DCT
1:22-cv-01379
Charge Fusion Tech LLC v. Polestar Automotive USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC (Connecticut)
- Defendant: Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01379, D. Del., 10/20/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and its transaction of business within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric vehicles, which incorporate intelligent route and charging planning features, infringe a patent related to systems and methods for scheduling electric vehicle charging.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns software and systems integrated into electric vehicles to optimize long-distance travel by automatically planning routes that incorporate necessary charging stops based on the vehicle's battery status and the availability of charging stations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patent on February 28, 2022, approximately eight months prior to filing the lawsuit. The complaint also notes that the patent family has been cited over 300 times by the USPTO in connection with other patent applications, suggesting its relevance in a crowded technological field.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-07-11 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 |
| 2020-08-01 | Publication of Polestar 2 Handbook (approximate date) |
| 2021-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 Issues |
| 2022-02-28 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2022-10-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CHARGING ELECTRIC VEHICLES
(Issued May 4, 2021)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a key drawback of early electric vehicles: the need for frequent, time-consuming charging sessions that render the vehicle unusable for "protracted stretches of time," unlike the quick refueling of a gasoline-powered automobile. ('753 Patent, col. 1:28-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem with an "intelligent" electrical charging system that automates the planning of charging. As described in the detailed description, the system can receive a vehicle's starting location and destination, identify available charging providers, and compute an optimized charging schedule that includes specific charging stops and times, based in part on the vehicle's current state of charge. ('753 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15). This allows for more efficient management of long-distance trips and vehicle charging.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a solution to "range anxiety" by integrating route planning with real-time vehicle data and charging infrastructure information, a critical step in making electric vehicles practical for more than just local commuting. (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An electrical charging system comprising one or more processing devices and a non-transitory memory.
- Receiving information indicative of a starting location, a desired destination, and charging locations of multiple charge providers.
- Computing a charging schedule that includes a scheduled start time, a scheduled stop time, and a sequence of charging locations.
- Computing the first charging location in the sequence based on the vehicle's ability to travel there using its currently stored charge.
- Displaying the vehicle's charging status on a graphical user interface (GUI).
- Increasing the battery's charge level according to the computed schedule.
- The GUI is adapted to display a charge indicator element with a first portion showing the current charge, a second portion showing uncharged capacity, and a slider to specify a desired amount of charge.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Polestar Cars," including the Polestar 2 and Polestar 3 electric vehicles. (Compl. ¶33).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused vehicles incorporate an electrical charging system with embedded applications, specifically citing the integration of Google Maps, to plan routes. (Compl. ¶¶37, 39). This system is alleged to find charging stations, plan charging stops into a travel route, and do so based on the vehicle’s current battery level. (Compl. ¶39). A screenshot from Polestar's website shows a route overview with a planned charging stop, including an estimated duration for the charge. (Compl. ¶40, p. 11).
- The system is also alleged to include a GUI that allows users to set a desired charge limit using a slider interface. (Compl. ¶42). A visual from a Polestar marketing page depicts a user interface for setting a "Charge Limit %" with a slider. (Compl. ¶42, p. 12).
