DCT
3:19-cv-01513
Battery Conservation Innovations LLC v. Leupold & Stevens Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Battery Conservation Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Leupold & Stevens, Inc. (Oregon)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mersenne Law
- Case Identification: 3:19-cv-01513, D. Or., 09/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Oregon because the Defendant is an Oregon corporation and is therefore deemed to be a resident of the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s rifle scopes featuring motion-sensing, power-saving technology infringe a patent related to a battery-conserving electronic device.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using motion sensors to automatically power down an electronic device after a period of inactivity to conserve battery life.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,610,372 and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit the enforceable term of the patent. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-27 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,239,158 |
| 2016-01-19 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,239,158 |
| 2019-09-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,239,158 - “Battery-Conserving Flashlight And Method Thereof,” issued January 19, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of battery-powered electronic devices, such as flashlights, being accidentally left on, which drains the battery and renders the device useless for its next use (ʼ158 Patent, col. 3:25-34). This leads to waste from depleted batteries and the consumption of resources for replacements (ʼ158 Patent, col. 3:35-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an electronic device with a motion sensor and a controller. The controller monitors the device for motion. If the device remains stationary for a predetermined period, the controller automatically "decouples" the battery from the power-consuming components (e.g., an illumination source) to conserve energy (ʼ158 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-24). The system may also activate a visual or audible indicator to alert the user before shutting down (ʼ158 Patent, col. 4:46-58). The core components and their interaction are illustrated in the schematic of Figure 2.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides an automated solution to extend the functional life of batteries in portable devices by mitigating user error, thereby reducing waste and improving device reliability (ʼ158 Patent, col. 3:36-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "at least Claim 15" of the ʼ158 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶16).
- Independent Claim 15 of the ʼ158 Patent recites the following essential elements for a "battery-conserving electronic device":
- a body including an opening for accessing an interior of the body;
- at least one battery disposed in the body and configured for powering the device;
- a controller disposed in the body configured to determine if the body is in motion, wherein if the body is not in motion for a first predetermined period of time, the controller decouples the at least one battery from the electronic device to conserve energy in the at least one battery; and
- a visual indicator disposed on an exterior surface of the body, wherein the controller activates the visual indicator.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the Leupold & Stevens "VX-R rifle scope, and any similar products" (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused VX-R rifle scope is a battery-powered electronic device that includes an illuminated reticle (Compl. ¶17). It incorporates "Motion Sensor Technology (MST)," which is described in marketing materials as a feature that "Automatically deactivates illumination after 5 minutes of inactivity, yet reactivates instantly as soon as any movement is detected" to extend battery life (Compl. ¶17, p. 4). A screenshot from the product's marketing page describes the "Motion Sensor Technology (MST)" feature (Compl. p. 4). The scope is powered by a replaceable CR2032 coin-cell battery accessible through a control dial (Compl. ¶18, ¶19). The complaint also highlights a "low battery indicator feature," which causes the reticle to flash to alert the user that the battery needs replacement (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’158 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body including an opening for accessing an interior of the body | The rifle scope itself is the body and has a compartment with a removable cover for accessing and replacing the battery. A diagram from the user manual shows the battery cover and replacement instructions (Compl. p. 5). | ¶18 | col. 4:55-58 |
| at least one battery disposed in the body and configured for powering the device | The scope is powered by a CR2032 lithium coin-cell battery that powers the device's illuminated reticle. | ¶19 | col. 4:58-61 |
| a controller disposed in the body configured to determine if the body is in motion, wherein if the body is not in motion for a first predetermined period of time, the controller decouples the at least one battery from the electronic device to conserve energy in the at least one battery | The scope's "Motion Sensor Technology (MST)" uses a controller and motion sensors to detect inactivity and automatically turns off the reticle illumination after five minutes to conserve battery power. | ¶20 | col. 3:51-58 |
| a visual indicator disposed on an exterior surface of the body, wherein the controller activates the visual indicator | The scope includes a "low battery indicator feature" which causes the reticle to flash upon activation. The complaint alleges this flashing reticle serves as the visual indicator activated by the controller. A screenshot from the user manual describes this feature (Compl. p. 6). | ¶21 | col. 4:46-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether a "rifle scope" falls within the scope of the claims for an "electronic device," particularly as the patent is titled "Battery-Conserving Flashlight." The specification, however, contemplates broader application, stating the technology can be applied to devices like a "radio, portable media player, mobile phone, laptop computer, tablet, etc." ('158 Patent, col. 5:20-22), which may support construing "electronic device" broadly.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the scope's "low battery indicator feature" satisfies the "visual indicator" limitation. However, the cited evidence states this feature "will cause the reticle to flash upon activation" to "check the status of your battery" (Compl. p. 6). This raises the question of whether an indicator activated to signal low battery status performs the same function as the indicator described in the patent, which is activated to warn of an impending shutdown due to a period of inactivity ('158 Patent, col. 4:50-55; Fig. 3). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused indicator is activated by the controller as part of the motion-sensing shutdown sequence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "visual indicator"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the infringement allegation relies on equating the accused scope's "low battery indicator" with the patent's "visual indicator." Practitioners may focus on this term because the evidence presented in the complaint suggests a potential functional difference: the accused indicator signals low power, while the patent's indicator signals impending shutdown due to inactivity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses that the "visual indicator" can be the illumination source itself, which "intermittently turn[s] on and off, i.e., to flash" ('158 Patent, col. 5:21-24). This could support an argument that any flashing light controlled by the system, such as the accused reticle, meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the activation of the visual indicator as a step in the motion-based shutdown process. The controller "activates the visual indicator 116 after...a predetermined period of time" of no motion ('158 Patent, col. 4:52-55). The flowchart in Figure 3 explicitly shows that activating the indicator (step 312) occurs after a timer for inactivity has expired (step 310), suggesting the indicator's function is tied to the inactivity-detection logic.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation, if proven, could only support a claim for post-filing willfulness, as no facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused rifle scope’s "low battery indicator," which the complaint’s evidence describes as a feature for checking battery status, perform the same function as the "visual indicator" required by Claim 15, which the patent describes as a warning of imminent shutdown due to detected inactivity?
- A key question of claim construction will be whether the phrase "wherein the controller activates the visual indicator" requires that the activation be triggered by the detection of no motion, as the patent’s specification and figures suggest, or if activation for any reason (such as low battery) by the device's controller suffices.
- A secondary issue of claim scope may arise: whether the term "electronic device," as used in the claims of a patent titled and primarily focused on flashlights, should be construed to encompass a specialized product like a rifle scope.