Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Progress Solar Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Progress Solar Solutions, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eldreth Law Firm, PC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 5:20-cv-00120, E.D.N.C., 03/24/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is incorporated in North Carolina, maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District, has committed acts of alleged infringement in the District, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable solar-powered lighting products infringe two patents related to the design and operation of portable solar light towers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, off-grid lighting systems, primarily for use at construction sites, which utilize solar panels and batteries as an alternative to traditional diesel-powered generators.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,428,100 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,733,963. Both patents claim priority to the same 2009 provisional application. No other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,733,963 - "Portable solar light tower"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,733,963, "Portable solar light tower", issued May 27, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background identifies the high and volatile cost of diesel fuel for generators that traditionally power large, high-wattage lights for nighttime construction work (Compl. Ex. 1, ’963 Patent, col. 1:19-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, trailer-mounted lighting system. It features solar panels that fold into a protected, vertical position for transport and fold out into a horizontal position to charge an onboard battery bank. An extendable, telescoping tower with LED floodlights can then be raised and powered by the batteries to provide a portable, quiet, and emission-free light source (Compl. Ex. 1, ’963 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:31-41).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a renewable-energy alternative to conventional fossil-fuel-dependent portable lighting, with the stated benefits of reducing operational costs, noise, and emissions (Compl. Ex. 1, ’963 Patent, col. 8:50-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '963 Patent Claims" presented in a separate exhibit but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core teachings.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a solar power device comprising:
  • a substantially horizontal portable base plate, wherein the portable base plate is part of a trailer;
  • a first solar panel and a second solar panel coupled to opposite sides of the portable base plate;
  • a light coupled to the portable base plate;
  • wherein the solar panels are positioned in a "substantially vertical orientation" for a closed transport position and are rotatable to a "substantially horizontal orientation" for an open charging position;
  • wherein the solar panels "each face inward toward the trailer when positioned in the closed position"; and
  • wherein the solar panels "fold out over fenders of the trailer."
• The complaint states an intention to rely on claims identified in its (unprovided) chart exhibit, potentially including dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 9,428,100 - "Portable solar light tower"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,428,100, "Portable solar light tower", issued August 30, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation with a shared specification, the ’100 Patent addresses the same problem of costly diesel-powered lighting for night work (Compl. Ex. 2, ’100 Patent, col. 1:24-33).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same portable, trailer-mounted solar light tower, featuring solar panels that can be reconfigured between a transport mode and a charging/use mode to power an extendable light tower from a battery bank (Compl. Ex. 2, ’100 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:36-44).
• Technical Importance: The technical contribution is identical to that of the parent ’963 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '100 Patent Claims" in a separate exhibit without identifying them in the complaint's text (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a solar power device comprising:
  • a portable base that is part of a trailer;
  • a plurality of solar panels coupled to the base;
  • a light coupled to the base;
  • wherein the plurality of solar panels "fold out over fenders of the trailer"; and
  • wherein "at least one solar panel" is rotatable from a horizontal position to a "substantially vertical position," which "faces inward toward the trailer."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims as identified in its chart exhibit (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Progress Solar Products" (Compl. ¶13, ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details on the structure or operation of the accused products. It makes general allegations that the products practice the claimed technology and incorporates by reference claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not included with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶19, ¶29). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of the accused products' specific functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement via claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not publicly available with the complaint pleading (Compl. ¶19, ¶29). A detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's specific allegations is therefore not possible. The complaint asserts that the charts demonstrate how the "Exemplary Progress Solar Products" practice the technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims for both the ’963 and ’100 patents (Compl. ¶19, ¶29).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of the representative independent claims of the patents-in-suit, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:

• Scope Questions: The claims require a specific spatial relationship where solar panels "face inward toward the trailer" when in a "substantially vertical" transport position. A central question will be whether the accused products are arranged in a configuration that meets these geometric and orientational limitations.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 of the ’963 Patent requires that the solar panels "fold out over fenders of the trailer." A factual dispute may arise over whether the accused products' panels deploy in this specific manner relative to the trailer's fenders, or if their mechanism of moving from a transport to a charging position is technically different.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "substantially vertical orientation"

(appears in claim 1 of both the ’963 and ’100 patents)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the claimed transport configuration of the solar panels. The scope of "substantially" will be a focal point, as infringement may depend on whether the angle of the accused products' panels in their transport mode falls within the construed meaning of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not define "substantially vertical" with a specific angular range, which could support an interpretation that is not strictly limited to 90 degrees from horizontal (Compl. Ex. 1, ’963 Patent, col. 9:13-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments shown in the patent figures depict the panels in a clearly upright, 90-degree position when folded for transport, which a party might argue limits the term to a position that is vertical or very close to it (Compl. Ex. 1, ’963 Patent, Fig. 6, 7).

The Term: "face inward toward the trailer"

(appears in claim 1 of both the ’963 and ’100 patents)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the protective aspect of the transport mode. The infringement analysis will hinge on how the solar-collecting surface of the accused panels is oriented relative to the main body of the trailer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to mean any orientation that is not facing away from the trailer, thereby providing some measure of protection.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that in the closed configuration, "the backplates 104 protect the solar modules 106 from objects such as debris, rocks and other potentially harmful items" (Compl. Ex. 1, ’963 Patent, col. 4:60-65). This purpose of protection could support a narrower definition requiring the panels to face each other or a central structure of the trailer to be considered "inward."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶27). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶18, ¶28).

Willful Infringement

The complaint asserts that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of the patents and the alleged infringement. It further alleges that any continued infringing activities post-filing are willful (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶25-26).

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is the lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint itself, with the infringement theory being deferred to external exhibits that are not publicly available. The case will depend heavily on evidence produced during discovery that details the precise structure, geometry, and operation of the accused products.
• Definitional Scope: The outcome may turn on claim construction, particularly regarding the spatial and orientational limitations of the solar panels in their transport mode. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "substantially vertical" and "face inward toward the trailer" be construed to read on the specific design of the accused products?
• Operational Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: do the accused products’ solar panels deploy in the specific manner claimed, such as by "fold[ing] out over fenders of the trailer" as required by the '963 patent, or is there a material difference in their mechanical operation that places them outside the scope of the claims?