DCT
1:19-cv-01733
Cap XX Ltd v. Maxwell Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CAP-XX, LTD. (Australia)
- Defendant: Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01733, D. Del., 12/02/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s supercapacitor products infringe patents related to high-performance electrochemical charge storage devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns supercapacitors, which are energy storage devices designed to deliver high-power pulses for applications in consumer, automotive, and industrial electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement and an offer to license the patents-in-suit on September 12, 2017, which Defendant allegedly refused before continuing its accused activities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’034 and ’600 Patents |
| 2005-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 6,920,034 Issued |
| 2008-06-03 | U.S. Patent No. 7,382,600 Issued |
| 2017-09-12 | Plaintiff provides Defendant actual notice of infringement |
| 2019-12-02 | First Amended 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 deficiency in prior art supercapacitors. Devices optimized for high energy density suffered from high internal resistance, making them unsuitable for high-power pulsed applications. Conversely, devices with low resistance (using aqueous electrolytes) had a very limited operating voltage, which also limited their power capabilities (’034 Patent, col. 1:32-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a charge storage device engineered to achieve specific, high-performance metrics, particularly a high "Figure of Merit" (FOM), which quantifies the device's suitability for pulse power applications. This is achieved through a specific construction of electrodes, a separator, and an electrolyte within a sealed package, designed to overcome the power-versus-energy trade-offs of prior art devices (’034 Patent, col. 2:4-20). The specification defines FOM as a frequency-dependent characteristic calculated from the device's impedance at a specific phase angle, providing a more relevant metric for pulse performance than simple resistance-capacitance (RC) models (’034 Patent, col. 16:42-59).
- Technical Importance: The claimed technology enabled the development of supercapacitors suitable for applications requiring short, high-power bursts, which were previously difficult to serve with existing energy storage solutions (’034 Patent, col. 1:38-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 13, and 51, and reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21).
- Independent Claim 1: A charge storage device comprising:
- A charge storage cell with a first electrode, a second opposed electrode, and a porous separator.
- A sealed package containing the cell and an electrolyte.
- At least two terminals for external connection.
- Wherein the volumetric FOM of the device is greater than about 3.2 Watts/cm³.
- Wherein the maximum operating voltage is less than about 4 Volts.
- Independent Claim 13: A charge storage device with a cell, package, and terminals, further comprising:
- A first electrode with a carbon layer having a surface area greater than 400 m²/gram.
- A second electrode with a carbon layer having a surface area greater than 400 m²/gram.
- An organic electrolyte.
- Wherein the volumetric FOM is greater than about 1.1 Watts/cm³ and the maximum operating voltage is less than about 4 Volts.
- Independent Claim 51: A charge storage device with a cell, package, and terminals, wherein:
- The gravimetric FOM of the device is greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram.
- The maximum operating voltage is less than about 4 Volts.
U.S. Patent No. 7,382,600 - "Charge Storage Device"
- Issued: June 3, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’600 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’034 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: the inadequacy of prior art supercapacitors for high-power pulsed applications due to trade-offs between internal resistance and operating voltage (’600 Patent, col. 1:41-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a charge storage device defined by its high-performance characteristics. It comprises a standard supercapacitor structure (electrodes, separator, electrolyte, package, terminals) but is distinguished by achieving a high gravimetric Figure of Merit (FOM), indicating its suitability for high-power delivery (’600 Patent, col. 2:13-28). The patent's specification, like that of the parent '034 Patent, explains that FOM is a key performance indicator for pulsed applications (’600 Patent, col. 16:5-10).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a pathway to create supercapacitors that satisfied the demands of modern electronic systems requiring efficient, high-current pulse delivery (’600 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert several dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 30).
- Independent Claim 1: A charge storage device comprising:
- A first electrode and a second opposed electrode.
- A porous separator between the electrodes.
- A sealed package containing the components and an electrolyte.
- A first and second terminal electrically connected to the respective electrodes.
