DCT
1:19-cv-02116
Zig Zag Innovations LLC v. Leviton Mfg Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zig Zag Innovations, LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Delaware/New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Hansley Law Firm, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02116, D. Del., 11/09/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has transacted business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LevNet RF line of hotel energy-saving products infringes a patent related to systems for selectively controlling electrical outlets and fixtures over a building's power circuits.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology in the field of smart building controls, specifically systems that use a building's existing electrical wiring to communicate with and control individual power outlets for purposes of energy management and automation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The complaint does allege that its requirements under 35 U.S.C. §287 for marking have been satisfied, potentially entitling it to pre-suit damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,818,532 Priority Date |
| 2014-08-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,818,532 Issued |
| 2019-08-16 | Last Access Date for Accused Product Webpage Cited in Complaint |
| 2019-11-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,818,532 - "System and Method for Selectively Controlling and Monitoring Receptacles and Fixtures Connected to a Power Circuit in a Building," issued August 26, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that prior art "smart outlets" were "very expensive" and "too complex for use by the average homeowner," often requiring professional installation in luxury homes or commercial buildings ('532 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify control over a specific electrical circuit. It uses a central "control unit" that is wired in-line with a circuit's power cable. This control unit generates "an addressed control signal within the electrical power cable" to individually command multiple "smart outlets" or "smart fixture switches" on that same circuit ('532 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-16). Each outlet has a "selectively changeable" address or identification code, allowing the central unit to control specific devices without requiring new or separate control wiring ('532 Patent, col. 6:20-25).
- Technical Importance: The stated goal of this approach was to create a system that an "average homeowner can afford" and install, simplifying the adoption of smart-home technology ('532 Patent, col. 1:54-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶9-10).
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
- a plurality of outlet assemblies, each with a receptacle, an on/off switch, and a selectively changeable outlet identification code;
- an electrical power cable from a central circuit breaker supplying current to the outlet assemblies;
- a control unit coupled to the power cable between the breaker and the outlets;
- wherein the control unit generates an addressed control signal within said electrical power cable to selectively control the on/off switch of an outlet assembly that has the addressed identification code.
- Independent Claim 9 (Area Circuit Claim):
- an outlet assembly having a receptacle, an on/off switch, and a selectively changeable outlet identification code;
- a control unit coupled to the outlet assembly by an electrical power cable;
- wherein the control unit generates an addressed control signal within said electrical power cable that selectively controls the on/off switch only when the outlet identification code is accurately addressed.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "LevNet RF Hotel Key Card Switch and LevNet RF Receivers" (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentality is an energy-saving system primarily for the hospitality industry (Compl. p. 7). When a guest inserts a hotel key card into the LevNet RF Hotel Key Card Switch, it "transmit[s] a wireless signal that controls lights or other devices connected to LevNet RF Receivers" (Compl. p. 7). The receivers are wired to the building's electrical loads (e.g., lights, HVAC) and switch them on or off based on the wireless signal received from the key card switch (Compl. p. 8). The system relies on a "unique ID" associated with the switch to activate "only the intended Receiver(s)" (Compl. p. 7). The complaint references a product image of the key card switch, which is designed to be placed in a hotel room to activate power upon guest entry. (Compl. p. 7, "HOTEL KEY CARD SWITCH, WHITE, WSSOS-HOW").
