DCT

5:24-cv-08891

CyboEnergy Inc v. Duracell Power Center LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-08891, N.D. Cal., 12/10/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s alleged regular and established place of business within the Northern District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s solar power inverters infringe patents related to a system for visually displaying inverter status and a method for maximizing power generation in low-light conditions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns solar power inverters, which are essential components for converting direct current (DC) from solar panels into alternating current (AC) suitable for use in the power grid or by local electrical devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-06-30 '488 Patent Priority Date
2013-03-07 '489 Patent Priority Date
2016-05-03 '488 Patent Issue Date
2016-05-03 '489 Patent Issue Date
2024-12-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,331,488, "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters," issued May 3, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the practical difficulty for solar system installers to quickly and accurately diagnose the operational status of increasingly complex multi-channel power inverters in the field, which can lead to costly installation errors and troubleshooting delays (’488 Patent, col. 11:10-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "message system" for a power inverter that uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to communicate status. A central microcontroller monitors the inverter's overall system and each individual input channel, and then controls a system status LED and multiple channel status LEDs to display specific colors and patterns (e.g., solid green, flashing red) that correspond to predefined operational states like "working," "warning," or "error" (’488 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-58). This provides an immediate, user-friendly diagnostic interface directly on the device.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce the installation and maintenance costs of solar power systems by providing an intuitive, on-device method for installers to verify correct operation and troubleshoot faults without needing external diagnostic equipment (’488 Patent, col. 11:15-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 16 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Claim 16 requires a method for indicating status, comprising:
    • monitoring the status of a power inverter having multiple DC input channels and monitoring each of the input channels;
    • actuating LEDs based on the monitoring;
    • wherein a system status LED is controlled to indicate five distinct states: (a) the inverter is working; (b) the inverter is working but has warnings; (c) the inverter has errors; (d) the AC grid has errors; and (e) the inverter is off.
  • Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 9,331,489, "Maximizing Power Production at Low Sunlight by Solar Power Mini-Inverters," issued May 3, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Solar inverters require a certain amount of DC power to run their own internal electronics. In low-light conditions such as sunrise, sunset, or partial shading, a solar panel may not produce enough power to both operate the inverter's circuits and export AC power, forcing the inverter to shut down and cease all power generation (’489 Patent, col. 3:56-col. 4:24).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a multi-channel inverter that can enter a "low power mode." In this mode, the inverter's microcontroller dedicates one of its DC input channels (and its connected solar panel) exclusively to powering the inverter's internal DC power supply. The remaining channels are then free to use all of their generated DC power for conversion to AC power for the grid, allowing the inverter to continue operating and harvesting energy in conditions where it would otherwise shut down (’489 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:25-41).
  • Technical Importance: The invention is intended to increase the total energy yield of a solar power system by extending its operational hours into periods of low solar irradiance, thereby capturing power that would otherwise be lost (’489 Patent, col. 1:53-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15 and 16 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 14 requires a multi-channel solar power inverter comprising, among other elements:
    • at least two DC input channels;
    • a DC power combiner for combining DC output from the channels;
    • a digital microcontroller constructed to run the inverter in a "normal or low power mode" based on calculated DC input power;
    • a DC power supply configured to take DC power from a "dedicated input channel" when the microcontroller detects that input power is below a pre-determined value.
  • Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Duracell PC's solar power inverters" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are solar power inverters that convert DC power from solar panels into AC power (Compl. ¶24). It alleges the products are marketed, sold, and distributed to businesses and individuals throughout the United States, including within the Northern District of California (Compl. ¶21, ¶31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D) that were not included with the filing; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized based on the complaint's narrative text.

’488 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes at least claim 16 of the ’488 patent by making, using, testing, and selling the Accused Products (Compl. ¶18). The narrative infringement theory is that the Accused Products practice the claimed method by monitoring their own system and channel status and actuating on-device LEDs to visually communicate that status to users, corresponding to the steps of the asserted method claim (Compl. ¶23).

’489 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes at least claims 14, 15, and 16 of the ’489 patent because the Accused Products are multi-channel solar inverters that embody the claimed combination of hardware and software (Compl. ¶28, ¶33). The core of the infringement theory is that the accused inverters include the elements recited in claim 14, such as multiple DC inputs, a DC power combiner, a microcontroller, and a DC power supply, and are configured to operate in a low-power mode as claimed.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’488 patent, a primary question is whether the accused inverters' LED system indicates the five specific and distinct operational states required by claim 16 (working, working with warnings, inverter errors, grid errors, off). For the ’489 patent, the dispute may center on whether the term "dedicated input channel" requires the complete and exclusive reservation of one channel's power for the internal supply, and whether the accused products meet that structural and functional requirement.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused inverters' LED signals are "actuated based on the monitoring" of the specific conditions as claimed, rather than being general indicators? For the ’489 patent, what evidence shows that the accused inverters' low-power functionality is achieved via the claimed architecture of dedicating one channel, as opposed to an alternative technical approach such as drawing a small amount of power from all available channels?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'488 Patent, Claim 16

  • The Term: "a system status LED is controlled and arranged to indicate that... a) the inverter is working; b) the inverter is working but has warnings; c) the inverter has errors; d) the AC grid has errors; and e) the inverter is off"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific functional output of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused device's single system LED can be shown to map to these five distinct, enumerated states.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify how the LED must indicate these states (e.g., color, pattern), which may support a construction covering any form of visual distinction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed tables and flowcharts that assign specific LED colors (green, red) and patterns (solid, flashing) to different "Case" numbers representing system status (’488 Patent, Table 1; Fig. 7). A party could argue these specific embodiments narrow the scope of how the LED must be "controlled and arranged."

'489 Patent, Claim 14

  • The Term: "configured with one input channel... dedicated to supply DC power to the DC power supply"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novel "low power mode." The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused inverter's architecture includes a channel that is "dedicated" in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the functional term "configured with," which could be argued to encompass any hardware or software arrangement that achieves the result of dedicating the channel's power, regardless of the precise implementation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 3, depict a specific architecture where the DC power from one channel (via line 28) is routed away from the main DC power combiner (32) and directly to the DC power supply (36). This could support an argument that "dedicated" requires a distinct power path that bypasses the main power combination stage (’489 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 5:35-41).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant actively encourages infringement by providing "website and product instruction manuals" that instruct customers on how to use the accused inverters in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 34-35).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendant had no reasonable basis for believing the patents were invalid and made no attempt to design around the claims (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 29-30). The complaint alleges knowledge of the patents and infringement from at least the filing date of the lawsuit, while reserving the right to prove pre-suit knowledge through discovery (Compl. ¶24, fn. 1; ¶34, fn. 3).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of architectural implementation: Does the accused inverter's low-power mode operate by structurally or functionally "dedicating" an entire input channel to its internal power supply as required by the '489 patent, or does it employ a different technical method for self-powering in low light?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused product's LED notification system performs the specific, five-part diagnostic method of '488 patent Claim 16, or is its display a more generalized status indicator that falls short of the claim's detailed functional requirements?
  3. The viability of the willfulness and enhanced damages claims will depend on a temporal question of knowledge: Can Plaintiff produce evidence during discovery to establish that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the filing of the complaint, thereby extending the period of potential willful infringement?