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,464,428, "Battery-backed DC Fast Charging System," issued November 5, 2019

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a hardware system for DC fast charging that uses a battery buffer. The system draws power from a standard, low-power grid connection to charge the internal battery buffer, which can then deliver a high-power DC charge to an EV, avoiding the need for expensive high-power grid infrastructure (’428 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 (Compl. ¶105).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges this patent covers technology related to the "connected" EV charging system and method that Plaintiff first proposed (Compl. ¶105).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The JuiceBox EV charging station and the associated JuiceNet software platform and mobile application (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the JuiceBox/JuiceNet system as a "connected" EV charging solution. It alleges the system uses Wi-Fi to connect to the internet, allowing individual charging units to operate collectively under the control of a cloud-based software platform (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25). This platform allegedly uses data from grid operators and energy providers to automatically manage vehicle charging, for example, by shifting charging to off-peak hours to reduce costs or aligning it with renewable energy generation (Compl. ¶22).
  • The system is also alleged to incorporate a "user preference" approach, where the software controls the charging station based on user-defined goals for cost, charging time, and other factors (Compl. ¶44). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's technical and business contributions were instrumental in developing these products and that the technology formed the basis of the ~$153 million acquisition of Defendant EMW by Defendant Enel X (Compl. ¶¶ 8–9, 69).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not allege infringement but rather seeks correction of inventorship. The following tables summarize Plaintiff's alleged inventive contributions as they map to the elements of the asserted independent claims of the lead patents.

  • ’450 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Plaintiff's Alleged Inventive Contribution Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for generating a local autonomous response to a condition of an electric grid by a plurality of electric vehicle charging stations Plaintiff alleges he proposed the core idea of a "connected" EV charging system where units collectively operate and communicate with grid operators to automatically charge vehicles at optimal times (e.g., lower prices), thereby generating an autonomous response to grid conditions. ¶¶ 21-22, 93 col. 2:12-32
a first electricity meter for reading current, frequency, or voltage from a first electricity supply line to one of the plurality of electric vehicle charging stations; Plaintiff alleges he "conceived of the idea of adding and communicatively coupling a revenue-grade electric meter with each JuiceBox charging station," which was a novel feature for residential chargers at the time and allowed for accurate energy measurement. ¶¶ 43, 81 col. 1:45-51
an electric vehicle charging controller operatively coupled to the first electricity meter...and operable to obtain readings from the first electricity meter...and to control at least one of the plurality of electric vehicle charging stations based on the obtained readings. The alleged contribution is the conception of the overall system architecture where a controller (the "JuiceNet" cloud software) uses data from the meters and grid operators to control the charging stations, thereby enabling the system to "automatically charge the electric vehicles during periods when the energy providers and grid operators offered electricity at lower prices." ¶¶ 22, 93 col. 2:25-32
  • ’277 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Plaintiff's Alleged Inventive Contribution Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A computerized system for electrical charging load modeling to optimize power grid objectives, the system incorporating a plurality of charging assets; and a cloud server comprising...a data aggregation module configured to collect...a plurality of information items; Plaintiff alleges he conceived of and refined the concept of a "connected" system using "cloud-based software and data from grid operators and energy providers" to manage a network of chargers. This forms the basis for the claimed system of a cloud server aggregating data for a plurality of assets. ¶¶ 22, 42, 87 col. 2:45-54
an analytics module configured to identify at least one temporal model associated with the data...a charging module configured to determine a charging pattern for each of the plurality of charging assets...based on the at least one temporal model; Plaintiff alleges he "conceived of and promoted the idea of using a 'user preference' approach for the software controlling each JuiceBox charging station," where the software would "model and control the charging station based on the user's preferences and their actual charging behavior." This is alleged to be the inventive concept behind determining a charging pattern. ¶44, 87 col. 2:54-61
a charger asset module configured to control charging of the plurality of charging assets in accordance with the determined charging patterns by issuing a control command to each of the plurality of charging assets; The complaint alleges the conceived system would "automatically charge the electric vehicles" and could "reduce the electricity usage of a large number of charging stations," which implies the system's ability to issue control commands to implement the determined charging patterns. ¶¶ 22, 24, 87 col. 2:61-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Plaintiff's alleged contributions—described in the complaint as proposing a "connected" system, a "user preference" approach, and adding a meter—amount to conception of the specific, multi-element systems and methods recited in the independent claims. The court will need to determine if Plaintiff's alleged ideas were merely general goals or if they constituted a "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention."
    • Technical Questions: The dispute is highly factual and will depend on what evidence can corroborate Plaintiff's conception and communication of these ideas during the alleged collaboration period. Questions will arise regarding the timing and specificity of his contributions relative to the provisional patent application's filing date. For instance, does the concept of a "user preference" approach (Compl. ¶44) equate to the conception of an "analytics module configured to identify at least one temporal model" as claimed in the ’277 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While claim construction is not for infringement, the interpretation of certain terms will be critical to assessing the scope and significance of Plaintiff's alleged inventive contributions.

