Pinek IP LLC v. Schneider Electric USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Pinek IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00736, D. Del., 04/24/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ceiling-mounted occupancy sensor infringes a patent related to a system for remotely activating electronic circuits using pyroelectric technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns low-power methods for "waking up" battery-operated electronic devices, a critical function for extending battery life in devices like wireless sensors and smart cards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The complaint itself serves as the initial notice of infringement to the defendant.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,233,256 - "A System and Method for Receiving a Signal to Trigger a Pyroelectric Activation System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,233,256, issued June 19, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional battery-powered devices that must be remotely activated. These devices often use direct rectification of a received radio signal to power up, a method that is inefficient, has a limited range, and is susceptible to interference, which can lead to unintended activations and drain the battery. (’256 Patent, col. 1:19-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a different activation method. Instead of rectifying the radio signal, the system uses the signal's energy to heat a component. This thermal energy is transferred to a "pyroelectric element," a material that generates a voltage when its temperature changes. This voltage, in turn, triggers the activation circuit to "wake up" the main electronic circuit. (’256 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-7; col. 3:55-63). This thermal conversion approach is designed to be more sensitive and less prone to interference than direct rectification.
• Technical Importance: The described method offers a potential solution for creating more reliable and energy-efficient "wake-up" circuits for the growing field of low-power, battery-operated electronics. (’256 Patent, col. 1:50-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • An activation system, comprising:
  • a receiving device for receiving an activation signal;
  • an activation circuit for activating an electric circuit; and
  • at least one pyroelectric element connected to the receiving device and the activation circuit, said at least one pyroelectric element producing a voltage that actuates said activation circuit when heated by the activation signal from said receiving device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the '256 Patent." (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Schneider Electric 902 MHz Ceiling Mounted Occupancy Sensor" as an exemplary accused product. (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused product by name and model family but does not provide any specific technical details regarding its internal components or method of operation. (Compl. ¶12). It alleges that the product infringes the ’256 Patent but does not describe the specific functionality that allegedly does so. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’256 Patent and incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary ’256 Patent Claim to the Exemplary Schneider Electric Products" as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶¶12, 17, 18). As this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint, a detailed claim chart cannot be constructed from the provided documents. The complaint's narrative asserts that the charts demonstrate that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '256 Patent Claim." (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central factual question for the court will be whether the accused occupancy sensor contains a pyroelectric element and, if so, whether that element is heated by a received radio signal to generate an activation voltage. The complaint does not provide evidence on the internal workings of the accused device, leaving this as a primary point for discovery.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the claim phrase "heated by the activation signal from said receiving device." A question for the court could be whether this requires the radio frequency energy of the signal itself to be converted directly into heat (as described in the patent's embodiment) or if it could be interpreted more broadly to cover any heating mechanism that is initiated as a result of the signal's reception.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "heated by the activation signal from said receiving device"

• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core novelty of the invention—using thermal conversion rather than direct rectification. The entire infringement case may hinge on whether the accused product's activation mechanism falls within the court's construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art discussed in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim language is functional and does not specify the exact means of heating, only that the heating is caused "by" the signal. The claim itself does not recite the "heating resistor" (2) shown in the embodiment. (’256 Patent, col. 6:1-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the phrase should be limited to the mechanism disclosed in the specification, where the signal directly powers an "ohmic heating resistor" that is thermally coupled to the pyroelectric element. (’256 Patent, col. 3:57-61). The patent's summary states the signal is "first converted to heat," which then acts on the pyroelectric element, suggesting a specific sequence. (’256 Patent, col. 2:62-64).

The Term: "pyroelectric element connected to the receiving device"

• Context and Importance: The nature of this "connection" is undefined in the claim and will be critical to determining infringement. Whether the connection is electrical, thermal, merely operative, or requires a specific configuration as shown in the patent's figures will be a key issue.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "connected to" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass an operative or functional connection where the receiving device causes an effect in the pyroelectric element, without requiring physical contact or a specific type of interface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could point to the embodiment in Figure 1 and the accompanying text, which describes a "heating element 2...connected directly to the receiving branch of the antenna ANT" and thermally coupled to the pyroelectric element 3. (’256 Patent, col. 3:57-61). This could support a narrower construction requiring an electrical connection to an intermediate heating element, which is in turn thermally connected to the pyroelectric element.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Schneider Electric sells the accused products to customers and provides "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to operate them in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶13, 16). It also alleges contributory infringement on similar grounds. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Schneider Electric continues to infringe despite the notice provided by the filing of the lawsuit. (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often predicated on a finding of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct. (Compl., p. 5, ¶D(i)).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core evidentiary question of technical operation: Does the accused "Schneider Electric 902 MHz Ceiling Mounted Occupancy Sensor" in fact operate using the claimed pyroelectric mechanism? Specifically, does it contain a pyroelectric element that is heated by an incoming radio signal to generate an activation voltage, or does it use a more conventional activation technology?
2. A foundational claim construction question of mechanism: Can the claim phrase "heated by the activation signal" be construed to cover any activation sequence initiated by a radio signal, or must it be limited to the specific embodiment where the signal’s own energy is converted into heat to trigger the pyroelectric effect?