DCT

1:20-cv-03958

Think Products Inc v. ACCO Brands Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-03958, N.D. Ill., 11/10/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ purported acts of infringement and maintenance of a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station" infringes a patent related to locking assemblies for electronic tablets and other portable devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns physical security apparatuses designed to prevent the theft of portable electronics, such as tablets and laptops, in commercial, educational, or public settings.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,704,299, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, which concluded with the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate on December 15, 2021. This proceeding resulted in the cancellation of original claims 5 and 7 and the amendment of claim 1. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of potential infringement on June 4, 2020, prior to the patent's issuance.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-11-10 '299 Patent Priority Date
2018-01-01 Accused Product Launch Year (Inferred from 2018 Award)
2020-06-04 Alleged Actual Notice Provided to Defendant
2020-07-07 '299 Patent Issue Date
2021-12-15 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issue Date
2022-11-10 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,704,299 - LOCKING ASSEMBLY FOR ELECTRONIC TABLET AND OTHER DEVICES (Issued Jul. 7, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the risk of theft for personal electronic devices like tablets and laptops when left unattended in public or semi-public spaces ('299 Patent, col. 2:7-17). It further notes that conventional security locks relying on built-in security slots are limited by the strength of the device's housing material, which can be "pliable" or "frangible" ('299 Patent, col. 2:51-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses several security apparatuses. One embodiment describes a dock or "locking base" with a support platform and an arm that engages a portion of the electronic device to secure it ('299 Patent, col. 19:50-66). Another described method involves anchoring a "security rod or spike" to the device's housing, which is then engaged by an external lock tethered to an immovable object, thereby securing the device ('299 Patent, Abstract). These solutions aim to provide robust physical security, potentially for devices lacking a standard security slot.
  • Technical Importance: The described technology provides versatile physical security solutions adaptable to a range of electronic devices and environments, addressing weaknesses in conventional slot-based locks. ('299 Patent, col. 2:51-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts original Claims 5, 7, and 9-12 ('Compl. ¶9'). Following reexamination, original claims 5 and 7 were cancelled, while claims 9-11 were confirmed ('Compl. ¶¶12-14'). The complaint alleges that original Claim 7 is identical in scope to reexamined Claim 1, and original Claim 5 is identical in scope to reexamined Claim 4 ('Compl. ¶¶12-13'). The effectively asserted independent claims appear to be reexamined Claim 1 and original Claim 9.
  • Independent Claim 1 (as reexamined): A dock for a portable electronic device comprising:
    • a base having a support platform configured to be positioned under the first portion of the portable electronic device;
    • an arm supported by said base, said arm including a movable element movably coupled to an end of said arm, said movable element being configured for engaging an edge of the portable electronic device adjacent the hinge of the portable electronic device,
    • wherein said movable element is movable between a first position, in which the portable electronic device is secured to the dock, and a second position, in which the portable device is removable from the dock,
    • and wherein said base has a channel and said arm is slidably received in a side of the channel.
  • Independent Claim 9 (original): A dock for a portable electronic device comprising:
    • a base having a channel;
    • an arm slidably received in a side of said channel of said base, said arm including a movable element movably coupled to an end of said arm, said movable element being configured for engaging an edge of a portable electronic device; and,
    • a lock mechanism operable to selectively lock said movable element of said arm... and to selectively unlock said movable element...

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station," potentially including the "Kensington 'Lock Module for the SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station'" (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a docking station designed for the Microsoft Surface Pro line of tablet computers (Compl. ¶8). The complaint includes a product image of the 'SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station,' showing a base, an articulated arm, and a cradle for holding a tablet computer (Compl. p. 3). This apparatus appears to function as a stand that provides both electronic docking (e.g., ports, power) and a physical security lock to secure the tablet in place.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide detailed infringement allegations that map specific product features to the elements of the asserted claims. It makes a general allegation that the "SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station" infringes at least one of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶9). Without more specific allegations, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be how the accused product’s mechanism functions. The visual evidence in the complaint suggests the product utilizes a pivoting, articulated arm to secure the tablet (Compl. p. 3). The infringement analysis will depend on whether this mechanism meets the claim limitations.
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of contention will be the scope of the claim phrase "arm is slidably received in a side of the channel," which appears in both asserted independent claims. The dispute may center on whether the accused product's seemingly pivoting arm can be construed as being "slidably received."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"arm is slidably received in a side of the channel"

Context and Importance

This limitation is present in both asserted independent claims (reexamined Claim 1 and original Claim 9) and appears central to the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence of the accused product depicts a hinged or pivoting arm, raising the question of whether this mechanism meets the "slidably received" requirement.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of intrinsic evidence supporting a broader interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification appears to distinguish between sliding and pivoting motions. It describes various embodiments using terms like "telescoping" and an arm that is slid into a "captive position within brackets," which suggest linear movement ('299 Patent, col. 12:49-51). The patent also separately describes "pivoted" components, such as a "pivoted flange" ('299 Patent, col. 12:40). This differentiation within the patent's own text may support a narrower construction of "slidably" that does not encompass pivoting.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) and does not plead facts to support claims for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶4).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on "willful disregard for the rights of Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶9). The factual basis cited is alleged "actual notice" provided to Defendants' counsel on June 4, 2020, which predates the patent's issue date but is subsequent to the publication of the underlying patent application (Compl. p. 4).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "arm is slidably received," which appears in the asserted independent claims, be construed to cover the pivoting, articulated arm mechanism depicted in the product images of the accused docking station?
  • A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused product’s mechanism, as it actually operates, meets the "slidably received" limitation and all other elements of the asserted claims.
  • A procedural question may arise from the complaint's assertion of original claims 5 and 7, which were cancelled during reexamination. The court may need to address the propriety of asserting infringement of cancelled claims, even with the allegation that they are identical in scope to surviving reexamined claims.