DCT
2:25-cv-00665
Yakar Tech LLC v. Shenzhen Xiangdangwen Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yakar Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Xiangdangwen Technology Co., Ltd. (“Lisen”) (China) and Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00665, E.D. Tex., 06/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged against Walmart based on its regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas. Venue is alleged against Lisen as a foreign entity with no established place of business in the U.S., and based on its sales into the district via its website and through Walmart.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ phone accessories, specifically magnetic mounting devices, infringe three patents related to mounts for electronic devices that feature magnetic attachment, physical support structures, and wireless charging compatibility.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mounts for securing portable electronic devices, such as smartphones, particularly in environments like vehicles where stability is critical.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and states its predecessor-in-interest has never sold a product. The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058. The complaint preemptively addresses patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287, arguing they do not apply because Plaintiff is an NPE and prior settlement licenses with other entities did not authorize the production of any patented articles.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-23 | Priority Date for '058, '309 Patents |
| 2017-12-19 | '058 Patent Issued |
| 2018-05-18 | Priority Date for '536 Patent |
| 2021-06-15 | '309 Patent Issued |
| 2022-11-15 | '536 Patent Issued |
| 2025-06-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058 - "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount" (Issued Dec. 19, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings with prior art electronic device mounts. Cradle-style mounts may lack sufficient clamping force for increasingly large and heavy devices, while simple magnetic mounts are weakened if the required ferromagnetic plate is placed inside a protective case. Furthermore, an externally mounted plate is often considered "distracting or unsightly" by users (’058 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid mount that combines magnetic attraction with mechanical support. It features a mount body with a magnet and at least one foldable leg. This leg can be moved from a "stored position," where it is flush with the mount face, to a "support position" to physically hold the bottom of the electronic device (’058 Patent, col. 2:7-16, col. 3:41-51). This dual-support mechanism is intended to reliably secure heavy devices even when a ferromagnetic plate is located inside a case, which would otherwise weaken the magnetic force (’058 Patent, col. 5:35-43).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a robust mounting solution that accommodated larger devices and users' preference for protective cases, without sacrificing stability or aesthetics (’058 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶24). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A ferromagnetic element securable to the electronic device.
- A mount body comprising a magnet, a face plate, and at least one leg, with the magnet secured in the face plate.
- The at least one leg is movable from a stored position to a support position.
- The at least one leg further comprises a pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to the leg, which are rotatable between a first and second position to form a support for the device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309 - "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount" (Issued Jun. 15, 2021)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application for the ’058 patent, this patent addresses the same technical problems: the inadequacy of existing mounts for heavier electronic devices and the aesthetic and functional drawbacks of exposed ferromagnetic plates (’309 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mount for an electronic device that includes both a magnetic element and an adjustable, foldable leg system. A key aspect is the explicit configuration of the ferromagnetic element to be "positionable inside a cover of the electronic device" (’309 Patent, col. 6:8-10). The mount’s leg is extendible and foldable from a stored position, where it is coplanar with the face plate, to a support position that is "substantially normal to the face plate" to provide physical support (’309 Patent, col. 6:20-25).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a reliable mounting system that works effectively even when the magnetic components are separated by a device's protective case, combining magnetic force with direct physical support (’309 Patent, col. 5:30-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶34). Independent claims 1 and 6 are asserted.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device.
- A mount body with a magnet, face plate, and at least one leg configured to directly support the device.
- The leg is adjustably extendible from the mount body.
- The leg is extendible in a direction coplanar with the face plate and is foldable to a support position "substantially normal to the face plate."
- Independent Claim 6:
- A mount body comprising a back plate, a connectable front plate with an opening, a magnet in the opening, and a magnet cover.
- At least one leg coupled to the front plate, movable from a stored position "coplanar with the face" to a support position "substantially perpendicular to the face."
- A ferromagnetic element positionable within an electronic device such that the device's body is between the plate and the mount.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 11,502,536 - "Wireless Charging Mount" (Issued Nov. 15, 2022)
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of precisely aligning a mobile device's internal wireless charging receiver coil with a charging mount's transmitter coil to ensure efficient charging (’536 Patent, col. 3:1-13). The invention includes a mounting "template" with ferromagnetic strips that can be affixed to a device; the template has alignment markings to ensure the strips do not cover the device's receiving coil (’536 Patent, col. 5:1-9). The system may also include a mobile application that displays an alignment guide on the device's screen to assist with positioning on the charging pad (’536 Patent, col. 7:11-23).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-16 (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "mounting devices" of infringement, which may implicate not only the physical mounts but also any associated alignment templates or software provided with the products (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are generally identified as "Lisen's Phone Accessories" and "mounting devices" (Compl. ¶22, ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are devices for mounting other electronic devices, such as a "cell phone or other PDA" (Compl. ¶27). Based on the context of the asserted patents, these are magnetic mounts, sold by Lisen through its own website and through Walmart, that are alleged to possess the features of the patented inventions, including magnetic attraction and physical support structures (Compl. ¶11, ¶28). The complaint does not provide specific product names or model numbers, but refers to exhibits (not publicly available with the complaint) for further detail (Compl. ¶22, ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain claim charts but states that support for the allegations can be found in preliminary tables attached as exhibits, which were not filed with the initial pleading (Compl. ¶26, ¶36). The following summaries are based on the complaint's narrative allegations.
