DCT
1:18-cv-02584
PopSockets LLC v. Quest USA Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: PopSockets LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Quest USA Corp. (New York) and Isaac Srour (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Davis & Gilbert LLP; Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02584, E.D.N.Y., 05/01/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in the district, have a regular and established place of business in the district, and have committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SpinPop" and "SpinClip" expandable phone grips infringe a patent related to expandable sockets for portable electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns collapsible mechanical accessories that attach to smartphones and other portable devices to serve as a grip or stand.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on the same day that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107, was issued by the USPTO. The patent’s front page notes that a related patent in the same family was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding filed by Defendant Quest USA Corp. against Plaintiff PopSockets LLC, which may indicate a history of disputes between the parties over this technology area.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-01-01 | PopSockets begins producing its collapsible socket product (approximate date) |
| 2013-01-01 | Quest USA is formed (approximate date) |
| 2016-08-17 | ’107 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-05-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107 Issues |
| 2018-05-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107 - "Expandable Sockets for Use With Portable Media Players", issued May 1, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need in the art for alternative designs of collapsible grips and stands for portable electronic devices beyond existing accordion-style sockets ('107 Patent, col. 1:36-37).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an expandable socket that uses a combination of a base platform, a movable top button, a biasing element (such as a coil spring), and a lock to transition between a collapsed and an expanded state ('107 Patent, Abstract). The lock is described as having interlocking projections on the platform and button that engage to hold the device in its collapsed state against the force of the spring ('107 Patent, col. 5:20-30; Fig. 2). Some embodiments also describe an accordion-like "elastomeric skin" that forms the body of the socket ('107 Patent, col. 7:51-59).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanical solution for a reconfigurable accessory that offers users a grip, a media stand, and a cord management tool for devices like smartphones, which were becoming increasingly ubiquitous ('107 Patent, col. 1:26-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 16 ('107 Patent, col. 8:1 - col. 10:28; Compl. ¶18). The complaint also reserves the right to modify its contentions as discovery progresses (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an expandable socket comprising:
- a platform adapted to engage a portable media player;
- a button that is movable relative to the platform;
- a biasing element disposed between the platform and button; and
- a lock to releasably secure the button to the platform, where the lock includes a first projection on the button engaging a second projection on the platform, with the projections extending in opposite directions and one fitting into a recess.
- Independent Claim 9 recites an expandable socket comprising:
- a platform adapted to engage a portable media player;
- a button that is movable relative to the platform;
- a skin arranged between the platform and button, comprising at least two folding sections;
- a biasing element disposed between the platform and button; and
- a first projection on the button arranged to engage a second projection on the platform to releasably secure the button.
Multi-Patent Capsule: Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,958,107
- Technology Synopsis: This claim is directed to an expandable socket with a specific "elastomeric skin" structure. The skin has at least two folding sections that define both an outer wall and a radially inward inner wall, creating a cavity. A spring is arranged within this cavity to bias the button away from the platform, and a lock selectively couples the button and platform to hold the device in a collapsed state ('107 Patent, col. 10:1-28).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 16 (Compl. ¶21).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product’s flexible body, which deforms between collapsed and expanded configurations, embodies the claimed "elastomeric skin," and that its internal spring and locking parts meet the other limitations of the claim (Compl. ¶21(c-f)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "SpinPop, SpinClip, or a similar or related products" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides an image of the Accused Product's retail packaging, identifying it as a "SPINPOP" and a "UNIVERSAL PHONE HOLDER" (Compl. ¶19a, p. 4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is alleged to be a universal phone holder and stand that attaches to a phone or case (Compl. ¶16). A diagram in the complaint illustrates its two primary states: a "Compact mode" and a "Pop-up mode," which correspond to the collapsed and expanded configurations of the patented technology (Compl. ¶19c, p. 5). The complaint alleges Defendants import, make, use, and sell the Accused Product in the U.S. (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’107 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a platform adapted to engage a portion of the portable media player or the portable media player case | The base of the Accused Product, which is adapted to engage a portable media player case. | ¶19(b) | col. 8:5-7 |
| a button that is spaced from and movable relative to the platform | The top portion of the Accused Product, which is spaced from and movable relative to its platform. | ¶19(c) | col. 8:8-9 |
| a biasing element disposed between the platform and the button, the biasing element arranged to bias the button away from the platform | A spring element located between the platform and button. A photograph shows a disassembled Accused Product with a coil spring (Compl. ¶19d, p. 5). | ¶19(d) | col. 8:10-12 |
