DCT

1:22-cv-03183

Think Products Inc v. ACCO Brands

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-03183, N.D. Ill., 06/16/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants have allegedly committed acts of patent infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tablet and computer docking stations infringe a patent related to locking assemblies for securing portable electronic devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns physical security apparatuses designed to prevent the theft of portable electronics, such as tablets and laptops, in public, retail, or office environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with "actual notice" of its patent rights prior to the patent's issuance, a fact which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-05-10 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,313,155
2021 Accused StudioDock product receives CES Innovation and Reddot awards
< 2022-04-26 Plaintiff allegedly provided "actual notice" to Defendant
2022-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,313,155 Issued
2022-06-15 Date of website screenshots for accused products in complaint
2022-06-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,313,155 - "LOCKING ASSEMBLY FOR ELECTRONIC TABLET AND DEVICES," issued April 26, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the vulnerability of portable electronic devices to theft when left open and operable in public spaces like libraries or offices (Compl. ¶7; ’155 Patent, col. 2:11-21). It notes that prior art security systems relying on built-in security slots are often weak, as the device's housing material can be frangible and easily broken to defeat the lock (’155 Patent, col. 2:53-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides various mechanical locking assemblies to physically secure a portable electronic device. Several embodiments describe a dock or cradle with corner pockets or other engaging elements that hold the device (’155 Patent, col. 4:36-56). A key aspect is a movable or adjustable locking element, such as a swinging bar or telescoping rod, that captures the device within the assembly and is then secured by a lock mechanism, such as a pin lock or combination lock (’155 Patent, col. 4:1-12; Fig. 13).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a physical security solution for devices that may lack a built-in security slot, or it offers a potentially stronger alternative by securing the device's frame rather than relying on a small, potentially weak slot in the housing (’155 Patent, col. 2:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" of the ’155 patent but does not identify any specific claims (Compl. ¶9).
  • For illustrative purposes, the patent contains two independent claims (1 and 5), both directed to a "dock for a portable electronic device." The essential elements of representative independent Claim 1 are:
    • a base connected to a channel having two side walls;
    • a movable element operatively inseparably connected to one side wall and configured for engaging a portable electronic device within the channel; and,
    • a lock mechanism operable to selectively lock the movable element for securing the device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses the "StudioDock iPad Docking Station" and the "SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station" (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, 14-15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint provides screenshots showing the accused products as stands designed to hold and support Apple iPad or Microsoft Surface Pro tablets (Compl. pp. 3, 5). A screenshot from the Defendant's website shows the "StudioDock iPad Docking Station" holding an iPad on an elevated stand (Compl. p. 3). A similar screenshot depicts the "SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station" holding a Microsoft Surface Pro tablet (Compl. p. 5).
  • The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products that is alleged to be infringing, such as any locking or securing mechanisms.
  • The complaint alleges the "StudioDock" product received a "CES INNOVATION AWARDS 2021" and a "reddot winner 2021" award, and the "SD7000" product is marketed as "Designed for Microsoft Surface," suggesting market recognition for the products (Compl. pp. 3, 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not assert specific patent claims or provide an element-by-element infringement theory. It makes a conclusory allegation that the accused products "directly infringe at least one claim" of the ’155 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 15). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A threshold question for the litigation will be whether the accused docking stations contain any components that correspond to the key elements of the patent's claims, such as a "movable element" and a "lock mechanism" for securing the tablet. The complaint provides no evidence or description of such features in the accused products.
    • Pleading Sufficiency: The complaint's failure to identify which claims are asserted and which specific features of the accused products allegedly meet the limitations of those claims raises the question of whether it meets federal pleading standards for plausibility.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As no specific claims are asserted, the following analysis is based on representative terms from independent Claim 1 of the ’155 patent, whose construction may become central to the dispute.

  • The Term: "movable element"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the component that actively engages and secures the electronic device. Its construction will determine what type of part and what kind of motion (e.g., pivoting, sliding) falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no indication of what feature on the accused docks could be considered a "movable element."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the element broadly as "a movable element operatively inseparably connected to only one side wall of said two side walls of said channel" (’155 Patent, col. 20:2-4). This language does not specify a particular structure or type of movement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments, including a "swinging locking bar" (col. 12:50-51; Fig. 13) and a "telescoping" bar (col. 11:21-22; Fig. 10). A party could argue that the term should be interpreted in light of these more specific examples of structures that pivot or slide to secure a device.

  • The Term: "lock mechanism"

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the patent's security function. The dispute will likely hinge on whether the accused products contain any feature that performs the function of a "lock mechanism" as claimed.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "a lock mechanism operable to selectively lock said movable element" without further qualification (’155 Patent, col. 20:7-8). This could arguably encompass any feature that holds the movable element in place.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and detailed description focus on security-oriented locks, such as a "plunger-type security lock," a key lock, or a combination lock meant to prevent unauthorized removal (’155 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:2-5; Fig. 3B). A defendant may argue that the term requires a mechanism that provides security against theft, not merely a simple latch or clip.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "knowing and in willful disregard" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 15). The basis for this allegation is the claim that Defendants were "provided with actual notice" of the patent rights "prior to the issuance" of the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 15). The prayer for relief seeks "increased damages" under 35 U.S.C. §284 and attorneys' fees based on the case being "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. §285 (Compl. p. 7).

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

  1. A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint's failure to identify any asserted claims or to map specific product features to claim elements provide a "plausible" allegation of infringement, or is it vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?
  2. Assuming the case proceeds, a central question will be one of factual correspondence: do the accused "StudioDock" and "SD7000" products in fact incorporate any features that function as a "movable element" and a "lock mechanism" for securing a tablet, as required by the patent's claims? The complaint currently provides no factual allegations on this point.