DCT
9:22-cv-80574
Voltstar Tech Inc v. Lowes Home Centers LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Voltstar Technologies, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 9:22-cv-80574, S.D. Fla., 06/07/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC having a regular and established place of business within the district and having committed the alleged acts of infringement there, including a specific instance where the accused product was purchased in Boca Raton, Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Fusebox 2-Port USB Wall Charger" infringes a reissue patent directed to the specific physical dimensions and non-interfering design of compact AC-to-DC power adapters.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design and packaging of consumer electronic power chargers, focusing on physical miniaturization to prevent the charger from obstructing adjacent electrical outlets.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE48,794, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581. The complaint notes that the reissue proceeding amended the original patent’s Claim 1 to be more restrictive, narrowing a longitudinal length limitation from "equal to or less than 2.0 inches" to "less than 2.0 inches" and adding a new width limitation of "less than 1.75 inches." This prosecution history narrows the asserted claim's scope, which may present a higher bar for proving infringement but could also strengthen the patent's presumption of validity against prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-05-21 | Earliest Priority Date (RE48,794 E Patent) |
| 2015-05-05 | Issue Date (Original U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581) |
| 2021-10-26 | Issue Date (Reissue U.S. Patent No. RE48,794 E) |
| 2022-01-15 | Accused Product Purchased by Plaintiff |
| 2022-06-07 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E, Charger Plug With Improved Package, issued October 26, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies issues with prior art electrical chargers being too bulky, which often results in the charger's body blocking access to adjacent receptacles on a standard wall outlet (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 1:42-51). The patent also describes prior art manufacturing processes, such as insert-molding electrical prongs and hand-soldering internal components, as being costly, time-consuming, and requiring extra space within the charger housing (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 1:60 - col. 2:41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a charger with a specific, compact "outer profile" and dimensions designed to avoid interference with adjacent outlets (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 13:46 - col. 14:14). The specification also details an improved mechanical design featuring slidably mounted blades and solder-less spring contacts that connect to the internal printed circuit board (PCB), a construction intended to simplify assembly and enable a smaller overall package size (RE48,794 E Patent, Abstract; col. 4:12-24).
- Technical Importance: This design approach sought to produce smaller, more convenient, and less expensive-to-manufacture power adapters that do not monopolize a duplex wall outlet, a significant usability issue for consumers (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 1:12-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A charger plug with a housing, first and second separate blade members with prong portions, and a DC connector.
- The housing forms a charger plug face area, an outer profile, and a rear end.
- The plug is configured to plug into a standard wall outlet.
- The housing is sized to have a longitudinal length of less than 2.0 inches and a width of less than 1.75 inches.
- The outer profile has "no interference with an adjacent receptacle of the power source located on all sides" when a similar charger is in other available orientations.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Fusebox 2-Port USB Wall Charger" sold by Lowe's (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a "reduced plug-size charger" intended to be connected between an AC power source and a device requiring DC power for charging (Compl. ¶18-19). The complaint provides an image of the red, rectangular accused product. (Compl. p. 5, "Fusebox 2-Port Wall Charger distributed by Lowe's"). Its primary accused functionality is its specific size and shape, which Plaintiff alleges allows it to be plugged into a wall outlet without blocking or interfering with adjacent outlets (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges specific measurements for the product: a longitudinal length of approximately 1.087 inches and a width of approximately 1.166 inches (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶21). The infringement theory can be reconstructed from the complaint's narrative allegations.
RE48,794 E Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a charger plug...including a housing...first and second separate blade members...and a DC connector | The accused "Fusebox 2-Port Wall Charger" is a charger plug for connecting between an AC source and a device to be charged. An image shows the product's general configuration. (Compl. p. 5, "Fusebox 2-Port Wall Charger distributed by Lowe's"). | ¶16, ¶18 | col. 4:30-37 |
| i) being sized so that the charger plug housing comprises a longitudinal length...less than 2.0 inches, a width of the housing outer profile being less than 1.75 inches | The accused product is alleged to have a longitudinal length of approximately 1.087 inches and a width of approximately 1.166 inches. | ¶23 | col. 14:5-8 |
| ii) the outer profile having no interference with an adjacent receptacle of the power source | The complaint alleges that when the accused product is plugged into an AC power source, it "does not block or interfere with the use of adjacent outlets." | ¶19 | col. 14:9-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper interpretation of the functional limitation "no interference with an adjacent receptacle." The parties may dispute whether this term requires a complete absence of physical overlap with the space of an adjacent receptacle or merely that the adjacent receptacle remains usable by another standard plug.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis appears to hinge on factual verification. A key question will be whether discovery and expert measurement confirm the complaint's alleged dimensions for the accused product. Further, what evidence will be presented to prove or disprove that the accused product's profile causes "no interference" in "all available orientations" on a standard outlet, as the claim requires?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "outer profile"
- Context and Importance: The dimensional limitations central to the infringement claim (length < 2.0 inches, width < 1.75 inches) are measured on the "housing outer profile." The definition of what constitutes this "profile" is therefore critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case for the dimensional limitations rests on how and where the measurements are taken on the accused product's body.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the "outer profile" as being "defined by a perimeter of the front wall and defined by a plug body extending rearward from the front wall" (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 13:39-41). A party could argue this refers to the main, continuous surfaces of the housing, giving a more general shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the "profile" must be determined by the absolute outermost points of the housing, including any curvatures, seams, or minor protrusions, potentially leading to a different measurement. The various figures, such as Figure 1, show a specific, defined shape that could be argued to embody the term's meaning.
Term: "no interference"
- Context and Importance: This is a negative functional limitation that is fundamental to the non-obviousness argument and the infringement allegation. The complaint alleges the accused product "does not block or interfere" (Compl. ¶19). The interpretation of this term will dictate the type of evidence needed to prove infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (for Patentee): The patent states the plug is "sized so as not to impede access to or use of an adjacent outlet" (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 13:46-49). This language suggests a functional test: if another plug can still be used, there is "no interference," even if the charger housing is physically close to or slightly overlaps the adjacent receptacle's faceplate.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (for Accused Infringer): The claim requires "no interference with an adjacent receptacle of the power source located on all sides" (RE48,794 E Patent, col. 14:9-10). A defendant could argue this sets a very high bar, meaning absolutely no physical overlap with the volumetric space needed to easily grasp and insert another plug, or even no ergonomic inconvenience.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Lowe's instructs and encourages customers to use the infringing products through "advertising and promoting the use" and distributing "guidelines and instructions" (Compl. ¶36).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that "Lowes' knew or should have known" that the accused product infringes the patent (Compl. ¶24-25). The complaint seeks treble damages as a result (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C). The pleading does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge, such as a pre-suit notice letter.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of factual verification: Does the accused "Fusebox" charger meet the precise dimensional and functional limitations of Claim 1? The case may turn on competing expert measurements of the product's "outer profile" and empirical testing to determine if it truly causes "no interference" with adjacent outlets in all required orientations.
- A key legal question will be the construction of functional language: How will the court define "no interference"? The resolution of this issue will establish the standard of proof, determining whether the Plaintiff must show only that an adjacent outlet remains usable or that the accused product avoids any physical or practical encroachment on the adjacent space.
- An important evidentiary question will concern knowledge and intent: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to substantiate its claim that Lowe's "knew or should have known" it was infringing? Without specific facts like pre-suit notice, proving the knowledge required for willful and induced infringement may be a significant challenge.