DCT
1:25-cv-13048
Mkeke Inc v. BelAir Electronics Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mkeke Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: BelAir Electronics, Inc. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13048, N.D. Ill., 10/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff MKEKE alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant Belair Electronics resides in the district, maintaining its principal place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its mobile phone cases do not infringe two of Defendant’s expired patents and that those patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves protective cases for mobile phones, a mature technology sector where design variations are common.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a non-practicing entity with a business model of mass litigation based on expired patents. Critically, the complaint states that both patents-in-suit are currently undergoing ex parte reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where the USPTO has found "a substantial new question of patentability" for the asserted claims based on prior art not considered during the original examination. The outcome of these reexamination proceedings could significantly impact the scope and validity of the asserted claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-11-17 | Patent Priority Date ('195' and '676' Patents) |
| 2011-05-10 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,941,195) |
| 2018-10-09 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 10,097,676) |
| 2020-01-01 | Alleged start of Defendant's nationwide litigation campaign |
| 2021-10-23 | Expiration Date ('676 Patent) |
| 2022-11-16 | Expiration Date ('195 Patent) |
| 2025-08-25 | Third-party requests for ex parte reexamination filed for both patents |
| 2025-09-03 | USPTO institutes reexamination for '676 Patent |
| 2025-09-12 | USPTO institutes reexamination for '195 Patent |
| 2025-10-26 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,941,195 - "Protective Mask of Mobile Phone" (Issued May 10, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that mobile phones of the era were "very smooth and delicate," making them susceptible to abrasion and "ill-favored scars" from user carelessness, which deteriorates their quality and value (’195 Patent, col. 1:31-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a two-part protective "mask" or case—an upper cover body and a lower cover body—that can be fitted onto the front and rear housings of a mobile phone (’195 Patent, col. 2:28-31). The front portion, or "first mask portion," is described as having "flanges to allow the first mask portion to be coupled to the mobile phone" to retain it in place (’195 Patent, col. 4:37-42). This structure allows for protection without permanently altering the phone and enables users to change the case to follow fashion trends (’195 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-58).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for both protecting and customizing early-generation mobile phones, addressing consumer demand for personalization and preservation of the device's cosmetic condition (’195 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 9 as asserted (Compl. ¶28, 38).
- Claim 9 Elements:
- A protective mask adapted to be coupled to an exterior housing of a mobile phone.
- The mask comprises a first mask portion, molded to conform to the shape of a first portion of the exterior housing.
- The first mask portion has flanges to allow it to be coupled to the mobile phone.
- The coupling is for retaining the first mask portion to the first portion of the exterior housing.
- The first mask portion covers the first portion of the exterior housing.
U.S. Patent No. 10,097,676 - "Protective Mask of Mobile Phone" (Issued Oct. 9, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’676 Patent shares a specification with the ’195 Patent and addresses the same problem of protecting delicate mobile phones from abrasion and scarring (’676 Patent, col. 1:31-38).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is again a protective mask, but the claims are phrased differently. The focus is on a mask that is "molded for frictional retention" and has an inner surface in "substantially continuous surface-to-surface contact with the exterior shape of the exterior housing" (’676 Patent, col. 3:36-51). The mask is secured by "at least one retainer having an extension protruding laterally inward" to engage an edge of the phone's housing, thereby retaining the mask on the device (’676 Patent, col. 3:55-63).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention emphasizes a close, friction-based fit, suggesting a design that is less bulky and more integrated with the phone's form factor than simple shells (’676 Patent, col. 4:20-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 as asserted (Compl. ¶28, 50).
- Claim 1 Elements (Representative):
- A protective mask molded for frictional retention to an exterior housing of a mobile phone.
- An integrally-formed mask body molded and contoured to conform and frictionally-fit tightly against the exterior shape of the housing.
- An inner surface of the mask body defining an interior space and conforming in substantially continuous surface-to-surface contact with the housing's exterior shape, with no substantial space between them.
- At least one opening permitting user access to interfaces.
- At least one retainer having an extension protruding laterally inward from the mask body and into the interior space.
- The retainer is retained to the exterior housing at an exterior housing edge when the mask is coupled.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff's "modern, high-quality protective cases for contemporary mobile phones" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as employing "generic design features, such as slightly raised edges for screen protection, that are fundamentally different from the claimed inventions and are standard in the industry" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific product names, model numbers, or detailed technical descriptions of the accused cases' construction or operation. It alleges the designs use "common, well-known, and conventional design principles" that have been ubiquitous for many years (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following chart summarizes the infringement theory MKEKE alleges Belair is asserting against it.
