DCT
3:23-cv-00294
Power Probe Group Inc v. Shenzhnshi Sanliuling Xiuchewang Youxiangongsi
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Power Probe Group, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Shenzhnshi Sanliuling Xiuchewang Youxiangongsi d/b/a OBDSTAR (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00294, W.D.N.C., 05/16/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including Defendant's acts of infringement, occurred in the district. As Defendant is not a U.S. resident, Plaintiff further alleges venue is proper in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s powered electrical circuit tester infringes a patent related to an energizable electrical test device with multimeter functionality.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld diagnostic tools for the automotive industry, which allow technicians to test complex electrical circuits by both measuring parameters and actively supplying power.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-05 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,184,899 |
| 2006-01-01 | Plaintiff first sold its flagship Power Probe III product |
| 2007-02-27 | U.S. Patent No. 7,184,899 Issued |
| 2023-05-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,184,899 - "Energizable Electrical Test Device For Measuring Current And Resistance Of An Electrical Circuit"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,184,899, "Energizable Electrical Test Device For Measuring Current And Resistance Of An Electrical Circuit," issued February 27, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need in the automotive diagnostic field for a single, handheld tool to address the increasing complexity of vehicle electrical systems (Compl. ¶14; ’899 Patent, col. 1:21-34). Prior art tools were often specialized (e.g., multimeters, logic probes) and many were incapable of testing electrical components in their powered, operational state without a separate power source (Compl. ¶14; ’899 Patent, col. 1:47-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated electrical test device that can both perform multiple measurements (like a multimeter) and selectively supply power from an external source (such as a car battery) to a circuit through its probe tip (’899 Patent, Abstract). This allows a technician to test a component, such as a fan motor, in an active state even if the vehicle is not running, and to diagnose issues that only appear under load (’899 Patent, col. 2:21-41). A central processor manages the measurement and power-sourcing functions, displaying results on a screen (’899 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to consolidate multiple diagnostic tools into one portable unit, accelerating the diagnosis of electrical problems by enabling testing of circuits in both powered and unpowered states (’899 Patent, col. 2:63-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An electrical test device with multimeter functionality, adapted to provide current sourcing for selective measurement of parameters in powered and unpowered states.
- A conductive probe element to contact the electrical system and provide an input signal.
- A power supply interconnected between an external power source and the probe element.
- A processor electrically connected to the probe, configured to manipulate the input signal and receive a representative output signal.
- A display device connected to the processor to display a reading of the output signal.
- The device must be configured to allow for selective powering of the electrical system upon energization of the probe element during measurement. (Compl. ¶16; ’899 Patent, col. 12:26-51).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement of "one or more claims" (Prayer for Relief, ¶1.b).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s powered electrical circuit tester, sold on Amazon.com under the d/b/a name OBDSTAR (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 48). A screenshot in the complaint identifies the product as a "System Diagnosis Tool Car Voltage Tester Digital Voltmeter Red" (Compl. p. 16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is an electrical circuit tester advertised for sale and sold into the United States, including into the Western District of North Carolina (Compl. ¶¶ 48-49).
- Based on an excerpt from its user manual, the Accused Product is alleged to allow users to "test for continuity with its built-in auxiliary ground lead" and, "by depressing the power switch, conduct a positive or negative battery current to the probe tip for testing the function of an electrical component without the use of jumper wires" (Compl. ¶51). This visual from the user manual describes the core functions of energizing a circuit and testing it. (Compl. ¶51, Ex. 7).
- The complaint provides a screenshot of the Amazon.com product listing for the Accused Product (Compl. ¶48). The complaint also alleges that the Accused Product is sold at a significantly lower price point than Plaintiff's own product (Compl. ¶74).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart exhibit that is not provided with the filing; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations.
