Switch Project LLC v. Zhang

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Switch Project, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Litao Zhang (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hansen Reynolds LLC; LeJeune Law, PC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03645, N.D. Ill., 04/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the Defendant conducts business and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s adhesive stickers for mobile phones and wireless earbuds infringe patents related to materials designed for shielding electromagnetic fields (EMF).
• Technical Context: The technology addresses concerns about user exposure to electromagnetic radiation from consumer electronics by using specialized materials to deflect or scatter the emissions.
• Key Procedural History: The U.S. Patent No. 11,678,471 is a continuation-in-part of a series of earlier-filed non-provisional and provisional applications. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-01-14	Earliest Priority Date for '471 Patent
2021-10-15	Earliest Priority Date for '371 Patent
2023-06-13	'471 Patent Issued
2024-10-29	'371 Patent Issued
2025-04-04	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,678,471 - "EMF SHIELDING MATERIAL FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE", Issued June 13, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies potential health problems arising from prolonged exposure to invisible EMF radiation emitted by common consumer electronics like cell phones and computers (’471 Patent, col. 1:30-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shielding material designed to be coupled with an electronic device. Unlike materials that absorb radiation, this solution is configured to deflect electronic and electromagnetic radiation away from the user, thereby allowing for safer operation of the device with reduced exposure (’471 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:40-49). The specification discloses that the material can be integrated into various forms, including adhesive-backed wraps or covers for electronic devices (’471 Patent, col. 2:63-65).
• Technical Importance: By focusing on deflecting rather than absorbing radiation, the invention sought to provide user protection without the potential drawbacks of absorbed energy being retained near the user’s body (’471 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least dependent Claim 5, which depends from independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A device body configured to couple to an electronic hearing device.
  • The electronic hearing device has an inner portion facing a user's head and an outer portion opposite the inner portion.
  • The electronic hearing device is configured to send a wireless signal through the inner portion.
  • The device body comprises a material configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation.
  • The device body is coupled to the inner portion of the electronic hearing device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims and amend its infringement theories (Compl. ¶23-24).

U.S. Patent No. 12,133,371 - "EMF SHIELD", Issued October 29, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the limitations of conventional EMF shields. Shields that purely reflect EMF often redirect the signal back toward the user, while shields that absorb EMF can retain the energy, increase in temperature, and potentially cause skin irritation (’371 Patent, col. 1:33-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layer shield that employs a two-stage "scatter and reflect" mechanism. An incoming EMF signal first encounters a "scattering layer" with a metal coating, which disperses and de-concentrates the signal. A "reflective layer" made of a dielectric material is positioned behind the scattering layer to then reflect the already scattered, lower-energy signal away from the user (’371 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:51-68).
• Technical Importance: This "scatter and reflect" architecture was designed to be more effective than single-mechanism shields by first breaking up the concentrated signal before redirecting it, thus mitigating the drawbacks of both simple reflection and absorption (’371 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least dependent Claim 5, which depends from independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A scattering layer with a metal coating disposed at its exterior surface, where the metal coating comprises a holographic pattern.
  • A reflective layer, comprising a dielectric material, coupled to the interior surface of the scattering layer.
  • An adhesive coating coupled to the metal coating for attachment to an electronic device.
  • The scattering layer is characterized as opaque and configured to block visible light.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims and amend its infringement theories (Compl. ¶34-35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Airpods stickers" that allegedly infringe the ’471 Patent and "phone stickers" that allegedly infringe the ’371 Patent (Compl. ¶17). Specific product examples are identified by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶18-19).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are marketed as "Protection Stickers" for electronic devices (Compl. ¶18-19). Product titles on Amazon, as cited in the complaint, claim to "Neutralize Harm" and are described as an "Essential for Family Health" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that the Defendant has generated significant sales of these products through online marketplaces like Amazon (Compl. ¶18, ¶19, ¶28, ¶39). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 5 of the ’471 Patent and at least Claim 5 of the ’371 Patent, referencing claim charts in Exhibits D and E, respectively (Compl. ¶22, ¶33). As these exhibits were not publicly filed with the complaint, a detailed limitation-by-limitation analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

• ’471 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the "Airpods stickers" infringe because they are a form of EMF shielding material applied to an electronic hearing device (Apple AirPods), thereby embodying the technology disclosed and claimed in the ’471 Patent (Compl. ¶17, ¶22, ¶26). The infringement theory is based on publicly available information (Compl. ¶23).
• ’371 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the "phone stickers" infringe because they incorporate the multi-layer "scatter and reflect" technology for EMF shielding disclosed and claimed in the ’371 Patent (Compl. ¶17, ¶33, ¶37). This theory is also based on publicly available information (Compl. ¶34).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue for the ’471 Patent will be whether an adhesive "sticker" meets the claim limitation of a "device body." For the ’371 Patent, a key question is whether the accused "phone stickers" possess the specific multi-layer construction recited in the claims, including a "scattering layer" with a "holographic pattern" and a separate "reflective layer."
• Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over the actual mechanism of the accused products. Does discovery and testing show that the '471 Accused Products "deflect" radiation as claimed? Do the '371 Accused Products operate via the claimed "scatter and reflect" mechanism, or do they function through simple absorption or reflection, which the patent distinguishes itself from?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "device body" (’471 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement claim against an adhesive sticker hinges on whether "device body" can be construed broadly enough to cover it. The defendant may argue the term implies a more substantial or form-fitting structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that "the device body comprises an adhesive backing material for coupling with the object" and that it may comprise "a wrap that is slipped onto the object," language that may support interpreting the term to include attachable accessories like stickers (’471 Patent, col. 2:63-65).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent primarily depict more structural embodiments, such as integrated watch bands (Fig. 2), form-fitting earbud sleeves (Fig. 24), and device covers (Fig. 34), which a defendant could use to argue for a narrower construction that excludes a simple, flat sticker.

Term: "scattering layer" (’371 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's purported technological contribution. Its construction will determine whether the accused stickers must have the specific, complex structure recited in the claims (metal coating, holographic pattern, etc.) or if a more generic layer that happens to disperse EMF could suffice.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple types of holographic patterns, including "a prism-style holographic pattern," which could support an argument that the term encompasses a variety of surface configurations that achieve a scattering effect (’371 Patent, col. 7:40-42).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific, requiring "a metal coating disposed at the exterior surface, the metal coating comprising a holographic pattern" (’371 Patent, col. 10:4-6). A defendant will likely argue that this requires a specific, engineered structure, not merely a surface with incidental texturing, and that the layer's function must be to "disperse and scatter" the signal as described in the specification's "Solution to Problem" section (’371 Patent, col. 1:65-68).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It claims inducement is based on the Defendant instructing and promoting the use of the accused products to its customers, with the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶25, ¶36). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products include the patented technology and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶26, ¶37).

Willful Infringement

For both patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges that the infringement is "willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license and with full knowledge" of the patents (Compl. ¶31, ¶42). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter from the Plaintiff.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to a few central questions for the court:

• A key evidentiary question will be one of product composition: Does discovery and expert analysis of the accused stickers reveal that they actually possess the specific multi-layer physical structures required by the patent claims, particularly the ’371 Patent’s "scattering layer" with a holographic metal coating?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will key claim terms be construed? Specifically for the ’471 Patent, can the term "device body" be interpreted to read on a simple adhesive sticker, and for the ’371 Patent, what are the precise structural and functional requirements of the claimed "scattering layer"?
• A significant question for any potential damages award will be knowledge and intent: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence that the Defendant had knowledge of the patents prior to the lawsuit to support its claim for willful infringement, or will the willfulness inquiry be limited to conduct occurring after the complaint was filed?