Yakar Tech LLC v. High Rail LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yakar Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: High Rail LLC D/B/A WixGear (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09254, S.D.N.Y., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a New York company with its principal place of business in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s phone accessory products infringe a patent related to magnetic mounts for electronic devices that include supplemental physical support structures.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of securely mounting increasingly large and heavy electronic devices, such as smartphones and tablets, particularly in environments subject to motion like vehicles.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and states its predecessor-in-interest has never sold a product. The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that these licenses did not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they did not involve the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-23	’309 Patent Priority Date
2021-06-15	’309 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309, "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount," issued June 15, 2021 (’309 Patent).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that as electronic devices become larger and heavier, conventional mounting solutions may be insufficient (Compl. ¶11; ’309 Patent, col. 1:31-38). Specifically, both cradle-style mounts and simple magnet-and-plate mounts may fail to securely hold a device during the acceleration, deceleration, or bumps associated with vehicle travel (’309 Patent, col. 1:31-41). The patent also notes that users find externally placed ferromagnetic plates on their devices to be "distracting or unsightly" (’309 Patent, col. 1:44-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention combines the convenience of a magnetic mount with the stability of physical supports. The patented device is a mount body containing a magnet that also features at least one leg that can be moved from a "stored position," where it is flush with the mount's face, to a "support position," where it extends to physically hold the electronic device (’309 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:39-51). This dual-support mechanism—magnetic and physical—is designed to reliably secure heavier devices, while allowing the required ferromagnetic plate to be hidden inside the device's protective case (’309 Patent, col. 5:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: This combination of magnetic attraction and foldable, physical legs provided a potential solution to the market need for more robust mounting systems capable of handling the increasing size and weight of modern portable electronics (’309 Patent, col. 1:31-41).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶15). The patent contains three independent claims (1, 3, and 6).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device; and
    • a mount body, the 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, wherein the at least one leg is configured to directly support the device;
    • wherein the at least one leg is adjustably extendible from the mount body; and
    • wherein the at least one leg is extendible from the mount body in a direction coplanar with the face plate, and is foldable between the stored position and the support position, the support position being substantially normal to the face plate.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "WIX's Phone Accessories as provided at https://www.WixGear.com/" (Compl. ¶13).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint broadly categorizes the accused products as "infringing mounting devices" (Compl. ¶15). It alleges these products are commercialized, advertised, and sold in the Southern District of New York and throughout the United States (Compl. ¶6, 21). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the structure or operation of the accused accessories beyond this general description. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain an element-by-element infringement analysis or a claim chart. It references "preliminary exemplary table[s] attached as Exhibits B, C, D, and E," but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16). The infringement theory is articulated generally, stating that the Defendant commercializes "mounting devices that infringes one or more of claims of the ’309 patent" (Compl. ¶15).

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, the primary points of contention will likely emerge during discovery. Based on the claim language, several potential areas of dispute can be anticipated:
  • Factual Question: A central factual dispute will be whether the accused "WIX's Phone Accessories" actually incorporate the specific mechanical structure recited in the claims, particularly the "at least one leg movable...from a stored position to a support position" that is both "adjustably extendible" and foldable to a position "substantially normal to the face plate."
  • Scope Question: The analysis may turn on the interpretation of "ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover." A dispute could arise over whether a standard, generic metal plate provided with a mount meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a plate with specific features adapting it for placement within a device cover.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "at least one leg movable ... from a stored position ... to a support position"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanical element distinguishing the invention from a simple magnetic mount. The definition of "stored position" and "support position," along with the required motion between them, will be critical to determining infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of movement, which could support a construction covering any form of pivoting, sliding, or folding that achieves the two end positions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the stored position as "substantially coplanar with the face plate" and the support position as "substantially normal to the face plate" ('309 Patent, col. 4:48-51). Further, figures show the legs folding into specific openings in the mount body ('309 Patent, col. 3:45-49; FIG. 1). A defendant may argue these descriptions limit the scope of the claimed positions.

• The Term: "directly support the device"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the function of the leg in the support position. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine what kind of contact or force application satisfies the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "support" suggests providing a foundation or holding up against gravity, which could encompass any contact that prevents the device from sliding or falling.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the problem of heavy devices overcoming magnetic force in a moving vehicle (’309 Patent, col. 1:31-41). This context suggests "directly support" may require the leg to bear a significant portion of the device's weight or counteract forces beyond simple gravity, rather than merely acting as a passive backstop.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts Defendant encourages infringement through instructions on its website and in product manuals that guide customers on how to use the products to mount a device (Compl. ¶17, 18). It further alleges the products are not staple articles of commerce and that their "only reasonable use" is an infringing one (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’309 Patent and its infringement "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶17, 18). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willfulness and treble damages if discovery reveals Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶VIII.e).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of factual correspondence: Does the accused WixGear product line include a device with the specific, multi-part mechanical leg structure recited in claim 1, which must be both extendible and foldable from a coplanar stored position to a perpendicular support position?
2. The case will likely involve a question of claim scope and function: What level of physical interaction is required for the leg to "directly support the device"? Does this limitation require the leg to bear the device's weight, or is it met if the leg simply acts as a boundary to prevent sliding?
3. A significant legal battle may arise over damages and marking: Given Plaintiff’s status as a non-practicing entity and its history of prior settlement licenses, a key question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can overcome the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 to claim pre-suit damages.