Cap XX Ltd v. Cornell Dubilier Electronics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CAP-XX, Ltd. (Australia)
  • Defendant: Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
• Case Identification: CAP-XX, Ltd. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc., 1:18-cv-00353, D. Del., 03/06/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant’s incorporation in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s supercapacitors infringe patents related to high-performance charge storage devices defined by specific volumetric and gravimetric performance metrics known as a Figure of Merit (FOM).
• Technical Context: The technology concerns supercapacitors, an energy storage technology critical for applications requiring high-power pulses, such as in wireless, consumer, and automotive electronics.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on September 27, 2017, Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the patents-in-suit and offered a license, which Defendant allegedly refused. This event forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-12-05	Priority Date (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,920,034 & 7,382,600)
2005-07-19	U.S. Patent No. 6,920,034 Issued
2008-06-03	U.S. Patent No. 7,382,600 Issued
2017-09-27	Plaintiff provides Defendant with notice of infringement
2018-03-06	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,920,034 - "Charge Storage Device," issued July 19, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art supercapacitors, which were generally optimized for either high energy density (using non-aqueous electrolytes) or high power (using aqueous electrolytes), but not both. This made them unsuitable for emerging high-power pulsed applications that required a combination of characteristics, as they were often limited by high equivalent series resistance (Compl. ¶8; ’034 Patent, col. 1:49-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a supercapacitor defined not just by its physical components but by achieving specific performance benchmarks. It introduces a "Figure of Merit" (FOM)—either volumetric (Watts/cm³) or gravimetric (Watts/gram)—as the key metric. This FOM is described as a more appropriate measure for pulse power applications than traditional models ('034 Patent, col. 16:42-54). By meeting certain FOM and voltage thresholds, the device is positioned as a solution for high-power pulse applications.
• Technical Importance: The invention proposed a design and characterization methodology for supercapacitors focused on their dynamic performance in pulse applications, moving beyond the static trade-offs that previously defined the field ('034 Patent, col. 1:38-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 13, and 51 (Compl. ¶16).
• Independent Claim 1: A charge storage device comprising: a cell with two electrodes and a porous separator, a sealed package containing the cell and an electrolyte, and at least two terminals, wherein the device has a volumetric FOM greater than about 3.2 Watts/cm³ and a maximum operating voltage less than about 4 Volts (Compl. ¶17; ’034 Patent, col. 31:27-40).
• Independent Claim 13: A charge storage device similar to claim 1, but further requiring that the electrodes include a carbon layer with a surface area greater than 400 m²/gram, the electrolyte is organic, and the volumetric FOM is greater than about 1.1 Watts/cm³ (Compl. ¶21; ’034 Patent, col. 31:62-32:14).
• Independent Claim 51: A charge storage device similar to claim 1, but defined by a gravimetric FOM greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram and a maximum operating voltage less than about 4 Volts (Compl. ¶18; ’034 Patent, col. 34:11-24).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but states infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶16).

U.S. Patent No. 7,382,600 - "Charge Storage Device," issued June 3, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’034 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem: the inadequacy of prior art supercapacitors for high-power pulse applications due to performance trade-offs and high internal resistance (’600 Patent, col. 1:47-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a charge storage device characterized by a high gravimetric Figure of Merit (FOM), which the specification identifies as a key performance indicator for pulse power applications (’600 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-25).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for designing and evaluating supercapacitors based on their suitability for high-frequency, high-power-draw applications, as detailed in the patent family (’600 Patent, col. 1:41-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
• Independent Claim 1: A charge storage device comprising: two electrodes, a porous separator, a sealed package containing the components and an electrolyte, and first and second terminals connected to the respective electrodes, wherein the device has a gravimetric FOM greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram (Compl. ¶29; ’600 Patent, col. 31:2-15).
• This claim is notable for being similar to claim 51 of the ’034 Patent but omitting the limitation that the "maximum operating voltage of the cell is less than about 4 Volts."
• The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses certain supercapacitors manufactured, sold, and imported by Defendant CDE, including products from its DCN and DER series (Compl. ¶20, ¶23). Part number 107DCN2R7Q is identified as a specific, non-limiting example of an infringing product (Compl. ¶11, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as electrochemical charge storage devices (Compl. ¶19, ¶30). The complaint alleges that these devices possess the fundamental structure recited in the patents: at least two electrodes, a porous separator, a sealed package, an electrolyte, and external terminals (Compl. ¶19, ¶22, ¶30). Crucially, the infringement allegations are based on these products meeting the specific performance metrics central to the patents, such as the volumetric and gravimetric FOM thresholds (Compl. ¶19, ¶30). The complaint asserts that CDE is an active participant in the U.S. market for these components (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’034 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A charge storage device comprising: a charge storage cell including: (a) a first electrode; (b) a second electrode being opposed to and spaced apart from the first electrode; and (c) a porous separator disposed between the electrodes;	The accused product is a charge storage device containing at least one storage cell with at least two electrodes and a porous separator between them.	¶19	col. 31:28-34
a sealed package for containing the cell and an electrolyte in which the cell is immersed;	The accused product's storage cell is contained within a sealed package that contains an electrolyte in which the cell is immersed.	¶19	col. 31:35-36
and at least two terminals extending from the package to allow external electrical connection to the cell,	The accused product has two terminals extending from the package for external electrical connection.	¶19	col. 31:37-39
wherein the volumetric FOM (Figure of Merit) of the device is greater than about 3.2 Watts/cm³	The volumetric FOM of the accused device is alleged to be greater than 3.2 Watts/cm³ and, on information and belief, greater than 4.0 Watts/cm³.	¶19	col. 31:37-39
and the maximum operating voltage of the cell is less than about 4 Volts.	The accused device is alleged to have a maximum operating voltage of less than 4 Volts.	¶19	col. 31:39-40

