Yakar Tech LLC v. Lax Gadgets Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yakar Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: LAX Gadgets, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06186, E.D.N.Y., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in Woodside, New York, and has a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s phone accessory products infringe two patents related to magnetic mounts for electronic devices that feature secondary, movable support legs.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for securely mounting increasingly large and heavy portable electronic devices, such as tablets and large smartphones, particularly in dynamic environments like vehicles.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and discloses that it has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities. The complaint argues that these prior licenses did not trigger statutory marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because the licensees did not produce a patented article under the license.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-23	Priority Date for ’058 and ’309 Patents
2017-12-19	U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058 Issued
2021-06-15	U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309 Issued
2025-11-05	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058 - “Heavy Duty Magnet Mount” (Issued Dec. 19, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the shortcomings of existing electronic device mounts. It notes that as devices become larger and heavier, cradle-style mounts may lack sufficient clamping force, and simple magnetic mounts may not be strong enough to hold a device securely, particularly when a case is used which increases the distance between the magnet and a ferromagnetic plate (’058 Patent, col. 1:30-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid mount that combines magnetic attraction with physical support. It consists of a mount body containing a magnet and at least one foldable leg. This leg can be moved from a "stored position," where it is flush with the mount's face, to a "support position," where it is substantially normal to the face, providing a physical ledge for the device to rest on (’058 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-51). This dual-support mechanism is intended to allow for the reliable mounting of heavy or oversized devices (’058 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to offer a more robust solution for in-vehicle device mounting, accommodating the market trend toward larger screens on phones and tablets where magnetic force alone could be insufficient.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶16).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A ferromagnetic element securable to the electronic device.
  • A mount body comprising a magnet, a face plate, and at least one leg.
  • The at least one leg is movable with respect to the mount body from a stored position to a support position.
  • The at least one leg further comprises a pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to the leg, where the extensions are rotatable to form a support for the device.

U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309 - “Heavy Duty Magnet Mount” (Issued June 15, 2021)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’058 Patent, the ’309 patent addresses the same technical problems of providing secure mounting for large electronic devices (’309 Patent, col. 1:31-40).
• The Patented Solution: The ’309 patent further refines the dual-support mount concept. Its claims detail specific configurations, such as a ferromagnetic element designed to be placed "inside a cover of the electronic device" (’309 Patent, cl. 1). It also specifies the leg's range of motion, describing it as being "extendible from the mount body in a direction coplanar with the face plate" before it is folded into its support position, which is "substantially normal to the face plate" (’309 Patent, cl. 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent focuses on more specific structural arrangements and mechanical movements, potentially covering nuanced implementations of the core hybrid magnet-and-leg support system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device.
  • A mount body with a magnet, face plate, and at least one movable leg configured to directly support the device.
  • The leg is adjustably extendible from the mount body.
  • The leg is extendible in a direction coplanar with the face plate and is foldable between the stored and support positions, with the support position being substantially normal to the face plate.
• Independent Claim 3 includes elements similar to Claim 1 of the ’058 patent, requiring a ferromagnetic element positionable inside a cover and a movable leg that comprises a pair of rotatable leg extensions.
• Independent Claim 6 describes a specific mount body construction (back plate, front plate, magnet, magnet cover) and a movable leg, combined with a ferromagnetic element positioned such that the body of the electronic device is between the plate and the mount.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are identified as "LAX's Phone Accessories as provided at https://www.laxgadgets.com/" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are "mounting devices" (Compl. ¶16, Compl. ¶25). However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the accused products. It refers to Exhibits B and D for exemplary infringement details, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶17, 26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

’058 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Phone Accessories" directly and indirectly infringe one or more of claims 1-10 of the ’058 patent (Compl. ¶¶16, 18). The infringement theory appears to be that the accused mounting devices incorporate the claimed combination of a magnetic mount body and at least one movable leg which features "a pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to the leg" to provide physical support to an electronic device equipped with a ferromagnetic element (Compl. ¶11; ’058 Patent, cl. 1).

’309 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint further alleges that the same "Phone Accessories" infringe one or more of claims 1-9 of the ’309 patent (Compl. ¶25). The narrative suggests the infringement theory centers on accused products that function with a ferromagnetic element placed inside a phone case and utilize a leg that is both extendible and foldable to support the device (Compl. ¶12; ’309 Patent, cl. 1). The allegations also appear to cover the specific mount body construction described in claim 6 of the ’309 patent (Compl. ¶12; ’309 Patent, cl. 6).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question for the case will be whether the accused products contain a support leg that performs the specific mechanical movements required by the asserted claims. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused leg is "movable... from a stored position to a support position" as required by claim 1 of the ’058 patent, or that it is "extendible... in a direction coplanar with the face plate" before folding as required by claim 1 of the ’309 patent?
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’309 patent raises the question of how to construe "a ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device." Does this language require the element to be specifically designed for internal placement, or does it read on any generic metal plate that a user could place inside a third-party case?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to the leg" (’058 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the structure of the physical support element. The infringement determination may depend on whether the accused product’s support mechanism consists of distinct, rotating components or is a unitary, flexible piece.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that "legs 104 may comprise a single molded piece with two leg extensions," which could support an argument that "rotatably mounted" does not require separate parts but can cover the flexing of an integrated structure (’058 Patent, col. 3:31-33).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes "individually rotatable leg extensions 104A and 104B" that "pivot about an axis identified at line 116," and Figure 4 depicts these as distinct components (’058 Patent, col. 3:28-35). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a conventional mechanical pivot.

The Term: "extendible from the mount body in a direction coplanar with the face plate" (’309 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes a specific sequence of motion for the support leg: a linear extension parallel to the mount's face, followed by a folding action. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely depend on whether the accused product's leg follows this precise two-step deployment.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language does not require a purely linear extension as a distinct step, but rather covers any deployment motion that includes a vector component parallel to the face plate.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an "extendible, foldable leg" where the leg is "extendible substantially parallel to the mount face, and foldable" into a perpendicular position (’309 Patent, col. 2:3-7). This phrasing, combined with Figure 4 (showing leg extension assembly 114), suggests a distinct sliding or extension action, which may support a narrower reading requiring a sequential, two-part motion.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendant actively encourages infringement through its website and product instruction manuals, which allegedly instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 27-28). The complaint further alleges that the products are not staple articles of commerce and that their only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶¶19, 28).

Willful Infringement

The basis for willfulness is alleged knowledge of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). This pleading supports a claim for post-filing willfulness. The prayer for relief also requests a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶e).

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

This dispute will likely center on the resolution of two fundamental types of questions:

1. An Evidentiary Question of Mechanical Operation: A core issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the accused "Phone Accessories" actually incorporate support legs that perform the precise, multi-step mechanical movements recited in the patent claims. The case may turn on a factual comparison of the accused product's operation against claim limitations such as moving from a "stored position" to a "support position" and being "extendible... coplanar with the face plate" before folding.

2. A Legal Question of Definitional Scope: The case will also depend heavily on claim construction. A key question for the court will be whether claim terms like "rotatably mounted" should be construed narrowly to mean distinct, pivoting components, or more broadly to cover flexible, single-piece structures. The resolution of such definitional disputes will be critical in determining the scope of the patents and the viability of the infringement claims.