DCT

2:25-cv-01047

Kortek Industries Pty Ltd v. Shenzhen Ecoflow Technology Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01047, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s WiFi-enabled portable power stations and related products infringe four U.S. patents related to wireless power and automation control systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for wirelessly controlling electrical devices, such as power outlets and lighting, using peer-to-peer communication protocols like Wi-Fi Direct, a foundational concept in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-02-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’377, ’427, and ’869 Patents
2011-11-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’313 Patent
2016-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,465,377 Issues
2017-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,590,427 Issues
2019-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,429,869 Issues
2020-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,862,313 Issues
2025-10-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,465,377 - "Wireless power, light and automation control"

  • Issued: October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional home automation systems based on standard Wi-Fi networks typically require a central Wireless Access Point (AP), which acts as a single point of failure. If the AP becomes disabled or overloaded, the entire automation system fails (U.S. Patent 10,429,869, col. 1:46-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a power control system that eliminates the need for a central AP by establishing a direct, peer-to-peer wireless communications link between a controller (like a smartphone) and a power control unit. To maintain compatibility, the power control unit can "simulate" a Wi-Fi access point, allowing legacy Wi-Fi devices to connect to it directly as if it were a traditional network hub (’869 Patent, col. 3:23-28; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture improves the reliability and simplifies the setup of smart home devices by removing dependence on a central router, a key development for robust Internet of Things (IoT) applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Claim 1 is a method for remotely controlling an electrical apparatus, with essential elements including:
    • Opening a secure, two-way, peer-to-peer wireless communications link between a wireless controller and a power control device.
    • The opening step includes either:
      • Assigning a Wi-Fi access point role to the power control device if the controller is a legacy Wi-Fi device; OR
      • If the controller uses Wi-Fi Direct, negotiating which device will assume the "group owner role."
    • Displaying a status of the power control device on the controller's user interface.
    • Transmitting a command from the controller to the power control device to vary the electricity supply.
    • Receiving and executing the command at the power control device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,590,427 - "Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system"

  • Issued: March 7, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Users may desire the flexibility to control automation devices both locally via a secure, direct link (peer-to-peer) and remotely over the internet via a standard home network (WLAN). Systems are often limited to one mode or the other, forcing a trade-off between local security and remote convenience (U.S. Patent 10,862,313, col. 2:35-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a controller (e.g., a power control unit) with dual-mode capability. It is configured to operate in a first peer-to-peer mode and a second non-peer-to-peer (WLAN client) mode. Crucially, the controller is designed to "change from the first mode to the second mode upon receiving instructions from the personal controller" (e.g., a smartphone), allowing a user to dynamically adapt the connection type (’313 Patent, col. 36:1-21; Figs. 5-6).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptability allows a single device to offer the benefits of both direct local control (higher security, no internet dependency) and networked remote control (convenience), enhancing its utility in diverse smart home and IoT scenarios.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Claim 1 is a controller for controlling a light, with essential elements including:
    • A wireless control module operable for wireless communication with a personal controller.
    • The module includes a microcontroller configured in a first mode to operate using a peer-to-peer communications standard.
    • The microcontroller is also configured in a second mode to operate using a non-peer-to-peer standard to communicate with a network access point in a WLAN.
    • The microcontroller is configured to "change from the first mode to the second mode upon receiving instructions from the personal controller."
    • A power control circuit to vary the supply of electricity to the light based on instructions from the personal controller.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,862,313 - "Adaptable Wireless Power, Light and Automation System"

  • Issued: December 8, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a power control unit capable of operating in two distinct wireless modes: a peer-to-peer mode (e.g., Wi-Fi Direct) for direct local control, and a non-peer-to-peer (WLAN) mode for network-based remote control. The invention focuses on the device’s ability to switch between these modes based on user commands, offering adaptable connectivity for different use cases (’313 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's WiFi-enabled products, such as power stations and generators, infringe by incorporating this dual-mode wireless control functionality (Compl. ¶¶19, 51).