  • Term: "local autonomous response" (’450 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The heart of the ’450 Patent is a system that responds "autonomously." The scope of this term is key. If "autonomous" is construed narrowly to require the specific three-meter architecture and internal logic described in the patent, it may be more difficult for Plaintiff to establish a contribution to the complete invention. If construed more broadly to mean any system that responds to local conditions without real-time dispatch from a utility, it may better encompass Plaintiff's alleged contribution of a "connected" system that responds to grid pricing data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section contrasts the invention with systems that lack automatic responses entirely, suggesting the core novelty is the addition of automation itself (’450 Patent, col. 1:57-65).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention and the claim itself explicitly recite a structure with first, second, and third electricity meters and a controller that uses their specific inputs, suggesting that "autonomous response" is defined by the operation of this particular architecture (’450 Patent, col. 2:12-32, Claim 1).

  • Term: "temporal model" (’277 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges he conceived of a "user preference" system where software would "model and control" charging. The ’277 Patent claims an "analytics module" that identifies a "temporal model." Practitioners may focus on whether Plaintiff's alleged contribution of a user-preference-driven system constitutes conception of the claimed "temporal model."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is part of a family of applications stemming from the original "connected charger" concept. A party might argue "temporal model" should be read in that broader context to include any predictive modeling based on time-variant user inputs and preferences.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not appear to explicitly define "temporal model." A party may argue it has a specific meaning in the art of data analytics that is narrower than the general concept of modeling user behavior. The lack of a specific definition in the patent itself may make its construction a central point of expert testimony.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint is framed as a civil action for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.

  • Correction of Inventorship (35 U.S.C. § 256): The primary relief sought is to have the court order the Director of the USPTO to issue certificates of correction adding George Betak as a co-inventor to the five patents-in-suit (Compl., p. 31, ¶¶ 1-2). To succeed, Plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he made a significant contribution to the conception of the invention as claimed in at least one claim of each patent.
  • Inventor's Intent: A prerequisite for correction under § 256 is that the error in naming inventors "arose without any deceptive intention on his part." The complaint repeatedly pleads that the omission of Plaintiff Betak was "without any deceptive intent on the part of Plaintiff Betak" (Compl. ¶¶ 82, 88, 94, 100, 106).
  • Defendants' Intent and Unenforceability: As an alternative remedy, the complaint requests a ruling that the patents are "invalid and unenforceable because the failure to identify Plaintiff Betak as inventor was intentional and cannot be corrected" (Compl., p. 31, ¶3). This allegation is supported by extensive factual claims suggesting deceptive conduct by the defendants, including the alleged creation of a fraudulent intellectual property assignment agreement to mislead the plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 74–75). This creates a central tension, as proving deceptive intent by the defendants could prevent correction and instead lead to patent invalidity.

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

The resolution of this inventorship dispute will likely depend on the court’s determination of the following key questions:

  • An Evidentiary Question of Contribution: Can the plaintiff produce sufficient corroborating evidence to prove, by the clear and convincing standard, that he conceived of a "significant" part of the specific inventions recited in the patent claims and communicated that conception to the named inventors? The case will turn on factual evidence of what was conceived and communicated during the alleged collaboration.
  • A Legal Question of Conception: Does the plaintiff's alleged contribution—primarily the high-level concepts of a "connected" charger ecosystem and a "user preference" control model—rise to the level of co-inventorship for the detailed, multi-element claims? A core issue will be whether he merely identified a desirable outcome or contributed to the "definite and permanent idea" of the operative inventions as they were ultimately claimed.
  • A Procedural Question of Intent: How will the court resolve the issue of deceptive intent? Plaintiff must show his omission occurred without deceptive intent on his part to enable correction, yet the complaint alleges facts that point toward deceptive intent by the defendants. The determination of whether deceptive intent existed, and by whom, will be critical in shaping the available remedy—either correcting the patents by adding the plaintiff or declaring them unenforceable.