DCT
1:21-cv-03071
Think Products Inc v. ACCO Brands
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Think Products, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: ACCO Brands Corporation (Delaware) and ACCO Brands USA LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dolgin Law Group, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:21-cv-03071, N.D. Ill., 06/08/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having committed acts of patent infringement in the district and maintaining a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s laptop docking and locking stations infringe a patent related to a locking base for securing notebook computers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns physical security devices designed to prevent the theft of portable electronic devices, such as laptops, particularly when left open and operable in office, educational, or retail settings.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history between the parties, including discussions surrounding the patent-in-suit during 2008 under a non-disclosure agreement. It further alleges that after these discussions, Defendant ACCO Brands issued cease-and-desist letters to two of Plaintiff’s licensees (Griffin Technologies and PNY, Inc.), which allegedly prompted them to cease selling Plaintiff's licensed products. These allegations form the basis of the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-05-10 | '443 Patent Priority Date |
| c. 2005 | Alleged commencement of business history between parties |
| 2007 | Alleged product interest from Apple Inc. involving Defendant's Kensington subsidiary |
| 2008-01-01 | '443 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-02-14 | Non-disclosure agreement signed between parties |
| 2008-02-18 | Video conference call where '443 Patent was allegedly discussed |
| 2012-05-08 | Assignment of '443 Patent to Plaintiff recorded |
| 2021-06-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,315,443 - "NOTEBOOK COMPUTER LOCKING BASE"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,315,443, “NOTEBOOK COMPUTER LOCKING BASE,” issued January 1, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the vulnerability of notebook computers to theft when left open and operational at a workstation, such as a library carrel or office desk, and the need for retailers to securely display such electronic devices (ʼ443 Patent, col. 1:18-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a locking base designed to be secured to a work surface. A notebook computer is placed on the base, and a movable locking member is deployed to secure the computer, typically by engaging its screen portion, making it "impossible to remove the notebook computer from the work surface" without unlocking it (’443 Patent, col. 2:23-26; Abstract). The patent describes various embodiments, including a removable locking collar and a pivoting locking bar (ʼ443 Patent, col. 2:17-19, col. 2:59-63).
- Technical Importance: The described technology allows a user to secure a computer in an open and active state, obviating the need to shut down, close, and transport the device for short-term absences (’443 Patent, col. 1:30-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" without further specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A generally horizontal locking base for being secured to a working surface, said locking base receiving a keyboard portion of said notebook computer against a said generally horizontal base thereof;
- and a first generally upwardly extending rear wall to receive a screen portion of said notebook computer resting against said rear wall;
- a movable locking member movable laterally in a generally horizontal plane from an open, unlocked position to a locking position against a lower portion of said screen portion;
- said movable locking member engaging said generally upwardly extending rear wall at a user operable lock associated with said rear wall; and,
- said user operable lock locking said locking member in a locked position.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "one or more laptop docking lock products" (Compl. ¶9), exemplified by the "Laptop Locking Station 2.0" (Compl. ¶9). Specific accused models include the "Kensington Laptop Locking Station 2.0 Products," "Kensington LD4650P," "Kensington LD5400T," and "Kensington Laptop Locking Station with K-Fob Smart Lock" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are manufactured and sold by Defendants for securing laptop computers (Compl. ¶9). A visual in the complaint depicts the "Laptop Locking Station 2.0" as a flat base with an articulated arm designed to hold a laptop computer in place (Compl. ¶9, p. 3). The complaint alleges these products are part of a "highly successful 'ClickSafe' product line" (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The following summary is based on the general allegations of infringement.
'443 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a generally horizontal locking base for being secured to a working surface... | The base of the "Laptop Locking Station 2.0" product, which rests on a work surface and supports a laptop. | ¶9, ¶21 | col. 1:57-60 |
| a first generally upwardly extending rear wall to receive a screen portion of said notebook computer... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶21 | col. 2:27-31 |
| a movable locking member movable laterally in a generally horizontal plane... | The articulated arm of the "Laptop Locking Station 2.0" that moves to secure the laptop to the base. | ¶9, ¶21 | col. 1:64-65 |
| said movable locking member engaging said generally upwardly extending rear wall at a user operable lock... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific locking mechanism. | ¶21 | col. 2:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the accused products contain a structure that meets the "first generally upwardly extending rear wall" limitation of Claim 1. The complaint's general allegations and visual evidence do not identify such a component, raising the question of how the "movable locking member" can engage a structure that may not be present.
- Scope Questions: Does the pivoting motion of the accused product's articulated arm constitute being "movable laterally in a generally horizontal plane" as required by Claim 1? The interpretation of "laterally" will be critical to determining if there is a literal match.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "movable locking member movable laterally in a generally horizontal plane" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on whether the movement of the accused product's locking arm, which appears to pivot, falls within the scope of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product's primary mechanism of action is implicated.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses a "swinging arm" embodiment (e.g., FIG. 10) that pivots, which a plaintiff may argue supports interpreting "movable laterally" broadly to include such arcuate motion (’443 Patent, col. 5:67-68).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the plain meaning of "laterally" implies a straight, side-to-side motion, distinguishing it from the pivoting or swinging motion shown in some embodiments and allegedly used in the accused product.
The Term: "upwardly extending rear wall" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural component of the claimed locking base. The absence of an identifiable "rear wall" in the accused product could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the wall to "receive a screen portion" (’443 Patent, col. 11:61-63). A plaintiff could argue that any surface on the base that provides support to the back of the laptop screen satisfies this functional requirement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as FIG. 1, depict a distinct, upright physical structure (element 10) as the rear wall. A defendant may argue the term requires a discrete structural element, not merely an edge or portion of the base.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain specific allegations of either induced or contributory infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’443 patent (Compl. ¶21). The alleged factual basis includes a 2008 non-disclosure agreement and video conference where the patent was discussed between the parties, and Defendant’s subsequent actions of sending cease-and-desist letters to Plaintiff's licensees, which allegedly demonstrates knowledge of Plaintiff’s intellectual property (Compl. ¶¶13, 16, 17, 19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "movable laterally," as used in Claim 1, be construed to read on the pivoting articulated arm of the accused "Laptop Locking Station 2.0"? The outcome of this definitional dispute will be fundamental to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products possess the specific structures recited in the asserted claims, particularly the "upwardly extending rear wall" required by Claim 1. The complaint's lack of a detailed infringement chart leaves open the question of how Plaintiff will map this claim element to the accused device's structure.
- The allegations of a long and contentious history, including direct discussions of the patent-in-suit and subsequent cease-and-desist letters to third parties, raise a significant question of willfulness. The court will likely need to closely examine the factual record of the parties' interactions to determine if Defendant's alleged infringement was "knowing and in willful disregard" of Plaintiff's patent rights.