U.S. Patent No. 10,429,869 - "Wireless power, light and automation control"

  • Issued: October 1, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the reliability limitations of traditional Wi-Fi home automation by teaching a system that uses a direct, peer-to-peer wireless link between a controller (e.g., a smartphone) and a power control unit. To ensure backward compatibility, the power control unit is capable of simulating a Wi-Fi access point, which allows legacy devices that lack peer-to-peer capability to connect directly to it (’869 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:23-28).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s WiFi-enabled power products infringe by using a peer-to-peer wireless link for command and control (Compl. ¶¶19, 63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are "EcoFlow-branded power generators, power stations, and power controls," which are described as "WiFi-enabled devices" (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies Defendant’s products as WiFi-enabled power stations and generators that can be controlled wirelessly (Compl. ¶19). The allegations suggest these products can establish direct wireless connections with control devices (like smartphones) and/or connect to a standard WLAN, thereby possessing the peer-to-peer and dual-mode functionalities described in the patents-in-suit. These products compete in the market for portable power and smart energy management solutions.
  • Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E, F, G, H) that describe the alleged infringement of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶37, 49, 61, 73). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document, a tabular summary cannot be produced.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant's WiFi-enabled products, such as its portable power stations, embody the patented technology. For the ’377 and ’869 Patents, the infringement theory centers on the products’ use of a peer-to-peer wireless communication link to receive commands and control power output, allegedly practicing the claimed method of establishing a direct link without a central access point (Compl. ¶¶27, 63). For the ’427 and ’313 Patents, the infringement theory centers on the products' adaptable, dual-mode capability to communicate both directly (peer-to-peer) and via a standard WLAN, allegedly infringing the claims directed to a controller that can change its communication mode upon receiving instructions (Compl. ¶¶39, 51).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute for the ’377 and ’869 Patents may be whether the accused products' direct connection feature constitutes "simulating a Wi-Fi access point" as recited in the claims, or if it implements a standard Wi-Fi Direct or other ad-hoc protocol that falls outside the claim's scope.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’427 and ’313 Patents, a key question may be whether the accused products perform the specific claim step of "negotiating" a "group owner role" during peer-to-peer link establishment. Evidence of this specific protocol step will be central to the infringement analysis. Another question will be whether the mode-switching functionality in the accused products occurs "upon receiving instructions from the personal controller," as claimed, or if the mechanism is technically distinct (e.g., an automatic handoff or a user configuration change not equivalent to a specific "instruction").

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "simulating a Wi-Fi access point" (from claim 1 of the ’377 Patent).
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent’s solution for backward compatibility. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the accused products' direct-connect functionality, which may use modern, standardized protocols, falls within the scope of a claim seemingly drafted to solve a problem with older "legacy" devices.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this function in the context of enabling communication with "legacy Wi-Fi devices" that do not support Wi-Fi Direct, suggesting the term could encompass any software-based function that makes a device appear as a connectable access point to a standard client device (’869 Patent, col. 6:40-47).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "simulating" may suggest an imitation that is functionally, but not necessarily structurally, identical to a hardware access point. A defendant may argue this requires a specific "soft-AP" implementation distinct from standard Wi-Fi Direct group owner functionality.
  • The Term: "configured to change from the first mode to the second mode upon receiving instructions from the personal controller" (from claim 1 of the ’427 Patent).
    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the dynamic, user-directed adaptability of the claimed controller. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused products' mode-switching is a direct response to a specific "instruction" or a more general reconfiguration initiated by a user through a standard operating system interface.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall objective is to provide user-controlled flexibility. This could support an interpretation where any user action on the controller app that results in a mode switch qualifies as "receiving instructions."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "instructions" could be construed more narrowly to mean a specific command packet or signal sent from the controller app for the express purpose of triggering the mode change, as distinct from a user manually changing network settings on their device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials" which instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶29, 41, 53, 65). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant supplies a material part of the claimed invention (the wireless control technology) that is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶28, 40, 52, 64).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of its infringement "since at least the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶30-31, 42-43, 54-55, 66-67). The complaint also pleads a theory of willful blindness, alleging Defendant "took deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts" (Compl. ¶¶29, 41, 53, 65).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "simulating a Wi-Fi access point," which the patents frame as a solution for legacy devices, be construed to cover the standardized Wi-Fi Direct "group owner" functionality likely implemented in modern WiFi-enabled products?
  • A second central question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused products' software and hardware actually perform the specific, discrete steps recited in the claims, such as "negotiating" for a group owner role or changing communication modes in direct response to a specific "instruction" from a controller application?
  • A final key question will concern adaptability: does the mechanism for switching between peer-to-peer and WLAN modes in the accused products function in the same way as that claimed in the ’427 and ’313 patents, or is there a fundamental operational difference that places it outside the scope of the claims?