Data PowerWorks LLC v. Schneider Electric Se

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Data PowerWorks, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Schneider Electric SE (France) and Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Fair Henry PLLC; Latham & Watkins LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00300, E.D. Tex., 03/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue for Schneider Electric SE, a foreign entity, is alleged as proper in any judicial district. Venue for Schneider Electric USA, Inc. is alleged based on its admission of proper venue in a prior case and its maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the district, including sales offices and logistics centers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) products and associated transfer switches infringe four patents related to adaptive voltage control, output voltage balancing, high-reliability power switching, and load sharing in multi-module systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced power management systems critical for ensuring a continuous and high-quality power supply to data centers, a market experiencing significant growth driven by cloud computing and artificial intelligence.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, citing multiple instances where the patents-in-suit were referenced during the U.S. and international patent prosecution of Defendant’s own patent applications, including in examiner rejections.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-03-14	Earliest Priority Date for ’250 Patent
2008-10-21	Earliest Priority Date for ’862 Patent
2011-06-03	Earliest Priority Date for ’613 Patent
2011-07-14	’862 Patent Issued
2011-10-11	’250 Patent Issued
2012-11-21	Earliest Priority Date for ’288 Patent
2013-12-13	’250 Patent cited during prosecution of Defendant's WIPO Application
2015-04-07	’613 Patent Issued
2016-06-22	’613 Patent cited during prosecution of Defendant's U.S. Patent No. 9,941,738
2016-12-27	’288 Patent Issued
2017-12-22	Defendant disclosed ’288 Patent during prosecution of its U.S. Patent No. 10,277,067
2019-04-22	Examiner rejected claims in Defendant's U.S. Patent No. 10,566,834 over ’613 Patent
2019-04-30	Examiner cited ’288 Patent during prosecution of Defendant's U.S. Patent No. 10,491,137
2023-10-25	’862 Patent cited during prosecution of Defendant's European Patent Application
2025-03-13	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,000,613 - "UPS Adaptive Output Voltage Control Systems," issued April 7, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in data center power supplies where a UPS provides power at a high, efficient voltage (e.g., 240 VAC), but the utility power it falls back to in "bypass mode" is at a lower voltage (e.g., 208 VAC). When the UPS switches to bypass mode, this can cause a "sudden drop in voltage" that negatively impacts the connected servers and equipment (’613 Patent, col. 2:9-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "adaptive voltage control mode" for the UPS. This mode allows the UPS to smoothly adjust its output voltage between a first level (e.g., the lower bypass voltage) and a second, higher level upon switching between modes (’613 Patent, col. 2:64-67). This avoids the sudden voltage drop by, for example, ramping the voltage up or down, allowing the connected equipment to operate at maximum efficiency without being subjected to disruptive power transitions (’613 Patent, col. 1:44-50).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows data center equipment to benefit from higher, more efficient operating voltages while mitigating the risks of power disruption during transfers to and from a bypass power source (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • An uninterruptible power supply comprising a rectifier, an inverter, a bypass switch, and a control module.
  • The control module operates in both a bypass mode and a UPS mode.
  • When in the UPS mode, the control module further operates in a normal UPS mode and an adaptive voltage control module.
  • The adaptive voltage control module adjusts the alternating current output from a first level to a second level upon switching from the bypass mode to the UPS mode.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,288 - "Systems and Methods for Balancing UPS Output Voltages During Transitions Between Operating Modes," issued December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that during transitions between operating modes (e.g., from a power-saving "economy mode" to a full "UPS mode"), faults in the utility power can create unbalanced voltage across the output phases (’288 Patent, col. 4:1-10). This imbalance can saturate the magnetic cores of downstream transformers, causing large, damaging inrush currents (Compl. ¶27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a control module with a specific algorithm to counteract this. The module repeatedly detects the variable output voltage, integrates these voltage values over time to calculate a "sum" (representing the volt-second imbalance), and then adjusts the inverter's output voltage based on this sum to actively balance the voltage and prevent flux saturation (’288 Patent, cl. 1).
• Technical Importance: By actively balancing output voltage during transitions, the invention prevents transformer saturation, thereby avoiding damaging overcurrent conditions and improving the overall reliability of the power distribution system (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • A UPS with an input, an inverter, a bypass circuit, and a control module.
  • The inverter and bypass circuit are configured for at least two operating modes with different power flows.
  • The control module is configured to: (i) detect a variable voltage at the UPS output multiple times; (ii) Integrate the voltages to generate a first sum; and (iii) after a transition, adjust the inverter's output voltage based on the first sum to balance the variable voltage.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,960,862 - "Method and System For High-Reliability Power Switching," issued July 14, 2011