- The complaint alleges that by using this patented technology, Polestar has avoided the significant expense of building out its own physical charging infrastructure. (Compl. ¶43).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’753 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electrical charging system, comprising: one or more processing devices; and a non-transitory memory device... | The Polestar 2 car is alleged to be an electrical charging system that comprises processing devices and a non-transitory memory. | ¶36, ¶38 | col. 29:16-22 |
| receiving information indicative of a starting location of an electric vehicle; | The system receives the vehicle's starting location when a user plans a trip. | ¶38 | col. 29:23-24 |
| receiving information indicative of a charging location of each of a plurality of electric charge providers; | The system, using Google Maps, receives the locations of multiple electric charge providers. A screenshot shows a map with several charging station icons. | ¶38, p. 9 | col. 29:28-30 |
| computing... a charging schedule for the electric vehicle the charging schedule comprising a scheduled start time and an indication of a scheduled stop time... and a sequence defining an order... | The system computes a route with charging stops, showing the order of stops and the duration of charging. A screenshot displays a route with a planned stop at "Ionity Mantorp" for a "45 min charge." | ¶39, ¶40, p. 11 | col. 29:33-40 |
| wherein a first charging location of the sequence is computed based, at least in part, on an ability of the electric vehicle to travel to the first charging location utilizing a charge amount stored in a battery... | The integrated Google Maps feature "even checks the battery level and plans the route and charging stops accordingly." | ¶39 | col. 29:40-44 |
| displaying a charging status of the electric vehicle via a graphical user interface forming a part of the electric vehicle; | The Polestar 2 vehicle displays the charging status on its in-car user interface. | ¶41 | col. 29:45-48 |
| wherein the desired destination information is defined by a user... via the graphical user interface adapted to display a vehicle charge indicator element comprising a first portion indicative of an amount of charge... a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity... and... a slider... | The Polestar 2 allows users to set a charge limit via a GUI that includes a slider. A provided image clearly shows this "Setting charge level" interface. | ¶42, p. 12 | col. 29:50-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: A foundational question will be whether the accused Polestar vehicle, by itself, performs all the claimed steps of "receiving" and "computing," or if it relies on external servers (e.g., Google's) to perform these functions. The complaint alleges the vehicle has "embedded applications to build routes" (Compl. ¶37), but also heavily references the "Google Maps" service (Compl. ¶39), creating ambiguity about the architecture of the "electrical charging system."
- Scope Questions: The case may raise a question of whether the functionality provided by the integrated Google Maps service can be attributed to Polestar for the purpose of direct infringement. The definition of the "electrical charging system" and who "makes" or "uses" it will be critical.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electrical charging system"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis. The complaint identifies the "Polestar 2 car" as the infringing system. However, the functionality appears to rely on both in-vehicle hardware/software and external cloud services (Google Maps). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether all claimed process steps are performed by a single entity, or whether the allegations raise a divided infringement issue that could be more difficult to prove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly as "any combination of hardware, software, firmware, and/or microcode that is operative to... facilitate the charging of one or more vehicles," which could support an interpretation that includes distributed components like remote servers. ('753 Patent, col. 3:5-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent often depict the "ECS" as a discrete unit, separate from the vehicle and associated with a specific location like a parking lot (e.g., Fig. 4, element 440). This could support an argument that the claimed "system" is a localized controller, not a system distributed between a car and a remote server. ('753 Patent, Fig. 4).
The Term: "charging schedule"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 requires computing a "schedule" that comprises specific elements: a "scheduled start time," a "scheduled stop time," and a "sequence." The defense may argue that the accused product's route planning, which provides an estimated charging duration (e.g., "45 min charge"), does not meet the more specific limitations of a "scheduled start time" and "scheduled stop time."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's introduction discusses scheduling in general terms, stating the invention can determine "a charging schedule for the vehicle." ('753 Patent, col. 2:13-14). This might suggest a more flexible meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 explicitly requires the schedule to comprise both a "scheduled start time" and a "scheduled stop time." The complaint's evidence, such as the screenshot in paragraph 40, more directly supports an allegation of a stop time or duration, but is less explicit about a "scheduled start time" for charging.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Polestar induces infringement by "providing manuals and other forms of support to direct their customers" to use the accused route and charge planning features. (Compl. ¶47). It is further alleged that Polestar's website instructs customers on using these features. (Compl. ¶47).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Polestar was put on notice of the ’753 Patent via a letter dated February 28, 2022. (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of system architecture and attribution: Can the claimed "electrical charging system," which performs both receiving and computing steps, be defined as existing solely within the Polestar vehicle, or does it necessarily include external services like Google Maps? The answer will determine whether Polestar is a direct infringer or if the case involves more complex questions of divided infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused route planner compute all the specific elements of the claimed "charging schedule," including both a "scheduled start time" and a "scheduled stop time"? The case may turn on whether the evidence shows the accused product performs the exact functions recited in the claim, or a more general optimization that falls outside the claim's literal scope.