Volteon LLC v. Clevon As

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Volteon LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Clevon AS (Estonia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00878, E.D. Tex., 08/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and that Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to motion-sensing devices that provide a signal in response to sensed motion.
• Technical Context: The technology involves embedding motion sensors and signaling components within an object, such as a toy ball, to generate an interactive response based on physical movement like being thrown or kicked.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may link its enforceability and term to that of another patent not identified in the complaint. The complaint itself refers to but does not include an exhibit containing claim charts that identify the accused products and provide infringement analysis.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,782,637, "Motion sensing device which provides a signal in response to the sensed motion," issued October 10, 2017 (’637 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to enhance conventional toys, like balls, with additional amusement and educational value in a simple and cost-effective manner, without departing from the object's traditional "look and feel" (’637 Patent, col. 2:3-12, 2:20-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained device, housed in a single enclosure, that uses an accelerometer to sense motion. A controller processes the accelerometer's signal and, based on a predetermined logic, activates an "annunciator" to provide a visual or audible signal in response to the motion (’637 Patent, col. 2:25-33; Fig. 2). The device is powered by an internal source, which can be a rechargeable battery charged wirelessly via induction or by converting kinetic energy into electrical energy (’637 Patent, col. 2:51-60).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of interactive, responsive toys and other objects that react to physical use without needing external computers or connections, thereby enhancing user engagement (’637 Patent, col. 2:13-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, instead referring to a missing exhibit (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is the sole independent claim in the patent.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A device for signaling in response to a sensed motion, having a single enclosure.
  • An accelerometer for producing an output signal responsive to the device acceleration.
  • An electric motor for affecting a physical movement.
  • A software and a processor for executing the software, coupled to the accelerometer and the electric motor, for activating or controlling the electric motor in response to the output signal.
  • A rechargeable battery connected to power the device.
  • An induction coil for inductively receiving AC power for charging the rechargeable battery.
• The complaint does not expressly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but states infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in a claim chart exhibit, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2, which was not provided (Compl. ¶14). The body of the complaint contains only a conclusory allegation that Defendant directly infringed by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" unspecified products (Compl. ¶11). Without the referenced exhibit or any specific factual allegations, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of independent claim 1, several potential points of contention may arise once the accused products are identified.

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether any accused product contains an "electric motor for affecting a physical movement," as required by claim 1. The interpretation of this term will be critical, particularly if the accused products generate signals through other means, such as light emitters or sound speakers, which are described as "annunciators" in the patent's specification but are not explicitly claimed in the sole independent claim (’637 Patent, col. 2:65-68).
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary hurdle will be demonstrating that an accused product practices every element of the claim, including the combination of an accelerometer, a processor-controlled electric motor, and an inductive charging coil, all contained within a "single enclosure" (’637 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electric motor for affecting a physical movement"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the only independent claim and is a potentially significant limitation. The outcome of the case could depend on whether the accused products are found to contain a component that meets this definition, as opposed to other types of signaling components (annunciators) discussed in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly discusses payloads that perform "physical movement or other motive functions (e.g., pop-up figure)" (’637 Patent, col. 27:29-31). Plaintiff may argue that "electric motor" should be construed broadly to encompass any electrically-driven component that produces physical motion, such as a piezoelectric vibrator used for haptic feedback.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that "electric motor" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, referring to a conventional device that converts electrical energy into mechanical rotational or linear motion. The claim's specific recitation of an "electric motor" contrasts with the specification's much broader and repeatedly used term "annunciator," suggesting the patentee deliberately chose a narrower term for this specific claim (’637 Patent, col. 2:28, 2:66).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "electric motor for affecting a physical movement" from the patent’s only independent claim? The case may turn on whether this language can be read to cover the specific signaling or actuating technology used in the yet-unidentified accused products, especially in light of the patent specification's broader disclosure of various "annunciators."

2. A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which provides no factual allegations of infringement in its body and instead relies entirely on an unfiled exhibit, satisfy the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement under federal pleading rules?