DCT
9:22-cv-80617
Voltstar Tech Inc v. Publix Super Markets Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Voltstar Technologies, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 9:22-cv-80617, S.D. Fla., 06/16/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and because the accused product was purchased at a specific store location within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "iessentials USB Car & Wall Charger" infringes a reissue patent related to the dimensional and functional characteristics of compact power adapters.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design and construction of small AC-to-DC power adapters, commonly used for charging consumer electronic devices, where physical size and non-interference with adjacent outlets are key market features.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. RE48,794 E, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581. During reissue, Claim 1 was amended to narrow the claimed dimensions of the charger housing, a fact that may be central to determining the scope of the asserted claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-05-21 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581 |
| 2015-05-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581 Issues |
| 2018-12-04 | Reissue Application for '794 Patent Filed |
| 2021-10-26 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E Issues |
| 2022-04-03 | Accused Product Purchased by Plaintiff |
| 2022-06-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E - "Charger Plug With Improved Package"
- Patent Identification: 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 describes issues with prior art power chargers, noting they are often bulky enough to block adjacent wall outlets and that their length can make them protrude inconveniently from a wall, rendering them "susceptible to being struck" (’794 Patent, col. 1:42-58). The patent also identifies the manufacturing process of insert-molding electrical blades and hand-soldering connections as being costly, time-consuming, and prone to error (’794 Patent, col. 2:1-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a charger with a specific compact "outer profile" and physical dimensions designed to avoid interfering with adjacent outlets (’794 Patent, col. 13:46-51, col. 14:10-14). The design also proposes a simplified construction using components like slidable blades and solder-less spring contacts to connect to internal circuitry, which is intended to reduce manufacturing complexity and cost (’794 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-4).
- Technical Importance: This technical approach aimed to produce smaller, more user-friendly, and more cost-effective power adapters for the growing portable electronics market (’794 Patent, col. 1:14-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A charger plug for converting 120V input power to DC output power.
- First and second separate blade members with prong portions secured within a housing.
- A DC connector for a power cord.
- A housing with a specific face area, outer profile, and rear end.
- A size limitation where the housing’s longitudinal length is less than 2.0 inches and its width is less than 1.75 inches.
- A functional limitation where the outer profile causes "no interference with an adjacent receptacle of the power source located on all sides ... when a like charger plug is mounted in all available orientations in any of the other receptacles."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "iessentials USB Wall Charger," which is the wall charger component of the "iessentials USB Car & Wall Charger" package (Compl. ¶16, fn. 2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is an AC/DC power adapter that connects to a standard wall outlet to provide DC power for charging electronic devices through a USB port (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges the product employs a "reduced plug-size" design so that it "does not block or interfere with the use of adjacent outlets" (Compl. ¶19). An image provided in the complaint shows a black, rectangular wall charger with two electrical prongs and the "iessentials" brand name (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges the charger has a longitudinal length of approximately 1.077 inches and a width of approximately 1.343 inches (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’794 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A charger plug capable of connecting with a two or three receptacle power source to convert 120V input power received from the power source to DC output power... | The accused product is a wall charger connected between an AC power source and a mobile device to provide DC power for recharging a battery. | ¶18 | col. 1:22-34 |
| being sized so that the charger plug housing comprises a longitudinal length extending between the front wall and the rear end and the longitudinal length is... less than 2.0 inches, a width of the housing outer profile being less than 1.75 inches... | The accused product "has a longitudinal length less than 2 inches, approximately 1.077 inches, and a width of less than 1.75 inches, approximately 1.343 inches." | ¶23 | col. 14:5-10 |
| the outer profile having no interference with an adjacent receptacle of the power source located on all sides of the first receptacle when a like charger plug is mounted in all available orientations in any of the other receptacles... | The accused product "does not block or interfere with the use of adjacent outlets" when plugged into a source of AC power. | ¶19 | col. 12:10-15 |
| [The complaint makes a general allegation for the remaining elements] | The "iessentials USB Wall Charger contains each element of Claim 1 in the '794 Patent..." | ¶24 | col. 7:31-40; col. 8:36-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the interpretation of the functional limitation requiring "no interference with an adjacent receptacle... on all sides... in all available orientations." The parties may dispute what constitutes "interference" and whether this condition must be met for every possible standard NEMA outlet configuration.
- Technical Questions: While the complaint provides specific measurements for the accused product's length and width that fall within the claim limitations (Compl. ¶23), a key question will be whether these measurements are accurate and were performed consistently with the methodology implied by the patent's description of the "outer profile." The defense may present conflicting measurements or challenge the plaintiff's measurement technique.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "outer profile"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the boundaries for both the dimensional limitation (width less than 1.75 inches) and the functional "no interference" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it is limited to the main housing body or includes any small protrusions—will directly impact the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language links the "outer profile" to "a plug body extending rearward from the front wall," which could be argued to encompass the entire physical extent of the charger housing (’794 Patent, col. 13:52-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently discusses the profile in the context of its overall shape (e.g., "polygonal, squared-off circle, ovoid or circular shape") which might suggest that minor, incidental features are not part of the "profile" for measurement purposes (’794 Patent, col. 14:60-64).
The Term: "no interference with an adjacent receptacle"
- Context and Importance: This functional limitation is a cornerstone of the claim, defining a key benefit of the invention. Its construction is vital, as a strict interpretation could make infringement difficult to prove, while a lenient one would broaden the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art plugs that provide "little or no interference" and states the invention solves this problem, which may support an argument that "no interference" means an absolute lack of physical obstruction to a standard plug (’794 Patent, col. 1:45-47).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's goal is practical usability, allowing a user to access an adjacent outlet. One could argue "no interference" means no meaningful obstruction that would prevent the use of the adjacent outlet, rather than a complete absence of any possible physical contact under all theoretical conditions (’794 Patent, col. 12:10-15).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "knowingly and actively aided and abetted" direct infringement by "instructing and encouraging its customers, purchasers, users and developers to distribute the 794 infringing products" through advertising, guidelines, and instructions (Compl. ¶36).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "had knowledge of the ‘794 Patent and/or its parent patent" and that it "knew or should have known" its product infringes (Compl. ¶17, ¶24). The prayer for relief seeks a determination that infringement has been willful, wanton, and deliberate (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of metrology and interpretation: Do the accused product’s length and width fall within the specific dimensional limits of Claim 1 when measured according to a proper construction of the term "outer profile"? While the complaint provides favorable measurements, the method and boundaries of that measurement are likely to be a central point of dispute.
- A second key issue will be the evidentiary burden of a broad functional claim: Can the plaintiff prove that the accused charger’s "outer profile" causes "no interference" with adjacent receptacles "on all sides" and "in all available orientations," as required by Claim 1? This presents a significant factual question regarding the product's interaction with various standard electrical outlets.