DCT

1:25-cv-04842

Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Pathway IP LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04842, N.D. Ill., 05/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly structuring their business to target and sell products to consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of unauthorized personal lighting devices via online marketplaces infringes a patent related to personal video lighting systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns lighting accessories for personal computers, designed to improve a user's on-camera appearance during video communications.
  • Key Procedural History: The action is a verified complaint filed against a large group of typically anonymous online sellers, alleging they operate in concert. Plaintiff seeks a writ of prejudgment attachment to freeze Defendants' assets, a measure often sought in cases against foreign e-commerce entities. The complaint also names certain trademark owners as indirect infringers for allegedly licensing their marks for use on the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,500,293 Priority Date
2013-08-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,500,293 Issued
2025-05-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,500,293 - "Personal Video Lighting System" (Issued Aug. 6, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a problem in video communications where typical lighting is inadequate, creating unflattering "harsh shadows around the eye sockets and edges of the face" or over-illuminating the user to "wash out" facial features (’293 Patent, col. 2:14-21). It notes that single-point or small-area light sources are often ineffective for users sitting close to a personal computer (’293 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a lighting system with "two or more white light emitting diodes spaced some distance apart to reduce or eliminate facial shadows" and improve a user's appearance (’293 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in figures such as FIG. 1, the system generally comprises a light panel (10) with multiple LEDs, a body (30) that serves as a base, and a flexible support arm (20) connecting the two, allowing for attachment to a computer and adjustment of the light’s position (’293 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology addresses the growing importance of personal appearance in video communications, driven by applications like internet dating, business video conferencing, and online journalism (’293 Patent, col. 1:43-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert all other claims (Compl. ¶34-35).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • A lighting system for use with a personal computer, comprising a body, one or more light panels, two or more white LED's disposed on said one or more light panels,
    • a flexible support arm connecting said body to said one or more light panels,
    • a means of power,
    • an adjustable pulse width modulation circuit operatively connecting said two or more white LED's to said means of power,
    • wherein said two or more white LED's have a CIE 1931 color chromaticity x coordinate between 0.300 and 0.420 and a CIE 1931 color chromaticity y coordinate between 0.300 and 0.420.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Unauthorized Products," which are personal lighting devices sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶4, ¶18). Specific product names are redacted.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products sold by the various Defendants are "substantially identical" or "materially indistinguishable" (Compl. ¶6). The complaint provides screenshot printouts of the accused products being offered for sale on e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶18, referencing Ex. 2). It further alleges that the products share the same SKU prefix and use "identical" integrated circuits, suggesting they originate from a common or closely related upstream manufacturer and are distributed through coordinated supply chains (Compl. ¶7). The Plaintiff alleges these sales have hampered its ability to expand its market share (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Unauthorized Products" infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’293 Patent (Compl. ¶34). It states that exemplary claim charts are provided in Exhibit 6 to the complaint; however, this exhibit was not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶34). The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement rests on the allegation that the accused products are "substantially identical" to Plaintiff's own products that embody the patent and share the "same or equivalent physical structure" and "infringing features" as the patented invention (Compl. ¶6-7). The complaint does not contain specific, element-by-element factual allegations mapping features of the accused products to the limitations of Claim 1. The infringement case will therefore depend on evidence produced during discovery or on the contents of the unfiled Exhibit 6.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what evidence demonstrates that the accused products contain all limitations of Claim 1? Specifically, discovery will need to establish whether the products contain an "adjustable pulse width modulation circuit" for dimming, as opposed to a less sophisticated method, and whether their LEDs meet the specific "CIE 1931 color chromaticity" coordinates required by the claim.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegation that the products have an "equivalent physical structure" raises the question of whether any differences in structure between the patented embodiments and the accused products are legally significant (Compl. ¶7).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"adjustable pulse width modulation circuit"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific type of dimming circuitry required. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products' electronics perform this function. Practitioners may focus on this term because low-cost electronics often use simpler, non-equivalent dimming methods (e.g., resistive dimming), and proving the presence of this specific circuit will be critical to Plaintiff's case.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the provided examples of PWM driver chips are "mentioned not by way of limitation, but merely as examples" (’293 Patent, col. 6:17-19). This may support an interpretation that covers a variety of functionally similar circuits.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples, including block diagrams for specific Texas Instruments and Zetex chips (e.g., TLC5916, ZXLD1350) (’293 Patent, Figs. 38-39; col. 6:9-13). A party could argue these specific disclosures limit the claimed term to circuits with similar components or operational characteristics.

"flexible support arm"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is important for determining the range of physical mounting structures covered by the claim. A dispute could arise if an accused product uses a different type of adjustable mount.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the arm "may also be constructed of other types of materials and designs, such as a hollow tubular telescopic arm, a hinged arm, a plastic coated bendable wire, and other flexible materials and designs commonly known in the art" (’293 Patent, col. 6:60-64). This language suggests the term is not limited to a single embodiment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in many figures is a "gooseneck" style tube (’293 Patent, Fig. 1). A party might argue that the term should be construed in light of this predominant example, potentially narrowing its scope against dissimilar structures.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that the seller Defendants induce infringement by encouraging consumers to use the products (Compl. ¶35). It also raises a distinct claim of indirect infringement against Defendants 9-12, who are alleged to be trademark owners that "knowingly aid and encourage the sale of infringing goods by granting licensing rights that give legitimacy and visibility to products incorporating patented features" (Compl. ¶9, ¶35).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products (Compl. ¶30). The complaint further alleges that e-commerce operators like Defendants utilize services to monitor U.S. intellectual property lawsuits, which may be used to argue that Defendants had knowledge of the patent and infringement post-filing (Compl. ¶28).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery or independent analysis, produce evidence demonstrating that the accused "Unauthorized Products" meet every technical limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the requirements for an "adjustable pulse width modulation circuit" and specific "CIE... color chromaticity" coordinates?
  • A key procedural and legal question will be one of collective liability: Does the evidence of common product design, shared SKU prefixes, and identical internal components suffice to support the joinder of numerous anonymous sellers under 35 U.S.C. § 299? Further, can the Plaintiff establish the specific knowledge and intent required to hold the alleged trademark licensors (Defendants 9-12) liable for indirect infringement?