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 has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s phone accessory products, specifically mounting devices, infringe two patents related to magnetic mounts for electronic devices that include a supplemental support leg.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mounts for portable electronics, such as smartphones, which combine magnetic attraction with a mechanical support structure to hold increasingly large and heavy devices securely, particularly in vehicles.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but Plaintiff asserts these licenses did not involve the production of a patented article and thus did not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Plaintiff is identified as a non-practicing entity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058 - "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that as electronic devices become larger and heavier, conventional mounts may fail to hold them securely. Specifically, cradle-style mounts may lack sufficient clamping force, and simple magnetic mounts may be too weak, especially when a ferromagnetic plate is placed inside a protective case, which increases the distance to the magnet. (’058 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mount for an electronic device that combines a magnet with at least one foldable leg. The leg provides additional physical support for the device. The leg is designed to be movable from a "stored position," where it is flush with the face of the mount for a compact profile, to a "support position," where it extends outward (normal to the face plate) to hold the bottom of the electronic device. (’058 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:39-50).
• Technical Importance: This hybrid magnetic-mechanical design aims to provide the convenience of a magnetic mount with the stability of a cradle, accommodating heavier devices without requiring an exposed, and potentially unsightly, external ferromagnetic plate. (’058 Patent, col. 1:40-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶16). Independent claims 1 and 5 are identified below.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A mount for an electronic device, comprising:
  • a ferromagnetic element securable to the electronic device; and
  • a mount body, comprising a magnet, a face plate, and at least one leg, the magnet secured in the face plate, and the at least one leg movable with respect to the mount body from a stored position to a support position.
• Independent Claim 5:
  • A mount for an electronic device, comprising:
  • a mount body, comprising: a housing with a face and an opening, a front and back plate coupled together, the face coupled to the front plate; a magnet in the housing; and at least one leg movable between a stored and support position;
  • wherein the magnet is positioned in the opening of the mount face; and
  • wherein the at least one leg comprises an extendible, foldable leg extension coupled to and extendible from the housing, with specified movement characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the allegation against claims 1-10 encompasses them.

U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309 - "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’058 Patent, the ’309 Patent addresses the inadequacy of existing magnetic and cradle-style mounts for securing large electronic devices, particularly when a device case attenuates the magnetic force. (’309 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
• The Patented Solution: The ’309 Patent claims a mount system where the ferromagnetic element is specifically "shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device." (’309 Patent, col. 6:9-11). This configuration is combined with a mount body having a magnet and an adjustable, foldable leg that moves from a stored position to a support position to bear the device's weight, compensating for any reduced magnetic attraction. (’309 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:53-65).
• Technical Importance: The invention explicitly addresses the common consumer practice of using protective cases by claiming a system where the ferromagnetic plate is designed to be hidden within the case, while the mount’s mechanical leg provides the necessary supplemental support. (’309 Patent, col. 5:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶25). Independent claims 1, 3, and 6 are identified below.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A mount for an electronic device, comprising:
  • a ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device; and
  • a mount body comprising a magnet, a face plate, and at least one leg;
  • wherein the leg is movable from a stored position to a support position and is configured to directly support the device; and
  • wherein the leg is adjustably extendible and foldable between the positions.
• Independent Claim 3:
  • A mount for an electronic device, comprising:
  • a ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device; and
  • a mount body with a magnet, face plate, and at least one movable leg;
  • wherein the leg comprises a pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to it to form a support.
• Independent Claim 6:
  • A mount for an electronic device, comprising:
  • a mount body with a back plate, a front plate, a magnet, a magnet cover, and at least one leg movable from a stored position to a support position; and
  • a ferromagnetic element positionable within an electronic device such that the body of the device is between the ferromagnetic plate and the mount body.
• The allegation against claims 1-9 encompasses any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as LAX's "Phone Accessories," further described as "infringing mounting devices." (Compl. ¶14, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are devices for mounting electronics like cell phones or PDAs. (Compl. ¶18). It states they are available for sale through Defendant's website, laxgadgets.com, and are marketed to businesses and individuals throughout the United States, including in the Eastern District of New York. (Compl. ¶8, ¶22). The complaint does not provide specific product names or technical details about how the accused mounting devices operate.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s mounting devices infringe one or more of claims 1-10 of the ’058 Patent and one or more of claims 1-9 of the ’309 Patent (Compl. ¶16, ¶25). The complaint references "preliminary exemplary table[s] attached as Exhibit B" and "Exhibit D" to support these allegations but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without these exhibits, a detailed, element-by-element analysis of the infringement claims is not possible based on the complaint alone. The narrative allegations claim that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and advertises mounting devices that practice the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶16, ¶25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device" (’309 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’309 Patent. The patent repeatedly emphasizes placing the ferromagnetic element inside a case or cover. (’309 Patent, col. 5:1-9, 53-59). The dispute may turn on whether the accused system includes a ferromagnetic element that is specifically "shaped and configured" for this purpose, as opposed to a generic metal plate that a user might happen to place inside a case. Practitioners may focus on whether this phrase imparts a structural limitation on the element itself or merely describes its intended use.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this as one of several operational methods, stating a plate "is attached to an electronic device, or is sandwiched between a back of an electronic device and a case for the device, or is inserted into an interior of the electronic device..." suggesting "inside a cover" is one of several possibilities. (’309 Patent, col. 5:53-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language of Claim 1, "shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover," suggests a specific design intent beyond mere capability. Figure 15, which shows a ferromagnetic plate (502) being placed inside a separate case (504), could be used to argue that the claim requires an element distinct from the device itself and designed for placement within a third-party accessory. (’309 Patent, Fig. 15).
• The Term: "stored position" and "support position" (’058 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The relationship between these two positions defines the core mechanical function of the claimed support leg. Infringement will depend on whether the accused device's leg moves between two distinct states that match the patent's description. The patent describes the stored position as "substantially coplanar with the face plate" and the support position as "substantially normal to the face plate." (’058 Patent, col. 3:45-50).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" could allow for some deviation from perfectly flush or perfectly 90-degree orientations. The purpose is to move from a compact, non-supporting state to an extended, supporting state.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures provide specific visual examples. Figure 1 shows the legs (104A, 104B) folded flush into the mount body (100), while Figures 17 and 18 show them folded out perpendicularly to support a device (500). (’058 Patent, Figs. 1, 17, 18). A defendant may argue that a leg which does not become "flush" or "normal" in the manner depicted falls outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on Defendant allegedly encouraging and instructing customers on how to use the products to mount a device in an infringing manner through its website and instruction manuals (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are not staple commercial products and that their only reasonable use is an infringing one. (Compl. ¶19, ¶28).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of willfulness and treble damages if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. p. 11, ¶e).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the specific limitations in the ’309 Patent, particularly whether the accused system includes a "ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device"? The outcome may depend on whether this is a structural requirement or a statement of intended use.
2. A second key issue will be one of structural equivalence: Does the mechanism of the accused device's support leg meet the claimed requirements of moving between a "stored position" that is "flush with the face plate" and a "support position" that is "normal to the face plate," as described and depicted in the ’058 Patent?
3. An initial evidentiary question will be one of specificity: Given the complaint’s general reference to "Phone Accessories" and lack of specific product identification or claim charts, an early focus will be on identifying the precise design and functionality of the accused products to determine if they practice the claimed combination of magnetic and mechanical support features.