DCT
2:22-cv-00050
Counterflo Ab v. Amazon.com Services LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Counterflo AB (Sweden)
- Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00050, E.D. Tex., 02/10/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Amazon has regular and established places of business in the district, including fulfillment centers and "Amazon Hub Lockers," and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s light-up charging cables, which visually display charging status, infringe a patent related to providing a visual indication of an electrical quantity flowing through a conductor.
- Technical Context: The technology involves embedding lighting elements, such as electroluminescent wires, into power cables to provide users with real-time visual feedback on the amount of power being consumed or the charging status of a connected device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously sold products embodying the patented invention in the U.S. and marked them with the patent number, but was "driven out of the market by unlicensed competitors." Plaintiff also notes that the invention received acclaim as one of Time Magazine's "50 Best Inventions of 2010" and that European counterparts to the patent-in-suit have been successfully licensed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-03-07 | ’829 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010 | Patented invention named in Time Magazine's "50 Best Inventions" |
| 2014-07-29 | ’829 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017 | Counterflo begins selling patented products in the United States |
| 2021-01-28 | Date of customer review for an Accused Product cited in complaint |
| 2022-02-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,791,829 - “VISUALISATION ARRANGEMENT”, issued July 29, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that electricity is an "invisible phenomenon," and that conventional indicators like LEDs typically only signal a simple on/off state, failing to convey the amount of power being used (Compl. ¶22; ’829 Patent, col. 1:12-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an arrangement within or along a power cable that provides a visual indication of an electrical quantity (e.g., current, power). It uses a "substantially wire shaped illuminator," such as an electroluminescent wire, whose visual characteristics are modified by a controller. The controller measures the electrical quantity flowing through the cable's conductor and, in response, feeds the illuminator with a varying signal to change its intensity, color, or frequency, thereby creating a dynamic visual representation of the power flow (’829 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:32-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides an intuitive, real-time feedback mechanism to help users understand their energy consumption, potentially encouraging conservation and indicating the charge status of electronic devices (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8 (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An arrangement for visual indication of an electrical quantity (power, current, or voltage) through a conductor.
- The arrangement comprises a "substantially wire shaped illuminator."
- The arrangement also comprises a "controller" to control at least one "illumination characteristic" (e.g., intensity, color, frequency).
- The controller operates by "measuring the electrical quantity."
- The controller then "feed[s] the wire shaped illuminator with varying current or voltage corresponding to the electrical quantity measured."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "unlicensed charging cables" sold by Amazon, exemplified by the "Oliomp" branded charging cable (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 43).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused cables are alleged to provide a "visible indication of the electrical quantity flowing through the cable" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that the "light flow" on the outside of the cable corresponds to the power flowing inside, increasing when power draw is high and decreasing as a device becomes fully charged (Compl. ¶30). This is supported by a cited customer review describing the light effect changing speed—from "Fast Flowing" to "Slower Flowing" and finally "Stops"—as a phone's charge level increases from low to full (Compl. p. 9). The complaint includes a marketing diagram from an accused product listing that shows the light flow changing from "Fast Flow" to "Slow Flow" to "Smart Power Off" based on the "Power Status" (Compl. p. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’829 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An arrangement for visual indication of an electrical quantity...through a conductor | The accused products are charging cables that provide a visual indication of electrical quantity through a conductor. | ¶43 | col. 2:7-12 |
| wherein the arrangement comprises a substantially wire shaped illuminator | The accused products are alleged to comprise a light-up cable that functions as a substantially wire shaped illuminator. The complaint provides an image of the illuminated cable. | ¶44 | col. 2:12-13 |
| and a controller for control at least one illumination characteristic of said wire shaped illuminator with respect to said electrical quantity | The accused products are alleged to comprise a controller within the connector housing. The complaint includes a labeled product image identifying this component. | ¶45 | col. 3:32-34 |
| by measuring the electrical quantity | The accused products are alleged to measure the electrical quantity to determine the corresponding light effect. A product diagram shows "LED Change Status" linked to "Power Status." | ¶46 | col. 3:42-49 |
| and feeding the wire shaped illuminator with varying current or voltage corresponding to the electrical quantity measured in the conductor | The accused products are alleged to change the light's intensity or frequency (e.g., "Fast Flow," "Slow Flow," "Smart Power Off") based on the measured electrical quantity. | ¶46 | col. 3:59-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "controller" as used in the patent can be read to cover the small, integrated circuit identified in the accused product’s connector (Compl. p. 12). The patent's detailed description illustrates a more complex controller comprising a separate "processing unit" and "measuring arrangement" ('829 Patent, Fig. 4), which may raise questions about the scope of the claimed term.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused products actually perform the claimed step of "measuring the electrical quantity" flowing through the power conductor. The complaint's evidence, such as the "Visible Flowing Charging Current" diagram (Compl. p. 12), is inferential. The litigation may require discovery to determine if the controller operates by directly measuring current or voltage, or by an alternative method, such as receiving a digital charge-status signal from the connected device via USB data lines.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "controller"
Context and Importance: The definition of "controller" is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on mapping the accused product's internal chip to this claim element. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s only detailed embodiment shows a multi-component controller, whereas the accused product appears to use a single, compact integrated circuit.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the controller functionally as a component that performs the steps of "control...by measuring...and feeding," without specifying a particular internal structure ('829 Patent, col. 7:43-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s only detailed embodiment describes the controller as an arrangement (40) that includes a distinct "processing unit (42), such as a micro computer" and a separate "measuring arrangement (43)" ('829 Patent, col. 3:40-49; Fig. 4). A party could argue that this detailed disclosure informs and limits the scope of the term.
The Term: "measuring the electrical quantity"
Context and Importance: The mechanism of operation is the core of the invention. The case's outcome may depend on whether the accused product's method of determining the light effect constitutes "measuring the electrical quantity" from the power conductor itself, as required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific method of measurement, stating only that the "measuring arrangement may sample current and voltage" ('829 Patent, col. 3:47-48). This could support a reading that encompasses any form of sensing an electrical property related to power draw.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent teaches that the "measuring arrangement (43) is arranged between the wall socket and before connection to an electric equipment so that the power and/or current consumption can be measured" ('829 Patent, col. 3:44-47). This could support an interpretation that requires direct measurement of the power line's analog electrical characteristics, potentially excluding methods that rely on interpreting digital data signals from the end device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, asserting that Amazon’s marketing, sale, and distribution of the accused products, with knowledge of the patent, encourages infringement by end-users (Compl. ¶47). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are a material part of the invention with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’829 Patent. The complaint asserts this knowledge arises from Counterflo's prior sale of its own products in the U.S., which were marked with the patent number, and from the general "well-known" status of the invention due to media praise (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused cable’s controller "measure" an "electrical quantity" from the power conductor itself, as required by the claim, or does it determine the lighting effect based on a different input, such as a digital data signal received from the device being charged? The complaint's evidence on this point is based on marketing materials, and the actual mechanism will likely be a key subject of discovery.
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "controller", as disclosed in the patent’s specification with multiple functional blocks, be construed to cover the single, compact integrated circuit allegedly found in the accused product's connector? The court's interpretation of this term will be critical to the infringement analysis.