- Wherein the gravimetric FOM of the device is greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s supercapacitors, including but not limited to the BCAP series, such as BCAP0003 P270 S01 and BCAP3000 P270 K04 (Compl. ¶¶11, 19, 29).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are electrochemical charge storage devices. The complaint alleges they are constructed with at least two electrodes, a porous separator, an electrolyte, a sealed package, and terminals for electrical connection (Compl. ¶¶19, 29). They are allegedly sold as standalone products or as components within larger modules or systems (Compl. ¶¶19, 29). The complaint alleges that these products infringe by meeting the structural and, crucially, the performance limitations recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶19, 29). 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; a sealed package for containing the cell and an electrolyte in which the cell is immersed; and at least two terminals extending from the package... | The accused Maxwell products are alleged to be charge storage devices containing these structural components. | ¶19 | col. 3:19-35 |
| wherein the volumetric FOM (Figure of Merit) of the device is greater than about 3.2 Watts/cm³ | Plaintiff alleges it has measured and calculated the volumetric FOM of the accused devices in the manner set forth in the patent, and that the result is greater than 3.2 Watts/cm³. | ¶19 | col. 31:37-38 |
| and the maximum operating voltage of the cell is less than about 4 Volts. | Plaintiff alleges the accused devices 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; a sealed package for containing the electrodes, the separator and an electrolyte...; and a first terminal and a second terminal being electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode respectively... | The accused Maxwell products are alleged to be charge storage devices containing these structural elements. | ¶29 | col. 2:13-24 |
| wherein the gravimetric FOM of the device is greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram. | Plaintiff alleges it has measured and calculated the gravimetric FOM of the accused devices in the manner set forth in the '034 Patent, and that the result is greater than 2.1 Watts/gram. | ¶29 | col. 31:13-15 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The central dispute appears to be factual. The complaint's infringement theory rests on Plaintiff's own alleged "evaluation" and "calculation" that the accused products meet the claimed FOM performance metrics (Compl. ¶¶19, 29). A key question for the court will be whether discovery and expert testing will validate these measurements according to the specific methodology described in the patent specifications, which defines FOM based on impedance at a -45° phase angle (’034 Patent, col. 16:42-59).
- Scope Question: The claims recite performance thresholds using the word "about" (e.g., "about 3.2 Watts/cm³"). This raises the question of how much, if any, numerical deviation from the stated value is permissible under the doctrine of equivalents or as part of the literal scope of the term itself.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term
"volumetric FOM (Figure of Merit) ... greater than about 3.2 Watts/cm³" and "gravimetric FOM ... greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram"
Context and Importance
These performance-based limitations are the core of the asserted claims and the infringement dispute. Infringement does not depend merely on the structure of the accused devices, but on them achieving these specific, measured performance levels. Practitioners may focus on these terms because their construction will dictate the entire factual and expert-driven inquiry of the case.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "about" in the claims may support an argument that the numerical values are not absolute, ironclad limits, but rather represent a general performance target that allows for some minor variation (Compl. ¶¶17, 18, 28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of both patents provide a detailed and specific technical procedure for measuring FOM, tying it to the frequency ("fo") at which the device's impedance reaches a -45° phase angle (’034 Patent, col. 16:42-59). A party may argue that this explicit definition limits the claim to only devices that meet the threshold when tested with this precise methodology, effectively defining the term by its measurement protocol.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant "encouraged others to infringe" and that the accused products are sold as components for use in "a module or more complex system," which may form the basis for an inducement claim (Compl. ¶¶12, 19).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff gave Defendant actual notice of infringement via a letter and an offer to license on September 12, 2017, and that Defendant's allegedly infringing activities continued after this date (Compl. ¶¶11-13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of factual verification: Does objective, expert testing conducted according to the specific methodology defined in the patent specifications confirm the complaint's allegation that the accused supercapacitors actually achieve the "Figure of Merit" (FOM) performance thresholds required by the asserted claims?
- A secondary, but critical, issue will be one of definitional scope: How should the court construe the term "about" as applied to the numerical FOM values in the claims, and does the detailed measurement protocol in the specification strictly limit the scope of how infringement can be proven?