DCT
1:22-cv-03403
Shenzhen Carku Technology Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Xinzexing E Commerce Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen CARKU Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Xinzexing E-commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ANALECTS LEGAL LLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-03403, N.D. Ill., 06/29/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a Chinese company, targets and sells the accused products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through the Amazon.com marketplace. The complaint invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) as a basis for personal jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s NEXPOW-brand portable jump starters infringe a patent related to dual-mode portable backup chargers capable of both charging personal electronics and jump-starting a vehicle.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, lithium-ion battery-based power packs, a large consumer market for automotive accessories and personal electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts the patent-in-suit is among the "first generation of patents to disclose so-called smart jump starters." No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned. The complaint includes a parallel count for false advertising under the Lanham Act.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-09 | '506 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-05-09 | '506 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-06-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,643,506 - Portable Backup Charger (Issued May 9, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a single, portable power supply that can overcome the "current and voltage limitations" of conventional mobile power banks to serve two distinct functions: charging low-power mobile devices and providing a high-current "start-up source" for a vehicle ('506 Patent, col. 1:21-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable charger with a battery pack that uses two different, protected electrical paths for its two functions. A "first current path" connects the battery to standard output ports (e.g., USB) for charging electronics, managed by a "first protection circuit." A separate "second current path" connects the battery to a pair of high-capacity "output terminals" for jump-starting, managed by a "second protection circuit" designed to handle the higher current ('506 Patent, col. 2:38-55; Fig. 1). This dual-path architecture is the core of the described invention.
- Technical Importance: This design allows a single, compact, lithium-battery device to safely provide both low-amperage, multi-voltage outputs for personal devices and the high-amperage, instantaneous current required for starting a vehicle engine ('506 Patent, col. 2:56-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6-14, 16-17, 19-21, 25-28, 30-31, and 33 (Compl. ¶24, ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- A portable backup charger comprising a battery pack with at least one battery cell.
- At least one output port coupled to the battery pack, configured to output a "first current" in a "first operating mode."
- A pair of output terminals coupled to the battery pack.
- The output terminals have a "current path... different from" the path to the output port.
- The battery pack is configured to output a "second current capable of starting a vehicle engine" through the output terminals in a "second operating mode."
- The "second current is higher than the first current."
- A "first protection circuit" configured to protect the battery pack during the first operating mode.
- A "second protection circuit" configured to prevent an overcurrent condition of the second current during the second operating mode.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The NEXPOW 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 model jump starters, sold under the NEXPOW® brand (Compl. ¶1, ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are portable lithium-ion jump starters that function in two modes: a low-current output via USB ports for charging devices, and a high-current output via a detachable "smart jumper cable" for starting vehicles (Compl. ¶23). The complaint presents evidence from online customer reviews to assert the products' presence and consumer interactions in the U.S. market (Compl. ¶40, p. 10). The complaint provides screenshots of customer reviews from Amazon.com to support its allegations of consumer dissatisfaction with the accused products' battery capacity (Compl. ¶40, p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’506 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a battery pack having at least one battery cell | The NEXPOW 1000 contains an internal lithium-ion battery with at least one battery cell. | ¶27 | col. 4:48-51 |
| at least one output port coupled to the battery pack, ... configured to output a first current ... in a first operating mode | The product includes USB output ports (rated at 5V/2.1A) built to charge electronic devices. | ¶27 | col. 4:31-41 |
| a pair of output terminals coupled to the battery pack | The product includes a "smart jumper cable" with a pair of clamps that connect to the battery pack. | ¶28 | col. 5:32-37 |
| having a current path to the battery pack different from that of the at least one output port to the battery pack | The jumper cable and the USB ports allegedly use "different internal wiring." | ¶28 | col. 5:46-48 |
| wherein the battery pack is configured to output a second current capable of starting a vehicle engine through the pair of output terminals in a second operating mode | The product is advertised as a jump starter and is configured to output sufficient current through the jumper cable clamps to start a vehicle. | ¶28 | col. 5:30-32 |
| wherein the second current is higher than the first current | Tests allegedly show the product can output a 100A jump-start current, which is higher than the ~2.1A USB output. | ¶28 | col. 5:38-40 |
| a first protection circuit coupled to the battery pack and configured to protect the battery pack when the battery pack is working in the first operating mode | The product allegedly includes a protection circuit for its USB output port, located on the main board. | ¶29 | col. 5:1-5 |
| a second protection circuit coupled to the battery pack and configured to prevent overcurrent condition of the second current when the battery pack is working in the second operating mode | The product allegedly includes a protection circuit for the jump-starter output, located in the "smart jumper cable," that is triggered by high current draws. | ¶30 | col. 6:8-13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the proper construction of "a current path... different from that of the at least one output port." The court will need to determine how physically and electrically distinct the two paths must be to satisfy this limitation, especially if they share upstream battery management components.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's factual basis for the two "protection circuits" will likely be scrutinized. A question for the court is whether the accused device's general safety features can be mapped onto the specific functions recited for the "first protection circuit" (protecting the battery pack in low-current mode) and the "second protection circuit" (preventing overcurrent of the high current), or if there is a technical mismatch in their operation or purpose.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a current path... different from"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is foundational to the patent's claimed architecture of two separate, dedicated modes of operation. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused product's internal wiring for its USB ports and its jumper cable qualify as "different" paths under the claim's meaning.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the paths are "different and separate," which a plaintiff may argue does not require complete electrical isolation from the battery source, but merely distinct downstream wiring and components ('506 Patent, col. 5:46-48).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may point to the patent's Figure 1, which schematically depicts two distinct branches emerging directly from the battery pack. This could support an interpretation requiring a higher degree of architectural separation than may exist in the accused products. The abstract's statement that the high-current circuit is "directly connected to the set of batteries without interference with the charge-discharge protection circuit" may also support a narrower reading ('506 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory); it alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶50).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege pre-suit knowledge of the '506 Patent. However, it requests enhanced damages and a finding that the case is "exceptional," which are remedies for willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶ H-I, p. 15). The allegation that infringement is "ongoing" may form a basis for post-filing willfulness if the defendant continues its accused conduct after being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a current path... different from," as described in the patent, be construed to read on the specific internal wiring configuration of the accused NEXPOW jump starters? The outcome will depend heavily on claim construction.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the evidence show that the accused products contain two distinct "protection circuits" that perform the specific, separate functions required by Claim 1, or are the complaint's allegations a recharacterization of general-purpose safety features that do not map cleanly onto the claimed elements?
- Finally, the case presents a parallel dispute over false advertising under the Lanham Act, focused on allegedly inflated battery capacity claims (Compl. ¶¶35-48). The progression of this separate count may influence the overall case dynamics and potential for resolution.