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the risk of simultaneously enabling multiple power sources when using fast solid-state switches (TRIACs), which can cause equipment damage (’862 Patent, col. 1:14-29). The invention provides a high-reliability switching system using a "token-transfer" method, where a logical "token" grants exclusive permission to only one switch controller at a time to connect its power source to the load, thereby preventing simultaneous activation (’862 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Defendant's APC NetShelter Rack Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) products practice this token-based method for switching between two power sources (Compl. ¶88, ¶89).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,035,250 - "System and Method for Load Sharing in Multi-Module Power Supply Systems," issued October 11, 2011

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses overheating in one UPS module within a parallel, multi-module system. Instead of the overheating module shutting down completely and stressing the remaining units, the invention allows it to detect an "operating event" (like high temperature) and shed a portion of its load while remaining operational at a reduced level (’250 Patent, col. 1:30-38). The other modules in the system then increase their output to cooperatively handle the shed portion of the load (’250 Patent, col. 2:35-50).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).

Accused Features

Defendant's Galaxy VS and other UPS products that can be configured in parallel systems are alleged to use this method of dynamic load shedding and sharing to maintain system stability when one module experiences stress (Compl. ¶106, ¶108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Single and Three-Phase Uninterruptible Power Supply ('UPS') products and systems, associated transfer switches, as well as software" (Compl. ¶39). Specific product families named include the "Galaxy VX" series of UPSs and the "APC NetShelter Rack Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS)" (Compl. ¶51, ¶88).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused UPS products as essential for providing continuous and conditioned power to critical loads like data centers (Compl. ¶51). A key feature alleged to be central to the infringement is the availability of multiple operating modes, including "Double Conversion," "ECO mode," and "eConversion" (Compl. ¶52, ¶55). The complaint highlights the "eConversion" mode, where the inverter runs in parallel with a static bypass to improve efficiency while enabling an "uninterrupted transfer" to full double-conversion mode if a power disturbance occurs (Compl. ¶58). The complaint includes a diagram comparing "Double Conversion" and "eConversion" modes. (Compl. ¶28, p. 28). The products are also described as capable of operating in parallel configurations with other UPS units to increase capacity and redundancy (Compl. ¶90, ¶106).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,000,613 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An uninterruptible power supply	Defendant markets and sells products explicitly identified as "Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)," such as the Galaxy VX.	¶51	col. 1:26-27
a rectifier coupled to an input...and converting a first alternating current...to a direct current provided to a direct current bus	Defendant's product diagrams show a "PFC rectifier" that receives an AC input and provides power to a DC bus connected to the inverter and battery.	¶52	col. 5:10-15
an inverter coupled to an output...and converting direct current...to and second alternating current	Defendant's product diagrams show an "Inverter" that receives power from the DC bus and provides an AC output to the load.	¶53	col. 5:1-4
a bypass switch having a bypass state and a non-bypass state, wherein the bypass switch is configured to bypass the rectifier and the inverter	Defendant's diagrams illustrate a "Bypass switch" that provides a path for AC input to go directly to the output, bypassing the rectifier and inverter.	¶54	col. 5:15-22
a control module that operates in a bypass mode and a UPS mode...and switches the bypass switch	Defendant's user manuals depict a "Control" screen for switching the system's operation mode between "Requested Static Bypass" and "Inverter Operation." A diagram shows the control module switching between these states.	¶55-56	col. 5:9-14
when in the UPS mode, further operates in a normal UPS mode and an adaptive voltage control module, [where it] adjusts the second alternating current from a first level to a second level upon switching from the bypass mode to the UPS mode	The complaint alleges that the "Double Conversion mode is a UPS Mode that is also an adaptive voltage control mode" and that the "eConversion" feature, which facilitates an "uninterrupted transfer from eConversion to double conversion," performs this adjustment.	¶57-58	col. 2:64-67

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the accused "eConversion" and "Double Conversion" modes meet the definition of an "adaptive voltage control module." The claim requires adjusting the voltage between two distinct levels upon switching from the bypass mode to the UPS mode. The complaint's evidence describes the system maintaining a stable output voltage during a utility interruption (Compl. ¶58), which raises the question of whether this is the same as the controlled, efficiency-motivated voltage ramping described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products actually adjust the voltage between a "first level" and a "second level" (e.g., 208V and 240V), as opposed to simply maintaining a single stable voltage during a transfer? The cited documentation focuses on providing an "uninterrupted transfer," which does not explicitly equate to the two-level adjustment required by the claim.

