DCT

4:16-cv-07068

Asetek Danmark As v. Newegg Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:16-cv-07068, N.D. Cal., 12/09/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having a principal place of business in California, conducting business throughout the state, and infringing products being sold to and used by consumers within the Northern District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' sale of various all-in-one liquid coolers and products containing them infringes two patents related to integrated cooling systems for computer components.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology for liquid cooling high-performance computer components (like CPUs and GPUs), a critical area for the PC gaming, enthusiast, and data center markets where efficient heat dissipation is paramount.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint heavily relies on a prior lawsuit in the same court where Asetek secured a jury verdict, final judgment, and permanent injunction against Cooler Master (CMI) for infringing the same patents-in-suit with products that Asetek alleges are sold by Newegg. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Asetek alleges it sent two cease-and-desist letters to Newegg, which were ignored. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In May 2024, the PTAB issued certificates canceling all claims asserted in this complaint, a development that fundamentally impacts the viability of the case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-11-07 ’362 Patent Priority Date
2005-05-06 ’764 Patent Priority Date
2012-08-14 ’362 Patent Issue Date
2012-08-21 ’764 Patent Issue Date
2013-01-31 Asetek files suit against Cooler Master (CMI)
2014-12-17 Jury finds CMI infringed patents-in-suit
2015-09-22 Court issues permanent injunction against CMI
2015-10-28 Newegg receives first cease-and-desist letter from Asetek
2015-11-25 Asetek sends second cease-and-desist letter to Newegg
2016-12-06 Federal Circuit affirms judgment against CMI
2016-12-09 Complaint filed against Newegg
2024-05-01 IPR Certificate issues canceling all claims of the ’764 Patent
2024-05-02 IPR Certificate issues canceling asserted claims of the ’362 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,240,362 - "Cooling System for a Computer System," issued Aug. 14, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional air-cooling systems for computer processors as increasingly inadequate for handling the heat generated by faster CPUs. It further notes that existing liquid-cooling solutions were often complex, comprising numerous separate components that increased installation time and the risk of leaks. (’362 Patent, col. 1:15-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a compact liquid-cooling system where the pump, a liquid reservoir, and the heat-exchanging interface (the "cold plate" that contacts the CPU) are combined into a single, integrated element. This integrated unit is designed to be mounted directly onto the processor, simplifying installation and reducing the number of connections compared to prior art systems. (’362 Patent, col. 2:5-22, Fig. 15).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating key components into a single housing, the invention aimed to make high-performance liquid cooling more accessible, reliable, and practical for mainstream consumer and OEM computer systems. (’362 Patent, col. 1:40-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15, 17, 18, and 19 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Independent claim 14 describes a cooling system comprising:
    • A reservoir coupled to a processing unit, which includes separate upper and lower chambers connected by passageways.
    • A heat exchanging interface, removably attached to the reservoir, that forms a boundary wall of the lower chamber and makes thermal contact with the processing unit.
    • A pump with an impeller, positioned within the reservoir, to circulate cooling liquid.
    • A heat radiator and a separate fan to exhaust heat from the liquid.

U.S. Patent No. 8,245,764 - "Cooling System for a Computer System," issued Aug. 21, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical challenge as the ’362 Patent: the need for a simple, reliable, and compact liquid-cooling solution to replace less effective air coolers and complex, multi-part liquid coolers. (’764 Patent, col. 1:11-49).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on a specific pump and housing architecture. It describes a "double-sided chassis" where the pump's motor stator (the stationary electrical part) is mounted on the upper side of the chassis, keeping it isolated from the coolant, while the pump's impeller (the rotating part that moves the liquid) is positioned on the underside of the chassis, submerged in the liquid. (’764 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 20).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a robust physical separation between the pump motor's electronics and the conductive cooling liquid within a single integrated unit, enhancing system reliability and longevity, which are critical factors for a mainstream commercial product. (’764 Patent, col. 2:32-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 15, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, 17, and 18 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Independent claim 1, a representative claim, describes a cooling system comprising:
    • A double-sided chassis for mounting a pump.
    • A stator positioned on the upper side of the chassis, isolated from the cooling liquid.
    • An impeller positioned on the underside of the chassis.
    • A reservoir including a pump chamber (containing the impeller) and a separate thermal exchange chamber.
    • A heat-exchanging interface forming a boundary of the thermal exchange chamber.
    • A heat radiator to dissipate heat.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Newegg Infringing Products" as a collection of all-in-one (AIO) liquid coolers sold by Newegg, including products manufactured by Cooler Master (e.g., Seidon and Nepton series) and other products that incorporate similar coolers, such as certain graphics cards from EVGA and GigaByte and CPU bundles from AMD (Compl. ¶5, ¶20, ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are self-contained liquid cooling systems used to cool high-heat computer components like CPUs and GPUs. The complaint alleges these products are either the same models previously found by a court to infringe the patents-in-suit in litigation against the manufacturer, CMI, or are "new liquid-cooling product[s] which infringe[] for similar reasons" (Compl. ¶26, ¶34). The complaint provides a screenshot of a Newegg product page for the "Cooler Master Seidon 120M," showing the integrated pump/block unit, radiator, and tubing characteristic of an AIO cooler (Compl. ¶21, p. 6). Another screenshot shows an "EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Ti... HYBRID GAMING" graphics card, which integrates an AIO cooler, illustrating how the technology is incorporated into other components (Compl. ¶21, p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element technical analysis of how the accused products infringe. Instead, its infringement theory relies almost entirely on the outcome of prior litigation.

