DCT

1:24-cv-01001

Omnitek Partners LLC v. Swatch Group US

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01001, S.D.N.Y., 02/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement such as selling or offering to sell the accused products in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s T-Touch Solar watch, which incorporates a solar panel, infringes a patent related to conformable power supplies integrated into a device's structure.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns integrating power sources directly into the structure of a device to save space and improve durability, particularly in harsh environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff is identified as a non-practicing entity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,118,825 Priority Date
2006-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,118,825 Issued
2024-02-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,118,825 - "Conformal Power Supplies"

  • Issued: October 10, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of powering devices in demanding applications, such as smart munitions, where conventional batteries occupy significant space and require heavy protective housing to survive high acceleration and vibration (ʼ825 Patent, col. 2:12-34). This leaves less room for the device's primary components and adds weight.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "conformable power source" that is integrated directly into the physical structure of a device, potentially serving as a load-bearing component (ʼ825 Patent, col. 2:48-54). By making the power supply part of the device's framework, the invention aims to save space, reduce weight, and better protect the power source from physical stress (ʼ825 Patent, col. 2:51-56).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the miniaturization and ruggedization of powered devices by re-imagining the battery not as a separate component to be housed, but as an integral part of the device's own body (ʼ825 Patent, col. 1:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-8 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A device comprising:
    • a structure for housing or supporting at least one power consuming element; and
    • a power supply formed in or on the structure, the power supply being electrically connected to the at least one power consuming element for supplying power to the same,
    • wherein the power supply is a film of power generating material covering at least a portion of the structure.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but notes the infringement allegations are "preliminary and are therefore subject to change" (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "Tissot's T-Touch Solar watch" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused watch has a "conforming power supply connected to a power consuming element" (Compl. ¶14). Specifically, this is described as "a solar panel that conforms to the structure of the watch and supplies power to a built-in rechargeable battery" (Compl. ¶14). No further technical details or allegations regarding market positioning are provided in the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not include the exhibit with the filing (Compl. ¶15). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Tissot T-Touch Solar watch embodies the invention of the ʼ825 Patent. The core of the allegation is that the watch's structure (the housing) supports a power-consuming element (a rechargeable battery), and that the solar panel constitutes a "film of power generating material" that is formed on the watch's structure and is electrically connected to power the battery (Compl. ¶14).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused watch's solar panel functions as the claimed "film of power generating material." The '825 patent describes various advanced materials, including thermophotovoltaics and thin-film batteries deposited on polymer substrates, intended for high-stress applications like projectiles (ʼ825 Patent, col. 9:25-53). The court may need to determine if a conventional solar cell in a consumer watch meets this limitation.
    • Scope Questions: The complaint identifies the "power consuming element" as a "built-in rechargeable battery" (Compl. ¶14). A potential point of dispute is whether a power storage element like a battery qualifies as a power consuming element under the patent's claims. While the patent specification provides examples of directly powering components like sensors and actuators, it also explicitly contemplates using the power supply "to charge capacitors or batteries" (ʼ825 Patent, col. 9:46-48), which may support the plaintiff's interpretation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a film of power generating material" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it is mapped directly to the accused product's solar panel (Compl. ¶14). The definition of "film" will determine whether a standard solar cell, as opposed to a more specialized integrated layer, falls within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "film" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any thin layer of material, including a solar cell. The patent also discusses photovoltaics in the context of solar cells as a known technology (ʼ825 Patent, col. 9:35-37).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses the film in the context of highly specific, durable materials integrated into the structure of projectiles to withstand extreme forces (ʼ825 Patent, col. 3:1-6, col. 9:45-53). An argument could be made that the term "film" is limited by these embodiments to materials deposited as a coating or thin, flexible layer, rather than a discrete component like a typical solar cell.

  • The Term: "power consuming element" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s infringement theory depends on the "built-in rechargeable battery" being a "power consuming element" (Compl. ¶14). The defendant may argue that a battery is a power storage device, not a consuming one in the sense of an end-use component.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where power from the invention is used "to charge capacitors or batteries" (ʼ825 Patent, col. 9:46-48). This language directly supports the view that a rechargeable battery can be the claimed "power consuming element."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent primarily describes "power consuming components" as the end-use electronics themselves, such as "sensors, communication electronics, actuation devices, etc." (ʼ825 Patent, col. 3:21-23) and lists disposable devices like CD players and cell phones as examples (ʼ825 Patent, col. 11:60-63). An argument could be framed that the primary meaning of the term relates to the final load, not an intermediate storage device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The allegations state that Tissot encourages and instructs customers on how to use the watches, which contain a "conformable power supply, conforming to a housing, connected to a rechargeable battery" (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Tissot has known of the '825 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶16, fn. 1). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a film of power generating material", which is described in the patent specification in the context of specialized, ruggedized layers for military applications, be construed to cover a conventional solar cell used in a consumer-grade watch?
  • A second key question will be one of claim interpretation: does a rechargeable battery, which primarily stores energy, qualify as a "power consuming element" under the patent? While the specification offers support for the plaintiff's position, the resolution of this question will be critical to the infringement analysis.