Volteon LLC v. LVMH Swiss Manufactures SA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Volteon LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: LVMH Swiss Manufactures SA (Switzerland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01097, E.D. Tex., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to motion-sensing devices that provide a visual or audible indication in response to movement.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves embedding electronic sensors and feedback mechanisms (such as lights or sounds) into toys or other handheld devices to create an interactive user experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,630,062 - System and method for a motion sensing device which provides a visual or audible indication

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,630,062, titled System and method for a motion sensing device which provides a visual or audible indication, issued on April 25, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide a simple, cost-effective, and reliable way to add amusement, education, and entertainment value to common toys, such as game balls, without significantly altering their conventional "look and feel" (’062 Patent, col. 2:3-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained device, typically housed within a single enclosure like a ball, that integrates a motion sensor (an accelerometer), a controller (processor), and an "annunciator" (a visual or audible output) (’062 Patent, col. 2:25-33). The controller processes signals from the motion sensor and, based on a predetermined logic, activates or controls the annunciator to provide feedback to the user in response to the device's movement (’062 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 2:27-33). The patent describes various embodiments, including those powered by rechargeable batteries that can be charged contactlessly via induction (’062 Patent, col. 2:56-60).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of interactive toys that can respond to being thrown, kicked, or shaken, thereby enhancing the user's experience and making the toy more versatile and attractive (’062 Patent, col. 2:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’062 Patent are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '062 Patent Claims" detailed in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16). The first independent claim, Claim 1, is presented here for analysis as a representative claim.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A device for displaying in response to a sensed acceleration, the device having a single portable enclosure, and in the single enclosure comprising:
  • a three-axis accelerometer attached to the single enclosure for measuring the device acceleration and for producing a first output signal that represents the measured device acceleration;
  • a flat-panel digital display for displaying graphical or text information;
  • a sensor coupled to the processor and having a second output responsive to a physical phenomenon;
  • a software and a processor for executing the software, the processor coupled to the accelerometer and to the digital display for displaying information in response to the first and second output signals;
  • a rechargeable battery connected to power the device; and
  • a battery charger connected for contactless charging of the rechargeable battery.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify the accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly detailed in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, 16). This exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges generally that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '062 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations, including claim charts, are contained entirely within Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative theory states that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by satisfying all elements of the "Exemplary '062 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, 16). Without the exhibit, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative Claim 1 of the ’062 Patent, several technical and legal questions may arise in the dispute.
  • Scope Questions:
    • The claim requires "a flat-panel digital display for displaying graphical or text information." A central question may be whether the accused products contain a component that meets this definition, or if they use a simpler indicator (e.g., a single LED) that Defendant may argue falls outside the scope of this term.
    • The claim recites "a sensor coupled to the processor and having a second output responsive to a physical phenomenon," distinct from the primary accelerometer. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products contain a second, distinct sensor and, if so, whether its function meets this limitation.
  • Technical Questions:
    • What evidence will be presented to show that the accused products utilize "contactless charging" for a "rechargeable battery" as required by Claim 1?
    • What is the specific "physical phenomenon" detected by the required second "sensor," and how does the accused product's processor use the "second output signal" from that sensor to control the display?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a flat-panel digital display"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the primary output mechanism of the claimed device. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the scope could range from a complex screen to a simpler numerical output. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes the invention from devices that use only simple, non-display indicators like a single light.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes various types of visual annunciators, including "a numerical or an alphanumerical display, capable of displaying numbers, letters, symbols, words or characters" (’062 Patent, col. 3:9-13), which could support a construction that includes segmented displays.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also separately discusses simpler "visible light emitter[s]" like LEDs (’062 Patent, col. 3:3-9), suggesting a potential distinction between a "display" and a simple light. Defendant may argue the term implies a screen capable of showing "graphical or text information" as recited in the claim, such as an LCD or TFT screen, which are also mentioned in the patent (’062 Patent, col. 9:51-54).

• The Term: "a sensor ... responsive to a physical phenomenon"

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a second sensor in addition to the three-axis accelerometer. Proving the presence and function of this element is essential for the Plaintiff. The term's breadth is a likely point of dispute, as "physical phenomenon" is not explicitly defined.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims are the primary source for this element, but Claim 43, for example, specifies the sensor is a "force sensor." This may suggest the term in Claim 1 is intended to be read more broadly, encompassing various sensor types. The specification is silent on a second sensor in the main embodiments, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The lack of a clear antecedent basis or description of this second sensor's role in the specification's main embodiments (e.g., the ball in FIG. 4a) may lead a defendant to argue the term is indefinite or should be narrowly construed based on the limited examples provided in the dependent claims (e.g., force, light, or electric sensors) (’062 Patent, Claims 40-44).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '062 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that its service "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities thereafter are willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given that the complaint's technical infringement theory resides in an unprovided exhibit, a foundational question is what specific products are accused and what evidence Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that these products practice each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the requirements for a "flat-panel digital display" and a second, distinct "sensor."
2. The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: How will the court construe "a flat-panel digital display"? Will the term be limited to screen-based technologies capable of rendering graphics, or can it encompass simpler numeric or character-based outputs?
3. A final key question involves elemental presence: Does the accused technology incorporate both a three-axis accelerometer and a separate, second "sensor responsive to a physical phenomenon" whose output is used by the processor, or will the defense be able to demonstrate a fundamental mismatch with this explicit claim requirement?