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'532 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An area circuit within a building comprising: an outlet assembly having a receptacle, an on/off switch, and a selectively changeable outlet identification code, wherein said on/off switch is configurable between an on condition and an off condition; | The complaint alleges the LevNet RF Receiver acts as the "outlet assembly," which contains an internal on/off switch to control loads. The "selectively changeable outlet identification code" is alleged to be the "unique ID" that allows a switch to activate "only the intended Receiver(s)." | ¶22; p. 7 | col. 2:58-60 |
| a control unit coupled to said outlet assembly by an electrical power cable, wherein said control unit generates an addressed control signal within said electrical power cable | The complaint alleges the LevNet RF Hotel Key Card Switch is the "control unit." It further alleges this unit is coupled to the receiver by an electrical power cable and generates the control signal within that cable. A wiring diagram shows the receiver is connected to the building's power circuit. | ¶22; p. 8 | col. 2:57-58 |
| that selectively controls said on/off switch in said outlet assembly only when said outlet identification code is accurately addressed by said addressed control signal. | The complaint alleges that after a key card is inserted, the switch transmits a signal with a "unique ID" that is received by the intended receiver, which then controls the on/off state of connected devices. The complaint includes a wiring diagram illustrating how the receiver controls the load. | ¶22; p. 8 | col. 2:11-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint's own evidence states that the LevNet RF switch "transmit[s] a wireless signal" to the receivers (Compl. p. 7). This raises the question of whether a system using a wireless (RF) signal for control can infringe a claim that requires the "control unit" to generate an "addressed control signal within said electrical power cable." The resolution may depend on whether the signal generated by the receiver to its internal switch, after receiving the wireless command, could be considered the claimed "control signal."
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises a question of whether the accused "LevNet RF Receiver," a component that controls separate electrical loads, constitutes an "outlet assembly having a receptacle" as that term is used in the patent, which illustrates the concept as a self-contained wall outlet (see '532 Patent, Fig. 3).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "addressed control signal within said electrical power cable"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the dispute. The Accused Instrumentality operates via a wireless RF signal from the switch to the receiver, whereas the patent repeatedly describes a signal transmitted through the power lines themselves. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case hinges on whether "within said electrical power cable" can be interpreted to read on a system that uses wireless communication for its primary control command.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly forbid the use of wireless components. A plaintiff might argue that as long as the receiver is on the power line and generates a final signal to its own internal switch, some form of signal exists "within" a device coupled to the power cable.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification appears to equate this concept with power-line communication (PLC) technology. The background section explicitly discusses "Transmitting data through power lines" ('532 Patent, col. 1:35), and the summary states the control unit "generates an addressed control signal within the electrical power cable" ('532 Patent, col. 2:13-15). This language may support an interpretation that limits the claim to systems where the control signal itself travels along the power wiring from the control unit to the outlet assembly.
The Term: "outlet assembly"
- Context and Importance: The complaint maps this term to the "LevNet RF Receiver," a standalone unit that controls power to other devices. The patent, however, shows an "outlet assembly" as what appears to be a conventional-looking wall socket ('532 Patent, Fig. 3). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a receiver box without an integrated user-accessible receptacle falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "assembly" is general, and the patent refers to both "smart outlets 24" and "smart fixture switches 26" as components that can be controlled, suggesting the term is not limited to a single physical form factor ('532 Patent, col. 2:58-60).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 9 requires the "outlet assembly" to have a "receptacle." The patent's Figure 3 shows a "smart outlet 60" with two standard electrical receptacles ('532 Patent, Fig. 3). This may support an argument that the term requires a physical socket for plugging in external devices, which the accused receiver may not have.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), asserting that Defendant "actively instructs their customers to use the Accused Instrumentality in a way that infringes" through manuals and online product information (Compl. ¶23-24). It is also alleged that the accused products are "designed specifically for use by their customers in an infringing manner" and have no substantial non-infringing use, supporting a claim for contributory infringement under §271(c) (Compl. ¶28, 30-31).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of the '532 patent "[s]ince at least the filing date of this Complaint" and that its continued actions constitute willful infringement (Compl. ¶23, 25). The complaint does not allege any facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: Can the claim limitation "addressed control signal within said electrical power cable," which the patent specification links to power-line communication, be construed to cover the accused system’s use of a wireless (RF) signal transmitted between its key components?
- A second central question will be one of definitional scope: Does the accused "LevNet RF Receiver"—a control module wired to a circuit—meet the claim requirement of an "outlet assembly having a receptacle," or does the patent limit that term to a device resembling a traditional wall socket?
- The case will likely turn on the court's interpretation of these key phrases, determining whether the patent's scope is confined to the specific power-line communication embodiment described or can be read more broadly to encompass other methods of smart-room control.