DCT
1:19-cv-00849
Battery Conservation Innovations LLC v. Razor USA LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Battery Conservation Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Razor USA LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00849, D. Del., 08/08/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and is therefore deemed a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hovertrax 2.0 personal mobility device infringes a patent related to technology for automatically powering down a battery-operated electronic device after a period of inactivity.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using motion sensors to detect when a device is no longer in use and, after a set time, decoupling the battery to conserve power.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer and is a continuation of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,610,372. The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-27 | ’158 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-01-19 | ’158 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-08-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
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's background section identifies the problem of battery-powered devices, such as flashlights, being accidentally left on after use, which drains the battery and renders the device unusable for its next intended purpose (’158 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a controller, coupled with a motion sensor, monitors the device for activity. If the device remains motionless for a predetermined period, the controller automatically decouples the battery from the power-consuming components (e.g., an illumination source), thus preserving battery life (’158 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:16-24). The system can also be configured to provide a visual or audible warning to the user before shutting down (’158 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology automates power conservation in portable electronic devices, aiming to extend battery life and ensure the device remains ready for use without requiring constant user diligence (’158 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, "including at least Claim 15" (’158 Patent, Compl. ¶14).
- Independent Claim 15 of the ’158 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- 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 in the at least one battery; and
- a visual indicator disposed on an exterior surface of the body, wherein the controller activates the visual indicator.
- The complaint appears to reserve the right to assert other claims (’158 Patent, Compl. ¶14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names the "Hovertrax 2.0 personal mobility device, and any similar products" as the accused instrumentality (the "Product") (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Product as a "gyroscopically-balance-assisted, independently articulated, dual-platform two-wheeled personal mobility system" (Compl. ¶21). It is powered by a "36-volt lithium-ion battery pack" (Compl. ¶19).
- The Product is alleged to contain a controller (identified as a "PC board") and "Gyro Sensors" to detect motion (Compl. ¶20, 21). An exploded diagram from the Product's manual is provided to show the location of the PC board and battery within the device's body (Compl. p. 4).
- The core accused functionality is derived from the Product’s user manual, which allegedly states: "If Hovertrax 2.0 is left on for more than 5 minutes, it will automatically turn off and beep" (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint also identifies "indicator lights" on the exterior of the Product as meeting the "visual indicator" limitation of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶22). A diagram from the Product manual identifies "Gyro Sensors" and a "Battery/Power Mode Indicator" on the device's exterior (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’158 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body including an opening for accessing an interior of the body | The Product includes a body with an opening allowing access to internal components such as the battery and PC board. | ¶18 | col. 1:47-50 |
| at least one battery disposed in the body and configured for powering the device | The Product contains a "built-in...battery pack" disposed within its body to power its operation. | ¶19 | col. 1:50-53 |
| 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... | The Product contains a controller ("PC board") and "Gyro Sensors" to determine motion. If the Product is not in motion for a period of "more than 5 minutes, it will automatically turn off." | ¶20, 21 | col. 7:21-26 |
| and a visual indicator disposed on an exterior surface of the body, wherein the controller activates the visual indicator. | The Product has "indicator lights" on its exterior surface, which the complaint alleges are activated by the controller. | ¶22 | col. 7:7-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent is titled and primarily describes a "flashlight." A central dispute may arise over whether the term "electronic device" in Claim 15 can be construed to cover a technologically dissimilar product like a personal mobility device. The patent contains a single paragraph suggesting its principles can be applied to other devices, including tablets and media players, which may support a broader construction (’158 Patent, col. 6:18-22).
- Technical Questions: The meaning of "decouples the at least one battery" may be contested. It raises the question of whether the Product's "automatically turn off" function—which could be a software-based low-power or sleep mode—is equivalent to the "decoupling" described in the patent, which is illustrated with a physical switch ("switch 222") that electrically disconnects the battery from the load (’158 Patent, FIG. 2).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electronic device"
- Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to the accused hoverboard hinges on the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification is overwhelmingly directed to a "flashlight," creating a potential tension with the broader term used in the asserted claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification includes a statement that "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).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, background, and detailed description consistently refer to the invention as a "flashlight," which could be used to argue that the invention is limited to that context despite the single, more expansive statement (’158 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 1:15-45).
The Term: "decouples"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the accused Product's "automatic turn off" feature performs the claimed function. The specific technical mechanism used by the Product will be compared against the meaning of this term as established by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses phrases like "shutting off the flashlight" and "deactivate device" to describe the outcome of the process, suggesting the term could be construed functionally to mean any action that turns the device off to conserve power (’158 Patent, col. 4:43; col. 3:318).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment illustrates the decoupling function via "a switch 222 which is controller by controller 224," which physically connects or disconnects the battery from the illumination source. This could support an argument that "decouples" requires a direct electrical disconnection rather than a software-based shutdown command (’158 Patent, col. 4:6-8; FIG. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a separate count for indirect infringement, and the factual allegations focus on Defendant's direct acts of making, using, and selling the accused product (Compl. ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "knowledge of its infringement...at least as of the service of the present complaint," which provides a basis for potential post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "electronic device", originating in a patent titled and focused on a "flashlight", be construed to cover a self-balancing personal mobility device?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused Product's "automatic turn off" function perform the specific act of "decoupling" the battery as required by the claim, or does its power-down sequence represent a fundamentally different, non-infringing technical operation?