Switch Project LLC v. Guangzhouyimojushangmaoyouxiangongsi

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Switch Project, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Guangzhouyimojushangmaoyouxiangongsi (Chinese business entity)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hansen Reynolds LLC; LeJeune Law, PC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02305, N.D. Ill., 03/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district and the infringing acts giving rise to the action occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Blocker Stickers for AirPods" infringe a patent related to electromagnetic field (EMF) shielding material for electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns materials designed to be coupled with personal electronic devices to deflect electromagnetic radiation away from the user, purportedly for health and safety reasons.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of a chain of prior applications, establishing a priority claim date preceding the patent's issue date. No other procedural events like prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-01-14	Earliest Priority Date claimed by ’471 Patent
2023-06-13	U.S. Patent No. 11,678,471 Issues
2025-03-05	Complaint Filed

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 ("the ’471 Patent"), titled "EMF SHIELDING MATERIAL FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE," issued on June 13, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the potential for "health problems" arising from "prolonged exposure to EMF radiation" associated with common consumer electronics like cell phones and computers (’471 Patent, col. 1:31-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an electromagnetic shielding material designed to be coupled with an electronic device to "deflect electronic and electromagnetic radiation away from an electronic device" (’471 Patent, col. 1:41-43). The patent emphasizes that because the radiation is "deflected away from the user, rather than absorbed, a user is able to safely use the electronic device with less or no exposure" (’471 Patent, col. 1:46-49). The material can be integrated into various forms, including adhesive wraps, covers, or components within the device itself (’471 Patent, col. 2:35-51).
• Technical Importance: The claimed innovation focuses on the mechanism of deflection rather than absorption, which is presented as a means to enhance user safety during the use of radiation-emitting electronics (’471 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 5, a system claim, are:
  • A system for reducing electromagnetic radiation for a user wearing a first and second wireless earbud.
  • A first electromagnetic shielding device configured to couple to a first "inner portion" of the first wireless earbud, where that inner portion is configured to receive a wireless signal.
  • The first shielding device comprises a material configured to "deflect electromagnetic radiation."
  • A second electromagnetic shielding device with identical properties and configuration for the second wireless earbud.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims from the ’471 Patent (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Blocker Stickers for AirPods" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant is making, using, selling, and offering for sale the Accused Product, which can be purchased online through various websites, including amazon.com (Compl. ¶13). The name of the product suggests it is an adhesive sticker intended to be applied to Apple AirPods for the purpose of blocking EMF. The complaint alleges that Defendant has generated "significant sales" of these products (Compl. ¶22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart (Exhibit C) that was not included in the provided filing; therefore, a table cannot be constructed (Compl. ¶16). The narrative infringement theory, based on the allegations and asserted claim 5, is that Defendant's "Blocker Stickers for AirPods" directly infringe the ’471 Patent.

The complaint alleges that a user applying one sticker to each earbud of a pair of AirPods creates the infringing "system" (Compl. ¶13, ¶16). The infringement theory appears to contend that each sticker constitutes an "electromagnetic shielding device" that is "configured to couple" via its adhesive backing to the "inner portion" of the respective AirPod. The complaint further alleges that the material of these stickers is "configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation," thereby meeting the central functional limitation of claim 5 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether an adhesive "sticker" meets the claim's requirement for a "device."
• Technical Questions: A primary question will be what evidence exists to show that the material in the Accused Product is "configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation" as claimed, rather than absorbing it, blocking it through other means, or having no meaningful effect. The patent repeatedly distinguishes deflection from absorption (’471 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:46-49).
• Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise regarding whether the "inner portion" of an AirPod, as defined in the patent, is where the accused stickers are applied and whether that portion is indeed "configured to receive a wireless signal" (’471 Patent, cl. 5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "inner portion"

• Context and Importance: The location of the shielding device is a critical limitation of claim 5. Infringement requires coupling the device to the "inner portion" of the earbud. The construction of this term will be pivotal in determining whether the placement of the accused stickers on an AirPod falls within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the "inner portion" as "facing a user's head" and being where the device is "configured to send a wireless signal" (’471 Patent, cl. 1). A party could argue this encompasses any surface of the earbud that is oriented toward the user's head during use.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes coupling the shielding material to an "interior of the earphone or earbud body" (’471 Patent, col. 18:62-67) and shows it as an internal component in figures like Fig. 26 (element 2651). This language could support a narrower construction limited to internal surfaces or the surface immediately adjacent to the ear canal.

The Term: "material configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core function of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the material of the Accused Product performs this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's summary and abstract explicitly distinguish deflection from absorption as a key feature of the invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue the term should be read broadly to cover any material that redirects radiation away from the user, citing general statements like "deflects the electronic and electromagnetic radiation from a user" (’471 Patent, col. 1:43-45).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term requires a specific mechanism of reflection, pointing to the patent's repeated distinction that the radiation is deflected "rather than absorbed" (’471 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:46-49). The specification’s reference to specific conductive materials like a "silver or copper laminate" could be used to argue that the term implies a material with specific reflective, rather than merely inhibitive, properties (’471 Patent, col. 2:10-11).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement to infringe based on Defendant "instructing and promoting the use of the Accused Product" (Compl. ¶19). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Product has "no substantially non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶20).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s infringement being "willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license and with full knowledge of the ‘471 Patent" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not specify facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can a simple adhesive "sticker" be construed as a "device," and does the typical placement of such a product on a commercial earbud satisfy the claim's requirement for coupling to the "inner portion," a term with competing definitions in the patent's text and figures?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: what technical evidence will be presented to prove the material in the "Blocker Stickers" is specifically "configured to deflect" electromagnetic radiation, as distinguished from merely absorbing it or having a negligible effect—a distinction central to the patent's own description of the invention?