Volteon LLC v. Kyocera Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Volteon LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Kyocera Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00092, E.D. Tex., 08/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation, and because it has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district through its purported alter ego, Kyocera International, Inc.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe two U.S. patents, one related to an electric shaver with imaging capabilities and another related to a motion-sensing device that provides feedback.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve integrating sensors (image and motion) into handheld devices to provide real-time visual or sensory feedback to a user.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint; no other significant procedural events such as prior litigation or administrative patent challenges are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 10,958,819 Priority Date
2011-03-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,630,062 Priority Date
2016-01-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,630,062 Application Filed
2017-04-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,630,062 Issued
2020-05-06	U.S. Patent No. 10,958,819 Application Filed
2021-03-23	U.S. Patent No. 10,958,819 Issued
2025-08-13	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,958,819 - “Electric shaver with imaging capability,” issued March 23, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of poor visibility of the skin surface during shaving, which can be caused by the lack of a mirror, low-light conditions, or the user's own hand and the shaver obstructing the view (’819 Patent, col. 2:3-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating a digital camera and potentially a light source into the body of an electric shaver. This camera captures a close-up image of the shaving area, which is then transmitted to a display unit for the user to view in real-time. The display can be built into the shaver itself or housed in a separate device that receives the image via a wired or wireless connection (’819 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-51).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide real-time visual feedback during shaving, potentially allowing for greater precision and convenience without reliance on an external mirror (’819 Patent, col. 2:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its main body, instead incorporating by reference "Exemplary '819 Patent Claims" from an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶12, 17). Claim 1, as an independent claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • A handheld device for capturing and displaying images and for identifying and marking an element of a human body, for use with a licensed cellular network.
  • A first camera for capturing a first image via a first optical lens.
  • A second camera for capturing a second image via a second optical lens.
  • An image processor coupled to the cameras.
  • A display coupled to the cameras for visually displaying the captured images.
  • A cellular antenna and a cellular transmitter for transmitting the captured images to the cellular network.
  • A rechargeable battery.
  • A single portable and handheld casing housing the components.

U.S. Patent No. 9,630,062 - “System and method for a motion sensing device which provides a visual or audible indication,” issued April 25, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide "additional amusement, education, entertainment and a better user experience" for devices like toys and game balls without departing from their conventional "look and feel" (’062 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a device, such as a toy ball, containing a motion sensor (e.g., an accelerometer) and an "annunciator" that provides a visual or audible signal. An embedded logic controller activates or controls the annunciator in response to sensed motion, such as when acceleration exceeds a preset threshold, providing interactive feedback to the user (’062 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables the creation of interactive devices that respond to physical handling and movement, which can enhance user engagement in toys, games, and other articles (’062 Patent, col. 2:11-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its main body, instead incorporating by reference "Exemplary '062 Patent Claims" from an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶21, 26). Claim 1, as an independent claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • A device for displaying in response to a sensed acceleration, housed in a single portable enclosure.
  • A three-axis accelerometer for producing a first output signal representing the measured device acceleration.
  • A flat-panel digital display for displaying graphical or text information.
  • A sensor coupled to a processor and having a second output responsive to a physical phenomenon.
  • A processor executing software, coupled to the accelerometer and display, for displaying information in response to the first and second output signals.
  • A rechargeable battery and a battery charger for contactless charging.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Kyocera-branded smartphones, including the DuraForce Ultra 5G smartphone" and "related mobile device technologies" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶7). These are referred to as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused smartphones that allegedly infringes the patents-in-suit. Instead, it alleges that the infringement occurs through the "development, operation, and distribution" of the devices (Compl. ¶7) and incorporates the substantive infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits to detail its infringement allegations but does not include these exhibits with the filing (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is conclusory, stating that the accused smartphones "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit without providing specific technical comparisons (Compl. ¶¶17, 26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary point of contention for the ’819 Patent may be claim scope. The analysis will raise the question of whether claims from a patent titled "Electric shaver with imaging capability" and whose specification exclusively describes embodiments related to shaving (’819 Patent, col. 1:8-9) can be construed to cover a general-purpose smartphone.
• Technical Questions: For the ’062 Patent, a key question will be one of technical operation. The complaint does not specify which features of the accused smartphones allegedly meet the claim limitation of "displaying information in response to the first and second output signals" (’062 Patent, cl. 1). This raises the evidentiary question of what specific hardware (i.e., the second "sensor") and software functionality in the accused smartphones allegedly performs this claimed function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "handheld device" (’819 Patent, cl. 1)

Context and Importance

The construction of this term appears central to the infringement analysis for the ’819 Patent. Its definition will determine whether a general-purpose smartphone falls within the scope of a claim from a patent focused on a specific application (shaving). Practitioners may focus on this term because of the apparent mismatch between the patent's subject matter and the accused product category.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "handheld device" is broad and not inherently limited to a particular function.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title, abstract, background, and every described embodiment exclusively relate to electric shavers (’819 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 1:8-9; Figs. 3, 5, 7). This consistent and exclusive focus on a single application could be argued to limit the scope of "handheld device" to the context of personal grooming appliances.

The Term: "displaying information in response to the first and second output signals" (’062 Patent, cl. 1)

Context and Importance

This functional limitation requires the accused device's processor to act upon inputs from two distinct sensors (an accelerometer and another unspecified sensor) to display information. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on identifying these two sensors and the specific responsive information displayed on the accused smartphones.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "information" is not explicitly limited, suggesting it could cover a wide range of displayed content.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and specification provide examples of the "information" to be displayed, such as a count of motion events or the peak acceleration value (’062 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-56). These examples could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to displaying quantitative data derived directly from the sensor outputs, rather than more general device responses like screen rotation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For both patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant’s "product literature and website materials," which allegedly instruct users on an infringing manner of use (Compl. ¶¶15, 24).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts constitutes actual knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). It further alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement despite this knowledge supports a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶15, 24).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "handheld device" in the ’819 Patent, which is rooted in the detailed context of electric shavers, be construed broadly enough to read on a general-purpose smartphone?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: what specific hardware and software in the accused smartphones allegedly satisfy the ’062 Patent’s requirement to display information in response to signals from two distinct sensors, and does this functionality align with the invention as claimed and described?
• A central procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which makes conclusory infringement allegations and incorporates its technical evidence by reference to unprovided exhibits, provide sufficient notice of the basis for its claims?