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,288 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an uninterruptible power supply (UPS)	Defendant markets and sells products explicitly identified as "Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)."	¶71	col. 2:30-31
an input configured to (i) receive first power from a utility source...and (ii) receive second power from the utility source...	The complaint points to diagrams showing a UPS with an AC input from a utility source and an internal battery power source.	¶72	col. 1:40-41
an inverter configured to receive...power...when in a first mode...and...when in a second mode	The complaint cites diagrams and tables that describe different operating modes, such as "Double Conversion" and "eConversion," which have different power flow configurations for the inverter.	¶73	col. 2:15-24
a bypass circuit...configured to bypass the inverter to supply the first power to an output of the UPS when operating in the second mode	The same diagrams show a bypass circuit that routes power around the inverter to the output. The complaint includes a visual depicting the "eConversion" mode that utilizes this bypass path.	¶74	col. 2:24-29
a control module configured to (i) detect a variable voltage... (ii) Integrate the first plurality of voltages to generate a first sum, and (iii) subsequent to completing a transition..., adjust an output voltage of the inverter based on the first sum to balance the variable voltage...	The complaint cites documentation stating that in "eConversion Mode the system output voltage is following the bypass voltage" and that the system will transfer to double conversion if a fault occurs. A table from a user manual shows the system switches modes if voltage fluctuations exceed a set value.	¶75	col. 1:62-67

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the specific three-step algorithm: detect, integrate to generate a sum, and adjust based on the sum. The complaint alleges this functionality but provides evidence showing the system reacts to voltage fluctuations exceeding a threshold (Compl. ¶75; p. 30-31). It does not provide direct evidence that the accused products use the specific method of mathematical integration and adjustment based on a calculated sum, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation.
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "first power from a utility source" and "second power from the utility source" may be disputed. It is unclear from the complaint whether this requires two separate utility feeds or can be read on different power paths (e.g., main AC and battery) originating from a single utility connection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’613 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "adaptive voltage control module"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention of the ’613 patent. Whether Defendant's "eConversion" mode or other features fall within the scope of this term will be a critical issue in the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites adjusting the voltage "from a first level to a second level" (’613 Patent, col. 16:21-22). The specification also broadly describes the invention as managing "drops in voltages supplied from the UPS" when switching modes (’613 Patent, col. 4:21-23). A party could argue this covers any system that intelligently manages voltage transitions between modes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and detailed description repeatedly frame the invention as solving the specific problem of ramping up from a lower "static bypass voltage" to a higher "efficient voltage" (e.g., 240V) to maximize the efficiency of the server loads (’613 Patent, col. 2:4-16). A party may argue the term is limited to this specific context of ramping for efficiency, not merely maintaining voltage stability.

’288 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "Integrate the first plurality of voltages to generate a first sum"
• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core technical mechanism of the invention. Proving that the accused products perform this specific mathematical operation, rather than a more generic form of feedback control, is essential for the Plaintiff's infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a specific algorithm that may not be present in a system that simply reacts to voltage thresholds.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any control system that accounts for the cumulative effect of voltage deviation over a period of time (i.e., the area under the voltage curve) is functionally "integrating" to generate a "sum," even if not explicitly described with that terminology in the accused product's documentation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification includes detailed waveform diagrams (e.g., ’288 Patent, Figs. 12-14) that illustrate the effect of balancing the volt-second area to keep magnetic flux centered. A party could argue that the term requires a specific implementation that calculates this volt-second integral to proactively balance flux, rather than a system that merely reacts to voltage fluctuations after they cross a pre-set limit.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing customers with products and accompanying instructions, user manuals, technical support, and marketing materials that encourage and explain how to operate the accused UPS systems in their various modes, which allegedly constitutes the infringing use (Compl. ¶61, ¶78, ¶96, ¶112).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its willfulness allegations on purported pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that Defendants were aware of the patents-in-suit because the patents were cited by patent examiners, and in some cases disclosed by Defendants themselves, during the prosecution of Defendants' own U.S. and international patent applications. For example, the complaint alleges the ’613 patent was used in a rejection of claims in a Schneider patent application in 2019 (Compl. ¶59).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: does the accused control system perform the specific mathematical operations required by the claims, such as the ’288 patent’s requirement to "Integrate...voltages to generate a...sum," or does it use a different, more general control logic, such as reacting to pre-set voltage fluctuation thresholds? The resolution will depend on evidence of the software and hardware's actual operation.
• A central issue will be one of functional scope: does the operation of Defendant's "eConversion" mode, which is described as maintaining a stable output during a power interruption, meet the claim requirements of the ’613 patent, which call for an "adaptive voltage control module" that adjusts voltage between two distinct levels specifically upon a controlled switch from bypass to UPS mode to enhance load efficiency?
• A recurring question across the asserted patents will be whether the functions described in high-level marketing materials and user manuals can be mapped to the specific, multi-step technical limitations recited in the patent claims, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the generalized product descriptions and the detailed requirements of the patented inventions.