Cogent Insights Licensing Inc v. Festo Se & Co KG

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Festo SE & Co. KG (Germany)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01231, E.D. Tex., 12/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to power supplies that use induction motors as generators.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems, such as those in hybrid electric vehicles, that generate electrical power by driving a common induction motor above its rated speed to act as a generator, and then converting the resulting AC power to DC.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,330,016 - "Induction generator power supply"

Issued Feb. 12, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes practical limitations that have restricted the use of common, rugged, and inexpensive induction motors as standalone power generators. A key problem identified is that when not connected to a utility grid, an induction generator requires a separate means to provide magnetizing current and cannot effectively power reactive loads (e.g., inductive or capacitive loads), leading to voltage instability. (’016 Patent, col. 2:41-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a prime mover (like a diesel engine) drives an induction motor at a speed significantly above its rated speed (an "overspeed" condition), causing it to function as a generator. (’016 Patent, col. 10:56-65). The resulting AC output is then rectified by a converter to produce DC power, which overcomes the problem of powering reactive loads and allows the energy to be stored in a reservoir, such as a battery bank. (’016 Patent, col. 5:6-21; Fig. 1). This configuration is presented as particularly useful for hybrid electric applications. (’016 Patent, col. 5:22-25).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to make hybrid electric technology more practical and cost-effective by leveraging the advantages of induction motors (low cost, durability) while mitigating their traditional weaknesses as standalone generators. (’016 Patent, col. 5:4-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a method claim and is representative of the invention’s core method.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • selecting a prime mover having a chosen power rating;
  • choosing an induction motor having a first power rating at a rated speed and a second power rating at an overspeed, said overspeed being at least about 10% greater than the rated speed;
  • choosing the induction motor such that the second power rating [at overspeed] is substantially equal to the chosen power rating of the prime mover;
  • driving the induction motor with the prime mover so that it acts as an induction generator; and
  • operating the induction generator at said overspeed.

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). These products are purportedly identified in an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality, operation, or market context. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '016 Patent" based on claim charts in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are contained entirely within an external document, "Exhibit 2," which is incorporated by reference but was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The pleading itself states only that Defendant directly infringed by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having employees "internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific infringement theory.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative Claim 1 of the ’016 Patent, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.
  • Scope Questions: The initial steps of Claim 1 are "selecting a prime mover" and "choosing an induction motor" based on specific power-matching criteria. A potential dispute is whether Defendant, as an accused direct infringer, performs these system design and component selection steps itself, or if it integrates components selected by other entities. This could raise questions about liability for direct infringement of the method claim as a whole.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "operating the induction generator at said overspeed," which is defined as "at least about 10% greater than the rated speed." A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products actually operate in this specific regime. The analysis would need to establish both the "rated speed" of the induction motor used and its actual operational speed in the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "overspeed"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's novelty, as operating the induction motor significantly above its rated speed is claimed to enhance power output. The determination of infringement will depend on whether the accused products operate within the claimed "overspeed" range.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term as "at least about 10% greater than the rated speed" (’016 Patent, col. 13:34-36). The specification further provides for wide ranges, stating the overspeed "may also be at least about 25%, 50%, 75%, 10 to 300%, 25 to 300%, or 50 to 100% greater than the rated speed," which could support a broad construction (’016 Patent, col. 10:52-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed examples often focus on a doubling of speed (e.g., an 1800 RPM motor operated at 3600 RPM) to achieve a doubling of power (’016 Patent, col. 11:13-20, col. 11:37-41). A party might argue that the term should be construed in light of these embodiments, which achieve substantial performance gains, rather than more marginal increases.

• The Term: "substantially equal"

  • Context and Importance: This term governs the relationship between the prime mover's power rating and the induction motor's power rating at overspeed, as required by Claim 1. Whether the components in an accused product meet this matching criterion is a likely point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: As a term of degree, "substantially equal" does not require precise numerical identity. A party could argue it encompasses a range of power ratings where the components are reasonably matched for the intended application, consistent with standard engineering tolerances.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent presents this matching as a deliberate design choice to optimize the system (’016 Patent, col. 10:49-52). A party could argue that the term requires a close correspondence in power ratings and does not cover systems where the prime mover and generator are significantly mismatched, even if functional.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or plead any specific facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the ’016 Patent by the Defendant. The prayer for relief includes a request that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees, but does not request enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. p. 4).

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

The complaint, as filed, is a sparse document that relies on an unprovided exhibit for its substantive allegations. Based on the available information, the case appears to present two fundamental open questions.

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: As the complaint does not identify the accused products or provide the claim charts detailing the infringement theory, a primary question is what evidence Plaintiff will introduce to demonstrate that any specific product made or sold by Defendant practices every step of the asserted method claims.
• A key legal question will be one of direct infringement of a method claim: Can Plaintiff establish that the Defendant, as a single entity, performs the claimed steps of "selecting" and "choosing" components with specific, matched characteristics, or are these system-design steps performed by other parties in the supply chain, potentially complicating the direct infringement analysis?