’195 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first mask portion, molded to conform to the shape of a first portion of the exterior housing of the mobile phone | The body of MKEKE's protective cases, which are designed to fit contemporary mobile phones. | ¶14 | col. 2:37-41 |
| the first mask portion having flanges to allow the first mask portion to be coupled to the mobile phone to retain the first mask portion | According to Belair's alleged theory, any "lip or raised edge on a phone case, which serves to hold the phone in place," such as MKEKE's "slightly raised edges for screen protection," constitutes the claimed "flanges." | ¶15-17 | col. 2:41-43 |
’676 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an integrally-formed mask body molded and contoured to conform and frictionally-fit tightly against the exterior shape of the exterior housing | The body of MKEKE's protective cases, which are molded to fit specific phone models. | ¶14 | col. 4:40-44 |
| at least one retainer having an extension protruding laterally inward from the integrally-formed mask body... wherein the at least one retainer is retained to the exterior housing at an exterior housing edge | According to Belair's alleged theory, any "lip or raised edge on a phone case" that holds the phone in place constitutes the claimed "retainer." MKEKE denies its products have this specific structure. | ¶15-16, 50 | col. 4:32-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be definitional. Does the term "flanges" as used in the ’195 Patent, and "retainer" as used in the ’676 Patent, read on the "slightly raised edges" common to modern phone cases for screen protection? (Compl. ¶16-17, 38, 50).
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical operation of the accused products. The core question for the court will be whether the structure and function of the raised edges on MKEKE's cases are the same as or equivalent to the specific "flanges" and "retainer" structures disclosed and claimed in the patents.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "flanges" (’195 Patent, Claim 9)
Context and Importance: MKEKE alleges Belair's infringement theory hinges on an "overly broad interpretation" of this term to include any raised edge on a phone case (Compl. ¶15-16). The viability of the infringement claim against MKEKE and potentially many other case manufacturers will likely depend on whether the court adopts a broad or narrow construction of "flanges."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "flanges" is not explicitly defined in the specification. The patent states only that the "flanges 21 can be retained at the edge of the front phone housing 41" (’195 Patent, col. 2:41-43). A party might argue that any structure performing this retaining function at the edge meets the claim limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, particularly Figure 3, depict "flanges 21" as distinct, tab-like structures projecting from the rear side face of the upper cover body (’195 Patent, Fig. 3). A party could argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment, distinguishing it from a continuous raised lip or bezel.
The Term: "at least one retainer" (’676 Patent, Claims 1, 5, 8, 9)
Context and Importance: Similar to "flanges," MKEKE contends that Belair's case relies on interpreting "retainer" to cover generic raised edges (Compl. ¶16, 26). A narrow construction limiting the term to a specific structure would, according to MKEKE, defeat Belair's infringement theory (Compl. ¶50).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "retainer" is functional, and a party could argue it should encompass any structure that "participat[es] in retaining the integrally-formed mask body to the mobile communication device" (’676 Patent, col. 3:61-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the retainer to have "an extension protruding laterally inward from the integrally-formed mask body and toward and into the integrally-formed mask body interior space" (’676 Patent, col. 3:55-59). The specification refers to "flanges 21" as the structure that can be "retained at the edge of the front phone housing" (’676 Patent, col. 2:41-43). A party could argue that "retainer" must be construed consistently with the structure of the disclosed "flanges 21" shown in the figures, which appear as discrete tabs rather than a continuous perimeter lip.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint, being for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not allege infringement and therefore does not detail theories of indirect or willful infringement. It seeks a declaration that MKEKE has not infringed, either directly or indirectly (Compl. ¶37, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the terms "flanges" and "retainer," as described and depicted in the patent specifications from the early 2000s, be construed broadly enough to cover the common design feature of a continuous, slightly raised edge for screen protection found on many modern smartphone cases?
- A second central issue will be patent validity in light of reexamination: With the USPTO having already determined that "a substantial new question of patentability" exists for the asserted claims based on new prior art, a key question is whether the claims will survive reexamination and, if so, how their scope might be narrowed, potentially impacting the entire basis of the infringement dispute (Compl. ¶31, 43, 55).
- A procedural question will be the influence of litigation conduct: The complaint heavily emphasizes the defendant's alleged status as a "patent troll" engaged in a "nationwide campaign of serial litigation" (Compl. ¶19, 22). The court will have to determine what, if any, bearing this alleged conduct has on the substantive questions of infringement and validity.