’600 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A charge storage device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode being opposed to and spaced apart from the first electrode; a porous separator disposed between the electrodes;	The accused product is a charge storage device with at least one storage cell comprised of at least two electrodes with a porous separator between them.	¶30	col. 31:3-6
a sealed package for containing the electrodes, the separator and an electrolyte in which the electrodes are immersed; and	The storage cell is contained within a sealed package containing an electrolyte in which the cell is immersed.	¶30	col. 31:7-9
a first terminal and a second terminal being electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode respectively and both extending from the package to allow external electrical connection to the respective electrodes,	The package has two terminals extending therefrom to provide for an electrical connection to the cell.	¶30	col. 31:10-13
wherein the gravimetric FOM of the device is greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram.	The gravimetric FOM of the accused device is alleged to be greater than 2.1 Watts/gram and, on information belief, greater than 3.0 Watts/gram.	¶30	col. 31:13-15

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The complaint's allegations regarding the numerical FOM values are made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶19, ¶30). This raises a central evidentiary question: what testing and data will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused products actually meet the specific FOM and voltage thresholds required by the claims? The dispute may center on the testing methodology used to calculate the FOM.
  • Scope Question: The claims recite performance thresholds modified by the word "about" (e.g., "about 3.2 Watts/cm³"). The proper construction of "about" will be a key legal question, as it defines the precise numerical boundary for infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "volumetric FOM (Figure of Merit)" / "gravimetric FOM (Figure of Merit)"

• Context and Importance: These terms are the central, defining limitations of the asserted patents. Infringement hinges on whether the accused products meet the specific FOM values. The patent itself provides a formula and references a technical paper by John R. Miller for the methodology ('034 Patent, col. 15:28 - 16:62). Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire case rests on a complex, calculated metric rather than a simple structural feature.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the patent's description of the FOM calculation allows for standard industry practices and measurement tolerances, rather than a single, rigid protocol.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's explicit reference to the Miller paper and the detailed formula gravimetric FOM=Eo/(m.To) could support a narrow construction requiring strict adherence to that specific methodology, including how the characteristic response time To is derived from the -45° phase angle ('034 Patent, col. 16:42-62).

• The Term: "about"

• Context and Importance: This term modifies the numerical thresholds for both FOM and voltage. Its scope will determine how close a product's performance can be to the recited value without infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because it creates a potential gray area at the infringement boundary.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "about" is intended to encompass a reasonable range of approximation, reflecting the inherent variability in manufacturing and measurement, preventing a defendant from avoiding infringement by making trivial deviations from the stated value.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides numerous specific examples with precise numerical values in tables (e.g., '034 Patent, FIG. 17). A party could argue these examples demonstrate the level of precision intended by the inventors, thus narrowing the scope of "about" to that demonstrated precision.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that Defendant "encouraged others to infringe" (Compl. ¶12). However, it does not plead specific underlying facts, such as identifying instructional materials or specific acts of inducement directed at third parties. The primary focus of the factual allegations is on direct infringement by Defendant.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged conduct after receiving actual notice of the patents-in-suit on September 27, 2017. The complaint asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the patents and their relevance to its products but "continued with its infringing activities" (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff, through discovery and expert testing, factually demonstrate that the accused supercapacitors meet the specific, calculated "Figure of Merit" (FOM) values recited in the claims? The complaint's pleading of these critical performance metrics "on information and belief" positions this as the primary technical and factual hurdle.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional precision: How will the court construe the term "about" as it applies to the numerical performance thresholds? The resolution of this claim construction issue will establish the exact boundary for infringement and may be dispositive for any accused products with performance characteristics near the claimed values.