| a lock configured to releasably secure the button to the platform, the lock comprising a first projection carried by the button and arranged to engage a second projection carried by the platform... | A locking mechanism with interlocking parts. A photograph of the disassembled Accused Product shows plastic components on the button and platform that allegedly serve as the claimed projections (Compl. ¶19e, p. 5). | ¶19(e) | col. 8:13-18 |
| wherein the lock comprises a recess defined by the platform or the button, the recess configured to receive the first or second projection... | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's lock includes a recess in the platform or button configured to receive one of the projections. | ¶19(e) | col. 8:22-25 |
’107 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 9)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a skin arranged between the platform and the button, wherein the skin comprises at least two folding sections | The flexible, accordion-like body of the Accused Product. A photograph shows the product in its expanded state, revealing multiple folds in the material between the top and base (Compl. ¶20d, p. 7). | ¶20(d) | col. 9:48-50 |
| a biasing element disposed between the platform and the button, the biasing element arranged to bias the button away from the platform | A spring located between the platform and button that biases the button away from the platform. | ¶20(e) | col. 9:51-53 |
| a first projection carried by the button and arranged to selectively engage a second projection carried by the platform to releasably secure the button to the platform... | Projections on the button and platform that selectively engage to secure the button to the platform in the collapsed state. | ¶20(f) | col. 9:54-61 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Product's simple friction-fit or snap-fit mechanism, as depicted in the complaint’s photographs, meets the more detailed structural limitations of the claimed "lock," which requires distinct "projections" extending in "opposite" directions.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case relies on the physical structure of the Accused Product. A key question for the court will be whether the components of the "SpinPop," upon detailed inspection, actually possess the specific geometric and functional characteristics of the "projections," "recess," and "skin" as recited in the asserted claims. The complaint’s photos are illustrative but may not be sufficient to resolve potential disputes over the precise structure and operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "lock"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "lock" is fundamental, as it governs how the device is held in its collapsed state. The dispute will likely focus on whether the term requires a specific type of mechanical interlock or can broadly cover any means of releasably securing the components, such as a friction fit.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses various embodiments, including a "friction-based lock" that is defined by a "detent" and an "inner surface," which could support a construction that is not limited to distinct, opposing projections ('107 Patent, col. 7:42-44).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the "lock" as "comprising a first projection carried by the button and arranged to engage a second projection carried by the platform" ('107 Patent, col. 8:14-17). Defendants may argue this explicit language limits the scope of "lock" to this two-part structure, as depicted in the embodiment of Figure 2 ('107 Patent, Fig. 2).
The Term: "skin" (in Claim 9)
- Context and Importance: This term is a key differentiator for claims 9 and 16. Its construction will determine whether any flexible, folding material between the button and platform meets the limitation, or if a more specific structure is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "skin" as being made of an "elastomeric material" that "includes a plurality of folding sections" and can look "like an accordion," suggesting some flexibility in its form ('107 Patent, col. 7:51-59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 16 adds further definition, requiring the "elastomeric skin" to have "an outer wall and an inner wall spaced radially inward of the outer wall" that defines a "cavity" ('107 Patent, col. 10:1-5). A party could argue that this more detailed description from a related claim should inform a narrower interpretation of the general term "skin" in claim 9.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement against the individual defendant, Isaac Srour, asserting he is President and owner of Quest USA, is responsible for its operations, and "intentionally directed Quest USA to perform the actions" giving rise to infringement (Compl. ¶¶3, 31, p. 12).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Quest USA willfully infringed "despite knowledge of the '107 patent" and an "objectively high likelihood" of infringement (Compl. ¶26). For the individual defendant, knowledge is alleged "at least as of the date of service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶31). The allegation of pre-suit knowledge against Quest USA is notable given the suit was filed on the same day the patent issued.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "lock," which is described in the claims with specific structural features like opposing "projections," be construed to cover the interlocking plastic mechanism of the accused "SpinPop" product, which may function as a simpler friction or snap fit?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: can PopSockets prove that the physical components of the accused product, when analyzed, map directly onto the specific geometric arrangements recited in the claims, or will Defendants be able to demonstrate a fundamental mismatch in the structure and technical operation of the locking mechanism or "skin"?
- A critical question for willfulness will be one of pre-suit knowledge: given the complaint was filed on the patent's issue date, what evidence can be produced to show that Quest USA knew of the patent and its specific claims before the lawsuit was filed, as required to sustain an allegation of pre-suit willful infringement?