'899 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electrical test device having multimeter functionality and being adapted to provide current sourcing to an electrical system for selective measurement of a plurality of parameters... | The Accused Product is a powered electrical circuit tester advertised as a "Digital Voltmeter" that allows for various electrical tests. | ¶¶ 1, 48 | col. 12:26-30 |
| a conductive probe element configured to be placed into contact with the electrical system and provide an input signal thereto; | The Accused Product has a probe tip for contacting electrical components. A visual comparison shows a device with a prominent probe. | ¶51, p. 18 | col. 12:31-34 |
| a power supply interconnected between an external power source and the probe element; | The Accused Product connects to a vehicle's battery and supplies current to the probe tip. | ¶51 | col. 12:35-37 |
| a processor electrically connected to the probe element and configured to manipulate the input signal provided to the electrical system and receive an output signal in response to the input signal... | The Accused Product contains internal circuitry that controls the device's functions, including testing and displaying voltage. | ¶¶ 16, 53 | col. 12:38-44 |
| a display device electrically connected to the processor and configured to display a reading of the output signal... | The Accused Product features a digital display screen that shows readings. A product image shows the device with an active digital display showing a voltage reading. | ¶48, p. 15 | col. 12:45-47 |
| wherein the electrical test device is configured to allow for selective powering of the electrical system upon energization of the probe element during measurement of the parameters. | The Accused Product's user manual allegedly instructs users to depress a "power switch" to "conduct a positive or negative battery current to the probe tip for testing." | ¶51 | col. 12:48-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The preamble of Claim 1 requires "multimeter functionality." The Accused Product is identified in one instance as a "Digital Voltmeter" (Compl. p. 16). A central question may be whether demonstrating voltmeter capability alone is sufficient to meet the "multimeter functionality" limitation, or if a broader set of functions (e.g., resistance, current) is required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "processor" that is "configured to manipulate the input signal ... and receive an output signal." The infringement analysis will turn on what evidence is presented to show that the internal components of the Accused Product perform these specific claimed functions, beyond simply passing power and measuring voltage.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "multimeter functionality"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of the asserted independent claim and may be treated as a claim limitation. Its construction is critical because if it is interpreted to require a specific set of measurement capabilities beyond what the Accused Product provides, an argument for non-infringement could arise.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the device provides "multi-meter functionality for selective measurement of a plurality of parameters" (’899 Patent, col. 2:9-11). A party could argue this means the capability to measure more than one parameter (e.g., voltage and continuity), not necessarily all functions of a commercial multimeter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section contrasts the invention with prior art "multi-meters ... which are configured to measure resistance, voltage, and current and more" (’899 Patent, col. 1:35-37). A party could argue this language sets an expectation that "multimeter functionality" includes, at a minimum, measurement of voltage, resistance, and current.
The Term: "processor"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the operation of the claimed device. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine what level of computational or signal-processing capability the accused device must possess to infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term generally, and a party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any processing circuit that performs the claimed functions, such as a simple microcontroller. The specification refers to the component as a "processor 92 or microprocessor 40" (’899 Patent, col. 4:22-23), suggesting some flexibility.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites specific functions: "configured to manipulate the input signal ... and receive an output signal in response to the input signal" (’899 Patent, col. 12:39-42). A party could argue that the term "processor" is limited by these functional requirements and cannot be read to cover any generic logic chip that does not perform this specific input/output signal processing.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶84). The basis for this allegation is Defendant's intentional inclusion of a user manual with the Accused Product, which allegedly instructs end-users on how to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶84).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, it seeks treble damages for willful infringement, which may be predicated on Defendant’s alleged conduct after the filing of the lawsuit (Prayer for Relief, ¶1.e). The complaint's parallel allegations of blatant trade dress and copyright infringement may be used to argue a general disposition toward copying that supports willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "multimeter functionality," as used in the patent’s preamble, be satisfied by a device advertised as a "Digital Voltmeter," or does the patent's context require a broader set of measurement capabilities for infringement?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will be adduced to demonstrate that the Accused Product's internal circuitry performs the specific functions of a "processor" as defined by the claim—namely, "manipulat[ing] the input signal ... and receiv[ing] an output signal in response"—beyond the basic functions of passing current and displaying a measurement?