DCT

1:25-cv-01546

Switch Project LLC v. Hunan Xin Xun HUAN Electronic Tech Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01546, N.D. Ill., 02/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of infringement within the district, and the action arises from those transactions.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s EMF-blocking sticker products infringe a patent related to deflecting electromagnetic radiation from electronic hearing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns materials designed to shield users from electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation emitted by personal electronic devices, a market driven by consumer health and safety concerns.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is the result of a chain of continuation and provisional applications dating back to 2019, relating to various wearable electronic controllers and EMF shielding technologies. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-01-14 '471 Patent - Earliest Priority Date (Prov. App. 62/792,280)
2023-06-13 '471 Patent - Issue Date
2025-02-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,678,471 - EMF SHIELDING MATERIAL FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,678,471, titled "EMF SHIELDING MATERIAL FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE," issued on June 13, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Common consumer electronics, such as cell phones and microwave ovens, emit invisible electric and magnetic fields (EMF), and the patent suggests that "[p]rolonged exposure to EMF radiation may create health problems" (’471 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a shielding material designed to be coupled with an electronic device to "deflect electronic and electromagnetic radiation away from an electronic device" (’471 Patent, Abstract). The specification emphasizes that this deflection protects the user and is distinct from absorption, allowing the user to "safely use the electronic device with less or no exposure" (’471 Patent, col. 1:45-49). The material can be integrated into various form factors, including adhesive layers, sleeves, or device covers (’471 Patent, col. 2:26-34, col. 2:50-55).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach of deflecting, rather than absorbing, radiation is presented as a key feature for enabling safer use of electronic devices (’471 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least Claim 5" of the ’471 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Claim 5 is an independent system claim.
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 5 are:
    • A system for reducing electromagnetic radiation to a user wearing an electronic hearing device having a first and second wireless earbud.
    • A first electromagnetic shielding device configured to couple to the first wireless earbud at a "first inner portion," which is itself configured to receive a wireless signal. This first shielding device comprises a material configured to "deflect electromagnetic radiation."
    • A second electromagnetic shielding device configured to couple to the second wireless earbud at a "second inner portion," which is also configured to receive wireless signals. This second shielding device also comprises a material configured to "deflect electromagnetic radiation."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims and supplement its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Only Jane Ear Protection Stickers" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint provides minimal technical detail about the Accused Product, describing it as an "Ear Protection Sticker" available for purchase on websites like www.amazon.com (Compl. ¶13). The infringement theory implies that these stickers are intended to be applied to electronic devices, such as earbuds, to provide EMF shielding (Compl. ¶¶11, 19). The complaint alleges that Defendant has generated "significant sales" of these products (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in "Exhibit B" but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶15). In the absence of the chart, the infringement theory must be drawn from the complaint's narrative allegations. The complaint alleges that the Accused Product "includes the technology disclosed in the ’471 Patent" and infringes at least Claim 5 (Compl. ¶¶15, 19). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the "Only Jane Ear Protection Stickers" function as the claimed "first and second electromagnetic shielding devices" by coupling to a user's wireless earbuds and deflecting EMF radiation away from the user's head, thereby forming the infringing "system" recited in Claim 5 (’471 Patent, col. 28:7-22; Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping the features of the stickers to the individual limitations of Claim 5.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "inner portion"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required location of the accused shielding device. Claim 1, on which Claim 5 is conceptually based, defines the "inner portion" as "facing a user's head" and being "configured to send a wireless signal through the inner portion" (’471 Patent, col. 27:23-26). The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused stickers are "couple[d]" to this specific part of an earbud. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a sticker placed on any surface of an earbud can infringe, or if it must be placed at a very specific location associated with the wireless antenna.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "facing a user's head" could be argued to cover a relatively large surface area of an earbud that is oriented towards the user's ear canal or head.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The additional limitation "configured to send a wireless signal through the inner portion" could be used to argue that the "inner portion" is narrowly restricted to the physical area of the antenna or transceiver. Furthermore, figures in the patent depict the shielding material as an internal component of the earbud housing (e.g., Fig. 26, element 2651), which could support an argument that an external sticker does not meet the claim.

  • The Term: "deflect electromagnetic radiation"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required function of the accused material. The case may turn on whether the accused stickers perform this specific action. The patent explicitly contrasts deflection with absorption: "because the electronic and electromagnetic radiation is deflected away from the user, rather than absorbed, a user is able to safely use the electronic device" (’471 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any redirection of radiation, regardless of the precise physics or efficiency, constitutes "deflection" under the plain and ordinary meaning of the word.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the specification creates a specific definition by distinguishing "deflect" from "absorb." Evidence that the accused stickers work primarily through absorption, or that they do not meaningfully alter the path of EMF radiation, would support a non-infringement argument under this narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It claims inducement is based on Defendant instructing customers on the use of the Accused Product (Compl. ¶18). It claims contributory infringement by alleging the Accused Product has no "substantially non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶19).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendant infringed "with full knowledge of the ’471 Patent" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not provide specific facts to support this allegation, such as evidence of pre-suit notice or independent discovery of the patent by the Defendant.

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

  1. A Definitional Question of Location: The dispute will likely center on claim construction, specifically whether an adhesive sticker applied to the exterior of an earbud can satisfy the "couple[d] to the... inner portion" limitation, which the patent defines as the part "facing a user's head" and associated with receiving a wireless signal.
  2. An Evidentiary Question of Function: A central technical issue will be whether the "Only Jane Ear Protection Stickers" actually perform the claimed function of "deflect[ing] electromagnetic radiation." The case may require expert testimony and testing to determine if the accused products work by deflection, as the patent requires, or by some other mechanism such as absorption, or if they have any measurable effect at all.
  3. A Pleading Sufficiency Question: Given the absence of the referenced claim chart and the lack of detailed factual allegations in the complaint, an early issue may be whether the complaint meets the pleading standards for patent infringement established by the Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly, which require more than conclusory allegations of infringement.