DCT

1:17-cv-01100

Interface Linx LLC v. Pioneer Electronics USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01100, D. Del., 08/07/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc.'s incorporation in the state of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ audio/visual products equipped with standard HDMI Type A ports infringe a patent directed to the specific physical geometry of an electrical connector assembly.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the physical design of electrical connectors for high-speed data transfer, where standardized, non-symmetrical shapes are critical for preventing improper connections and ensuring interoperability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants had knowledge of the patent since at least April 27, 2017, the filing date of a prior action. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (IPR2020-01463). On July 14, 2022, an IPR certificate was issued cancelling all claims (1-5) of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-31 '678 Patent Priority Date
2003-01-21 '678 Patent Issue Date
2017-04-27 Filing of a prior, related action mentioned in complaint
2017-08-07 Complaint Filing Date
2020-08-14 IPR filed against '678 Patent (IPR2020-01463)
2022-07-14 IPR Certificate issues, cancelling all claims of '678 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,508,678 - "Electrical Connector Assembly," issued January 21, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional connectors, such as the Universal Serial Bus (USB), where the symmetrical design could lead a user to attempt to plug it in incorrectly, thereby "hindering data transmission" ('678 Patent, col. 1:23-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a connector assembly with a specific, asymmetrical physical geometry for both the plug and receptacle. This geometry is defined by a "multi-sided... confining wall" with a unique arrangement of five distinct side segments of specified relative lengths, widths, and angles, which physically prevents the plug from being inserted into the receptacle in an incorrect orientation ('678 Patent, col. 1:40 - col. 2:1; FIG. 9).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aimed to create a more robust and error-proof physical interface for electrical connectors, a key consideration for ensuring reliable data connections between consumer electronic devices ('678 Patent, col. 1:36-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires an "electrical connector assembly" comprising a plug and a receptacle, each defined by a multi-sided confining wall with the following geometric properties:
    • Opposite first and second sides, a pair of third sides, a pair of fourth sides, and a pair of fifth sides.
    • The first side is longer than the second side.
    • The width between the third sides is greater than the width between the fourth sides.
    • The fifth sides are angled away from each other, connecting the third and fourth sides.
    • The first and second sides are "substantially parallel."
    • The third sides are "substantially perpendicular" to the first side.
    • The fourth sides extend "obliquely" from the second side.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Systems" include a range of Pioneer-branded products, such as A/V Receivers (e.g., SC-LX801), Vehicle Receivers (e.g., AVIC-8201NEX), and Blu-ray Players (e.g., BDP-80FD), as well as compatible HDMI cables (e.g., CD-AH200) (Compl. ¶¶12, 14, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are designed to the specifications of HDMI Type A and utilize HDMI plugs and receptacles to form an electrical connector assembly for transferring audio and video data (Compl. ¶¶12, 15). The rear panel of an accused receiver, showing multiple HDMI input and output receptacles, is depicted in the complaint (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges that the design described in the '678 Patent was utilized to create the Type A plug and receptacle found on "the vast majority of electronic devices today" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • '678 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An electrical connector assembly, comprising: a plug... and a receptacle... each... being defined by a multi-sided... confining wall The Accused Systems require both HDMI Type A plugs and receptacles, which together form the electrical connector assembly. The mating portions of both the plug and receptacle are defined by a multi-sided confining wall. ¶¶15, 17 col. 5:9-20
...each of said first and second confining walls having opposite first and second sides, a pair of opposite third sides..., a pair of fourth sides..., and a pair of fifth sides... The complaint provides a color-coded diagram illustrating the geometry of an HDMI Type A receptacle, identifying the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth sides as recited in the claim. ¶20 col. 4:1-8
...said first side being longer than said second side... the width between said third sides being greater than that between said fourth sides... The complaint alleges that in HDMI Type A connectors, the first side is longer than the second, and the width between the third sides is less than the width between the fourth sides. ¶20 col. 4:8-11
...said fifth sides being angled away from each other while extending from said fourth sides to said third sides... The complaint alleges that a pair of fifth sides connect the respective third and fourth sides and are "angled away from each other." ¶20 col. 4:11-13
...said first and second sides are substantially parallel, and said third sides are substantially perpendicular to said first side... It is alleged that in HDMI Type A connectors, the first and second sides are substantially parallel, and the third sides are substantially perpendicular to the first side. ¶21 col. 4:13-16
...said fourth sides extend obliquely from said second side. The complaint alleges that the fourth sides of the HDMI Type A connector extend obliquely from each end of the second side. ¶22 col. 4:16-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The patent’s background focuses on solving problems with "conventional USB" connectors ('678 Patent, col. 1:7-10). A question may arise as to whether the claims, despite their generic language, should be interpreted in light of this context or if they read broadly on any connector type, including the later-developed HDMI standard.
    • Technical Questions: The core of the dispute rests on whether the standardized dimensions and angles of an HDMI Type A connector literally meet every geometric and relational limitation of Claim 1. The complaint provides a labeled diagram of an HDMI port to illustrate its theory of infringement (Compl. p. 6). The analysis will depend on the precise meaning of relational terms like "substantially parallel," "substantially perpendicular," and "obliquely," and whether the physical HDMI connector falls within the scope of those terms.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "substantially perpendicular"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the relationship between the "first side" (top edge) and the "third sides" (vertical side edges) of the connector shell. The degree of angular tolerance permitted by "substantially" will be critical for determining whether the physical HDMI connector, which may not have a perfect 90-degree angle, meets this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term without providing an explicit numerical or angular range, which may support an interpretation aligned with its plain and ordinary meaning, allowing for minor manufacturing deviations from a true perpendicular angle ('678 Patent, col. 4:15).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The corresponding drawings (e.g., FIG. 9) depict a relationship that appears to be a precise 90-degree angle. Parties may argue that these embodiments limit the scope of "substantially" to only very minor deviations from perpendicularity.

  • The Term: "obliquely"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the orientation of the "fourth sides" (the angled bottom corners) relative to the "second side" (bottom edge). This feature is fundamental to the connector's asymmetry. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it means any non-parallel/non-perpendicular angle or implies a more specific range of angles—is central to the infringement read.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "obliquely" with any specific angles, suggesting it should be given its broad, common meaning of "slanting" or "inclined" ('678 Patent, col. 4:16-17).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the specific angles depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., FIG. 9) exemplify and thus limit the claimed term to angles similar to those shown in the preferred embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendants provide user manuals, advertising, and product support that instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the HDMI receptacle is a material component of the invention that is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶27).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the '678 Patent since at least April 27, 2017, from a prior legal action, and their subsequent continued infringement (Compl. ¶¶28, 30).

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

  • A dispositive threshold issue is the viability of the asserted patent: given that all claims of the '678 patent were cancelled in a 2022 Inter Partes Review proceeding that occurred after this complaint was filed, the fundamental question is whether the plaintiff has any surviving cause of action.
  • A central question on the merits, as framed by the 2017 complaint, is one of geometric equivalence: does the standardized physical structure of an HDMI Type A connector literally satisfy every specific dimensional and relational limitation recited in Claim 1 of the '678 patent? The case would have turned on the construction of relational terms like