Volteon LLC v. Nothing Technology Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Volteon LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Nothing Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00093, E.D. Tex., 01/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe two patents related to consumer electronic devices that incorporate imaging capabilities and motion-sensing feedback systems.
• Technical Context: The technologies involve integrating sensors, such as cameras and accelerometers, into handheld devices to provide users with enhanced real-time visual or sensory feedback.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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 describes the difficulty of shaving effectively when direct eye-contact with the skin is not possible, necessitating the use of a mirror that may be unavailable or rendered ineffective by poor lighting or a foggy environment (’819 Patent, col. 2:3-11). The user's hand and the shaver itself can further obstruct the view of the shaving area (’819 Patent, col. 2:10-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention integrates a digital camera into an electric shaver to capture a close-up image of the skin area being shaved. This image is then transmitted to a display unit—which can be integrated into the shaver or housed in a separate device—allowing the user to see the shaving area in real-time without a conventional mirror (’819 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-51). This system is intended to provide "real-time feedback on the shaving activity" (’819 Patent, col. 2:39-40).
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to improve the convenience and effectiveness of hair removal by providing a direct, magnified, and potentially illuminated view of the skin surface during the act of shaving (’819 Patent, col. 2:19-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the device disclosed.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a handheld device comprising:
  • 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 for processing the captured images.
  • A display with a flat screen for visually displaying the captured images.
  • A cellular antenna for coupling to a cellular network that uses a licensed frequency band.
  • A cellular transmitter for transmitting the captured images to the cellular network.
  • A rechargeable battery to power the components.
  • A single portable handheld casing that houses all the above components.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

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 a simple and cost-effective method for adding "amusement, education, entertainment and a better user experience" to a toy, such as a ball, without departing from its conventional "look and feel" (’062 Patent, col. 2:6-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained device, such as a toy, that includes a motion sensor (e.g., an accelerometer), an annunciator (e.g., a light or speaker), a controller, and a power source within a single enclosure. The controller processes signals from the motion sensor and, according to a predetermined logic, activates or controls the annunciator to provide a visual or audible response to the device's movement (’062 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• Technical Importance: The technology allows for the creation of simple, interactive toys that can respond to being thrown, shaken, or moved, thereby enhancing user engagement (’062 Patent, col. 2:12-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a device comprising:
  • A three-axis accelerometer for measuring device acceleration and producing a first output signal.
  • A flat-panel digital display for displaying graphical or text information.
  • A sensor, distinct from the accelerometer, that is responsive to a "physical phenomenon" and produces a second output signal.
  • A processor executing software to display information on the display in response to both the first and second output signals.
  • A rechargeable battery.
  • A battery charger for contactless charging.
  • All components are housed in a single portable enclosure.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges that this information is contained in claim chart exhibits, which are incorporated by reference but were not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4; however, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by, and satisfy all elements of, claims of the ’819 and ’062 Patents (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’819 Patent): A central question may arise from the language of asserted claims relative to the patent's disclosure. For example, representative independent claim 1 of the ’819 Patent recites a "handheld device ... for use with a cellular network" that contains a "cellular antenna" and "cellular transmitter." This language may be construed to describe a device such as a smartphone. This raises the question of whether such a claim can be asserted to cover a product like an electric shaver, which is the focus of the ’819 Patent’s specification (’819 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-45).
  • Technical Questions (’062 Patent): The infringement analysis for the ’062 Patent may focus on whether the accused products contain all of the specific elements recited in its asserted claims. For instance, representative independent claim 1 requires not only a motion sensor but also a "flat-panel digital display," a second, distinct "sensor ... responsive to a physical phenomenon," and a "battery charger for contactless charging." The complaint does not provide evidence demonstrating that the accused products incorporate these specific, and potentially limiting, technical features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term (’819 Patent): "handheld device ... for use with a cellular network that uses a licensed frequency band" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its plain language suggests a device that communicates over a cellular network (e.g., a smartphone), whereas the patent's specification is primarily directed to an "electric shaver" (’819 Patent, Abstract). The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether this term is construed broadly enough to read on the accused products.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the communication between the shaver and a separate display unit "may be ... cellular such as GSM, GPRS, 2.5G, 3G, UMTS, DCS, PCS and CDMA" (’819 Patent, col. 3:21-22). A party might argue this disclosure supports interpreting the claimed "device" as one component of a larger system that utilizes cellular technology.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a "single portable and handheld casing" containing a "cellular transmitter" and "cellular antenna," which a party may argue limits the "device" itself to an integrated cellular communicator. The specification's primary embodiment is an electric shaver that uses its own display or communicates with a separate display, a system that does not inherently require operation on a licensed cellular network for its core function (’819 Patent, col. 2:41-51).

• Term (’062 Patent): "a sensor ... having a second output responsive to a physical phenomenon" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term requires the presence of a second sensing capability in addition to the primary three-axis accelerometer. Infringement will depend on identifying a distinct component or functionality in the accused product that meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "physical phenomenon" is broad and is not explicitly defined or limited in the specification. A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass a wide range of inputs such as light, temperature, or sound.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s disclosure is overwhelmingly focused on motion sensing via an accelerometer (’062 Patent, col. 2:27-28; Abstract). A party may argue that the lack of specific embodiments describing a second type of sensor suggests the term should not be construed so broadly as to capture incidental or unrelated functionalities of an accused device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that the Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16, ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement. It alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement (Compl. ¶14, ¶23), which may support a claim for post-suit willfulness, but it does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶G.i).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claims of the ’819 Patent, which on their face appear directed to a handheld cellular communication device with two cameras, be construed to cover the technology disclosed in the patent’s specification—an electric shaver with an imaging system? The resolution of this question will likely define the permissible scope of the infringement allegations.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of elemental presence: As the complaint relies on incorporating non-public exhibits by reference, the case will likely turn on whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to show that the accused products practice every specific element of the asserted claims, including potentially limiting features such as the ’062 Patent’s requirement for a second distinct sensor and contactless charging capability.