Universal Transdata LLC v. ADATA Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Universal Transdata, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: ADATA Technology Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kent & Risley LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-03234, N.D. Ga., 08/25/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant does not reside in any U.S. judicial district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim (sales and inducement) occurred in the district, and Defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s retractable USB flash drive products infringe a patent related to the mechanical design of a portable storage device with a retractable connector.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the mechanical housing and sliding mechanism for USB flash drives, a ubiquitous form of portable data storage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent and its infringement, to which Defendant did not respond. This notice serves as the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,743,030 - Portable Storage Device with Universal Serial Bus

Issued June 1, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of conventional USB flash drives that use a separate, detachable cap to protect the connector ('030 Patent, col. 1:21-28). The patent notes that such caps are easily lost, leaving the connector vulnerable to damage, which can render the device unusable ('030 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable storage device with an integrated, retractable USB connector that slides in and out of a protective case. A user manipulates an external "push member" that is mechanically connected to the internal "main body" (the circuit board and connector), causing the connector to project for use or retract for storage and protection ('030 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:47-62). This design eliminates the need for a separate, losable cap. Figure 4 illustrates the push member (3) moving the main body forward to expose the connector (21).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a more robust and convenient solution for protecting the USB connector compared to the prior art's reliance on separate caps, improving device longevity and user experience ('030 Patent, col. 3:25-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7 and 8 ('Compl. ¶19).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a case having a longitudinal length and a front opening;
  • a main body comprising a circuit board and a connector located in front of said circuit board;
  • said main body being positioned in said case with said connector being movable out of or retractable into said front opening of said case;
  • a push member being connected to said main body in the manner of interference fit and exposed from said case; and
  • whereby by pushing said push member forward or rearward, said connector of said main body is brought to project from or retract into said case, and said push member does not extend substantially beyond the longitudinal length of said case.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "ADATA UV128 USB Flash Drive products" and other similar, as-yet-unknown products (collectively, "Accused Products") ('Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are portable storage devices that embody the patented invention ('Compl. ¶19). While the complaint does not provide a detailed technical breakdown of the Accused Products' operation, their designation as "USB Flash Drive products" and the nature of the infringement allegations imply they are portable data storage devices featuring a sliding mechanism that retracts and extends a USB connector from a protective housing. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference a "preliminary claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not included with the filing ('Compl. ¶21). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint and the language of the asserted patent.

'030 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The complaint alleges infringement without providing specific factual detail on how the Accused Product's internal mechanism works ('Compl. ¶21). A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the "push member" in the ADATA UV128 is connected to the "main body" in a manner that constitutes an "interference fit" as required by the claim.
• Scope Question: A dispute may arise over the term of degree "does not extend substantially beyond the longitudinal length of said case." The parties may contest whether the push member of the Accused Product, when the connector is retracted, protrudes to an extent that falls outside the scope of this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "interference fit"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the connection between the external push member and the internal main body. Its construction is critical because it dictates the specific type of mechanical linkage required for infringement. If construed narrowly, it could exclude common alternative sliding mechanisms.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "interference fit" without further qualification, which may support an interpretation covering any connection where parts are held together by friction after being pushed together.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the connection is formed by a "hole 311" on the push member engaging with a "raised electronic element 221" on the circuit board ('030 Patent, col. 2:55-58). A defendant could argue this specific structure limits the scope of "interference fit" to this type of engagement.

Term: "does not extend substantially beyond the longitudinal length of said case"

• Context and Importance: This term places a functional and dimensional limit on the push member. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a term of degree, making its boundary subjective. The infringement determination could depend entirely on whether the protrusion of the accused device's slider is deemed "substantial."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to create a convenient, compact device without a separate cap ('030 Patent, col. 1:43-49). This purpose could support a reading that allows for some minor protrusion of the push member, as long as it does not undermine the overall compactness and convenience of the device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 6, depict a push member (3) that sits nearly flush with the rear of the case (11, 12) when the connector is retracted. This visual evidence could support an argument that the term requires a very minimal or non-existent protrusion.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "actively and intentionally" induced infringement by others with "prior knowledge of the '030 Patent" through its acts of making, importing, and selling the Accused Products ('Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not specify the particular acts of inducement, such as providing user manuals with infringing instructions.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful and deliberate ('Compl. ¶24). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant had "actual knowledge of the '030 Patent" from receiving pre-suit notice from Plaintiff ('Compl. ¶23).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "interference fit," which describes the connection between the slider and the internal electronics, be construed broadly to cover the specific mechanism used in the Accused Products, or is it limited to the "hole-and-peg" embodiment described in the patent's specification?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual characterization: does the external push member on the ADATA UV128 product "extend substantially beyond the longitudinal length of said case"? The resolution of this question will depend on factual evidence and the court's interpretation of a subjective term of degree.
3. A third question relates to the sufficiency of allegations: given the lack of specific, element-by-element factual detail in the complaint, an initial challenge may question whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the Accused Products meet every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the "interference fit" limitation.