  • ’362 and ’764 Infringement Allegations:
    The complaint's primary allegation is that Newegg sells products that have already been adjudicated as infringing. It states that the Cooler Master Seidon, Nepton, and Glacer products "were already found by this Court to infringe" the asserted claims of the ’362 Patent and that infringement of the ’764 Patent was "not dispute[d]" by the manufacturer in the same litigation (Compl. ¶25, ¶33). For other accused products not explicitly named in the prior suit (e.g., certain EVGA and GigaByte models), the complaint makes the conclusory allegation that they infringe "for the same reasons" because they either contain an infringing cooler or are themselves new, infringing liquid-cooling products (Compl. ¶26, ¶34). The complaint provides no specific evidence or claim charts to substantiate these claims for the new products.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's reliance on "similar reasons" for infringement by new products raises the question of what specific technical evidence Asetek would present to prove these products meet every limitation of the asserted claims. The defense would likely challenge the lack of specific factual allegations for these products.
    • Legal Questions: A central legal question is the preclusive effect, if any, of the judgment against the manufacturer (CMI) on a reseller (Newegg), particularly for products not explicitly adjudicated in the prior case.
    • Validity Post-IPR: The most significant issue is the cancellation of all asserted claims of both patents in inter partes review proceedings, which occurred after the complaint was filed (’362 IPR Cert.; ’764 IPR Cert.). This raises the threshold question of whether Asetek can maintain an action for damages on claims the USPTO has retroactively deemed unpatentable.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not offer arguments regarding the meaning of any claim terms. However, based on the technology, certain terms would likely be central to any dispute.

  • The Term: "reservoir" (from ’362 Patent, claim 14)
  • Context and Importance: The invention's core is the integration of components. The definition of a single "reservoir" that includes a pump and is attached to a heat exchanger is critical to distinguishing the invention from prior art systems with separate components. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused products, which may have bolted-together housings, constitute a single integrated "reservoir" as taught by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's objective is to "limit the number of separate elements of the system," which could support construing any single housing that contains the cooling liquid and pump as the claimed "reservoir" (’362 Patent, col. 2:18-22).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments like Figure 15 depict a highly unified structure where the pump impeller sits in a chamber formed directly by the reservoir housing and the heat exchange plate. This could support a narrower construction limited to similarly integrated physical structures (’362 Patent, Fig. 15; col. 17:19-27).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It claims Newegg induced infringement by merchants and customers by facilitating sales on its website with knowledge of the patents since at least October 28, 2015 (Compl. ¶27, ¶35). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused coolers are material components not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶28, ¶36).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Newegg's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the prior CMI judgment. The complaint states Newegg was explicitly notified via two cease-and-desist letters, the first of which it received by October 28, 2015 (Compl. ¶17-18). Asetek alleges that Newegg’s continued sale of the accused products after these notices constitutes "egregious and willful" conduct warranting enhanced damages (Compl. ¶29, ¶37).

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

  1. A central, likely dispositive issue for the court is one of legal viability: What is the effect of the post-filing IPR decisions that cancelled all asserted claims of both patents-in-suit? Can a suit seeking damages for past infringement proceed on claims that the USPTO has subsequently found unpatentable?

  2. A key evidentiary question is one of technical proof: Assuming the case could proceed, does Asetek's reliance on the prior CMI judgment and conclusory allegations of similarity provide sufficient factual support to prove infringement by accused products not explicitly adjudicated in the prior litigation, or is there a fundamental failure of proof?

  3. A core question for damages will be one of objective recklessness: Given Newegg's status as a reseller and its documented knowledge of the prior CMI litigation, was its continued sale of the accused products objectively reckless conduct sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement, or could it have maintained a reasonable, good-faith belief that the patents were invalid or not infringed?