'058 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a ferromagnetic element securable to the electronic device | The accused mounting systems are alleged to include a ferromagnetic element that attaches to a user's phone or device. | ¶24 | col. 1:16-24 |
| a mount body... comprising a magnet, a face plate, and at least one leg... the magnet secured in the face plate | The accused mounts are alleged to have a body containing a magnet within a face plate and at least one leg. | ¶24 | col. 3:17-31 |
| the at least one leg movable with respect to the mount body from a stored position to a support position | The leg(s) on the accused mounts are alleged to be movable from a stowed or retracted state to a deployed, device-supporting state. | ¶24 | col. 3:41-51 |
| the at least one leg further comprises a pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to the leg... | The leg(s) on the accused mounts are alleged to include rotatable extensions that form a support for the device. | ¶24 | col. 3:31-35 |
'309 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a ferromagnetic element shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device | The accused systems are alleged to include a ferromagnetic element intended for placement inside a phone case. | ¶34 | col. 5:5-7 |
| a mount body... comprising a magnet, a face plate, and at least one leg... configured to directly support the device | The accused mounts are alleged to have a body with a magnet and a leg structure designed to physically support the weight of the device. | ¶34 | col. 3:17-25 |
| wherein the at least one leg is adjustably extendible from the mount body | The leg(s) on the accused mounts are alleged to be extendible in length. | ¶34 | col. 4:52-54 |
| wherein the at least one leg is... foldable between the stored position and the support position, the support position being substantially normal to the face plate | The leg(s) on the accused mounts are alleged to fold out from a stored position to a support position that is approximately perpendicular to the mount's front face. | ¶34 | col. 4:40-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused mounts' leg structures operate in the specific manner claimed. For the '309 patent, this includes whether they are "adjustably extendible" and fold to a position that is "substantially normal" to the face plate. The evidence presented regarding the actual mechanics and geometry of the accused products will be critical.
- Scope Questions: For the '309 patent, a key issue may be whether the provided ferromagnetic element is "shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover," as required by claim 1. This raises the question of whether the element is merely capable of such placement or if it is specifically designed and marketed for that purpose. Similarly, the construction of "substantially normal" and "substantially perpendicular" will be pivotal in determining the scope of the claims covering the leg's support position.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '058 and '309 Patents
- The Term: "support position" ('058 patent); "support position being substantially normal to the face plate" ('309 patent)
- Context and Importance: The functionality of the foldable leg and its final orientation relative to the mount face is a core inventive concept. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused products' legs, when deployed, fall within the scope of this geometric limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the specific mechanical configuration that allegedly provides the stability advantage over prior art.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" in the '309 patent suggests the angle need not be exactly 90 degrees. Parties arguing for broader scope may point to this qualifier to argue that any position that provides meaningful vertical support against gravity qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the movement to a position "substantially normal to the face plate" or "substantially perpendicular to the face" (’309 Patent, col. 4:51, col. 6:61). Figures 17 and 18 depict the legs (104) deploying to what appears to be a roughly 90-degree angle to support the device (700). A party arguing for a narrower scope could contend that the term requires an orientation at or very near 90 degrees to perform the claimed support function.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants actively encourage and instruct customers, through product manuals and websites, on how to use the products in an infringing manner (e.g., "to mount a device such as a cell phone") (Compl. ¶27, ¶37, ¶47). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are not staple commercial goods and that their "only reasonable use... is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶28, ¶38, ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which supports a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶27, ¶37, ¶47). The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages if discovery reveals Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. p. 15, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of mechanical and geometric scope: Does the physical structure of the accused mounts' support legs meet the specific claim limitations requiring them to be movable to a "support position" that is "substantially normal" or "perpendicular" to the mount's face? The case may turn on the definition of "substantially" and the evidence of the accused products' actual operation.
- A key evidentiary question for the '309 patent will be one of intended use and configuration: Does the evidence show that the ferromagnetic element in the accused systems is specifically "shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover" of a device, as claimed, or is it a generic component that a user might happen to place there?
- For the '536 patent, the dispute will likely focus on system-level infringement: Do the accused "mounting devices" include or direct users to a "template" and/or software application for alignment that practices the methods claimed in the patent, or do they consist only of a physical mount without the claimed alignment system?