DCT
1:23-cv-15647
Socket Solutions LLC v. Walmart Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Socket Solutions, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-15647, N.D. Ill., 11/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant operating dozens of retail stores in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and maintaining regular and established places of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s outlet cover and power strip products infringe a patent related to a thin, functional cover that conceals an electrical wall outlet while providing power via an extension cord.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electrical accessories designed to allow furniture to be placed nearly flush against a wall by replacing a traditional bulky plug with an ultra-thin cover assembly.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sells a successful line of its own products, Sleek Socket®, which it alleges practice the patent-in-suit and are marked in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-14 | ’080 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-11-29 | ’080 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-11-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,509,080 - "Functional Indoor Electrical Wall Outlet Cover"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of conventional electrical plugs extending several inches from a wall outlet. This prevents furniture from being positioned close to the wall, wasting space, and also leaves outlets exposed, which can be unattractive and hazardous to children (’080 Patent, col. 1:20-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a thin cover that plugs into and fully conceals a standard wall outlet. The key feature is a set of electrical pins bent at approximately a ninety-degree angle, which allows the cover to sit nearly flush with the wall (’080 Patent, col. 2:15-20). An electrical cord extends from this internal connection to a distal end with one or more receptacles, preserving the outlet's functionality while hiding it (’080 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
- Technical Importance: This design provides an integrated solution for aesthetics, child safety, and space-saving by eliminating the "bulk" of traditional plugs (’080 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 19 requires, in essence:
- A cover with a frontplate and a backplate.
- The backplate has at least one set of electrical prongs (hot, neutral, optional ground) to plug into a first outlet receptacle.
- An electrical cord extends from the cover.
- The cord’s proximal end has internal pins (hot, neutral, optional ground) positioned to "minimize distance" between the frontplate and backplate.
- These internal pins are connected to the external prongs.
- The height of the internal pins is "approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord."
- The cord’s distal end has at least one receptacle.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies “TOPGREENER-Outlet-Extender-with-3-Receptacles-8ft-Cord-Black-2-Pack” and similar products, collectively termed the "Accused Outlet Covers" (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Outlet Covers are described as outlet cover/power strip products sold on Defendant's online store (Compl. ¶26). A visual provided in the complaint depicts a flat, white cover plate with an attached electrical cord that terminates in a three-receptacle power strip (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges these products directly compete with Plaintiff's own patented Sleek Socket® products (Compl. ¶32). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison image of the accused product and a figure from the ’080 Patent to illustrate their similarity (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart but alleges that the Accused Outlet Covers practice each limitation of claim 19 (Compl. ¶29). The following chart summarizes the apparent infringement theory based on the complaint's text and visuals.
’080 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a cover comprising: (i) a frontplate; and (ii) a backplate comprising at least one set of electrical prongs... positioned to correspond to a first receptacle of the wall outlet | The Accused Outlet Cover has a thin housing that plugs into a wall outlet, as shown in the provided product image. | ¶27, ¶29 | col. 8:28-34 |
| b. an electrical cord extending from the backplate, or the cover... comprising at the cord's distal end at least one receptacle | The Accused Outlet Cover includes an 8-foot cord that terminates in a 3-receptacle power strip. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 9:8-18 |
| ...at the cord's proximal end: at least one hot pin, at least one neutral pin... positioned... in such manner as to minimize distance between the front plate and the backplate... | The flat profile of the Accused Outlet Cover, as depicted in the product image, suggests an internal configuration designed to minimize its extension from the wall. | ¶27, ¶29 | col. 9:9-13 |
| ...and wherein the height of the hot pin, neutral pin, and any ground wire is approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord. | The complaint alleges this limitation is met but provides no internal schematics or measurements of the accused product to substantiate this dimensional relationship. | ¶29 | col. 9:17-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the Accused Outlet Covers actually contain the specific internal structure required by claim 19. The complaint provides only external product photography (Compl. ¶27), which does not reveal if the internal pins are positioned to "minimize distance" as claimed, or if their height is "approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord." Proving infringement will likely require discovery into the accused product's internal design and dimensions.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "minimize distance" and "approximately the same" will be critical. The parties may dispute whether these terms require a specific 90-degree bent pin structure as shown in the patent's preferred embodiment or if they can read on other thin-profile designs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "minimize distance between the front plate and the backplate"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is central to the invention's "thin" profile. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed to require the specific 90-degree pin structure taught in the patent or if it covers any design that results in a thin cover.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the goal is to avoid "adding any significant bulk to the wall outlet" (’080 Patent, col. 2:64-65), which could support an interpretation based on the end result rather than the specific mechanism.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the thin profile directly to the "electrical pins bent at approximately ninety degree angle" (’080 Patent, col. 2:15-20). The detailed description shows this structure as the way the invention "effects these advantages" (’080 Patent, col. 2:61), which may support limiting the claim scope to that embodiment.
The Term: "approximately the same or less than the thickness of the cord"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific dimensional relationship between internal components. Infringement will turn on whether the accused product's internal pin height meets this ratio relative to its cord thickness. The term "approximately" introduces ambiguity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "approximately" inherently suggests that the dimensions do not need to be identical and that some tolerance is permitted (’080 Patent, col. 9:18).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "approximately" cannot be used to read on a structure where the pin height is demonstrably and significantly greater than the cord thickness. The specification ties this relationship directly to the functional outcome, stating the "benefit" of the bent pins is that the cover depth is minimized (’080 Patent, col. 4:13-24).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be evidentiary and technical: Can the plaintiff demonstrate, through discovery, that the internal construction of the "TOPGREENER" product meets the specific dimensional and positional limitations of claim 19? The complaint’s reliance on external product imagery leaves the internal configuration—the heart of the claimed invention—as an open question.
- The case will also likely involve a core question of claim construction: How broadly will the court interpret the terms "minimize distance" and "approximately"? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are construed as functional goals that can be met in multiple ways, or whether they are implicitly tied to the specific 90-degree bent-pin structure that is heavily emphasized in the patent's specification.