Battery Conservation Innovations LLC v. InMotion Technology LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Battery Conservation Innovations, LLC (a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Florida)
  • Defendant: InMotion Technology LLC (a Washington limited liability company with a principal office in California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Budo Law, LLP
• Case Identification: 3:19-cv-00794, S.D. Cal., 04/30/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is deemed a resident of the Southern District of California. Alternatively, the complaint alleges that acts of infringement occur in the district and that the Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric personal mobility devices infringe a patent related to technology for automatically powering down a device to conserve battery life after a period of detected inactivity.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using motion sensors to trigger a power-saving mode in portable, battery-operated electronics, a feature relevant to extending the operational life of such devices.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer over a parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,610,372, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,239,158 - "Battery-Conserving Flashlight and Method Thereof"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,239,158, "Battery-Conserving Flashlight and Method Thereof," issued January 19, 2016 (’158 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of battery-powered portable devices, such as flashlights, being left on accidentally after use, which drains the battery unnecessarily ('158 Patent, col. 1:26-34). This can occur when a user puts the device down and does not realize it is still consuming power, particularly if the device is placed in a position where its "on" state is not obvious ('158 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automatic shutdown system. It incorporates a controller and a motion sensor to detect if the device is stationary. If the device remains motionless for a pre-set period, the controller "decouples" the battery from the power-consuming components (e.g., an illumination source) to conserve energy ('158 Patent, Abstract). The system can also provide a visual or audible alert to the user before shutting down, allowing the user to override the shutdown by simply moving the device ('158 Patent, col. 4:50-58; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This technology automates power management for portable electronics, conserving battery life and reducing the waste associated with depleted disposable batteries without requiring active user intervention ('158 Patent, col. 1:35-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 15 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of Claim 15 are:
  • A body including an opening for accessing an interior of the body;
  • At least one battery disposed in the body and configured for powering the device;
  • A controller disposed in the body configured to determine if the body is in motion, wherein if the body is not in motion for a first predetermined period of time, the controller decouples the at least one battery from the electronic device to conserve energy; and
  • A visual indicator disposed on an exterior surface of the body, wherein the controller activates the visual indicator.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names the "L8F personal mobility device" and "any similar products," which are described and depicted as electric kick scooters (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused product is a battery-powered electric scooter. The complaint alleges the product incorporates a feature described as "Automatic shutdown after 30s under static condition" (Compl. p. 8). This feature allegedly uses a controller and a "motion sensor on switch" to determine if the scooter has been stationary for 30 seconds, at which point it automatically powers off to "save the battery for longer distance" (Compl. ¶21, p. 4, p. 6). The product includes a display screen on the handlebars that provides operational status information to the user (Compl. ¶22). A screenshot from InMotion's website shows a countdown to "Automatic Shutdown," indicating a 30-second timer (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'158 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The '158 Patent is titled "Battery-Conserving Flashlight" and its specification heavily emphasizes a flashlight embodiment. This raises the question of whether the claimed term "electronic device" can be interpreted to cover a complex product like an electric scooter, or if its scope is implicitly limited by the disclosure to simpler, handheld devices. The patent does, however, state that its teachings may be applied to other devices, including laptops and tablets ('158 Patent, col. 6:18-22), which may support a broader construction.
  • Technical Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "decouples the at least one battery." The patent illustrates this concept with a physical switch (Fig. 2, item 222) that appears to interrupt the power circuit. The court will have to determine whether the accused scooter's software-driven "automatic shutdown" or low-power state is technically equivalent to the "decoupling" function described and claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electronic device"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis. The patent is titled for a "flashlight," but Claim 15 uses the broader term "electronic device." The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is broad enough to read on the accused electric scooter.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 15 uses the general term "electronic device." The specification explicitly states, "the teachings, techniques and principles of the present disclosure can be applied to other electronic device that employ at least one battery, for example, a radio, portable media player, mobile phone, laptop computer, tablet, etc." ('158 Patent, col. 6:18-22).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and detailed description focus almost exclusively on a flashlight as the exemplary embodiment. A defendant may argue that the invention, as disclosed, is specific to such simple devices and that the list of other electronics is boilerplate that does not expand the core inventive concept beyond the disclosed context.

• The Term: "decouples the at least one battery from the electronic device"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the power-saving action. Its interpretation will determine whether the accused scooter's shutdown mechanism performs the claimed function. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a software-controlled standby mode meets the limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This phrase could be interpreted functionally to mean any action that ceases the primary power draw from the battery to the device's main operational components, which could include a software-initiated power-off state.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s schematic diagram shows a physical "switch 222" that the "controller 224" uses to connect or disconnect the "battery 220" from the "illumination source 108" ('158 Patent, Fig. 2). Language describing the controller's action states it "couples or decoupled the at least one battery to the illumination source" ('158 Patent, col. 4:14-15), which may suggest a direct interruption of the electrical circuit.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant induces infringement "through its customers' actions" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not plead specific facts demonstrating an affirmative intent to encourage infringement beyond the sale of the product itself.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that the Defendant has had "knowledge of its infringement...at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶13), which may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "electronic device," which arises from a patent specification overwhelmingly focused on a "flashlight," be construed broadly enough to cover a technologically distinct and more complex product like the accused electric scooter? The patent's own text provides evidence for both broad and narrow interpretations, making claim construction a critical battleground.
• A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused scooter's software-controlled "automatic shutdown" feature constitute "decoupl[ing] the at least one battery from the electronic device" as required by Claim 15? The case may turn on whether this claim language requires a physical interruption of the main power circuit, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it can read on a software-managed low-power or off state.