Rokform LLC A Delaware Corp v. Shenzhen Torras Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Rokform LLC (Delaware) and Rokform IP LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Torras Technology Co., Ltd. (China) and Shenzhen Lechuang Tiancheng Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Friedland Cianfrani LLP; Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00052, E.D. Tex., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendants are foreign entities and therefore not residents of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic phone cases infringe a patent related to a case system featuring a removable, magnet-holding member that is fully enclosed within the case structure.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the competitive market for smartphone accessories, where integrated mounting systems, particularly those using magnets, offer significant consumer convenience and utility.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,775,019 - CASE AND MOUNT SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to protect portable electronic devices from damage that can occur when they are dropped or fall from an unsecured position, which can lead to permanent damage and data loss ( ’019 Patent, col. 1:53-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a protective case system for a handheld device that integrates a removable component designed to hold a magnet. The solution describes a case with a rear wall and sidewall, into which an "exterior-facing member" can be removably received. This member has an indentation on its interior side to house at least one magnet, such that the magnet is fully enclosed between the member and the rear wall of the case when assembled (’019 Patent, col. 13:48-14:10; Fig. 8C). This design allows for magnetic mounting functionality without exposing the magnet itself.
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach provides a method for securely integrating strong magnets into a protective case in a modular and protected manner, facilitating attachment to various surfaces while maintaining the case's protective integrity.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 9 are:
  • A case for a handheld electronic device comprising a rear wall and a sidewall, wherein the rear wall and the sidewall are a unitary structure.
  • An exterior-facing member configured to be removably received in the rear wall of the case.
  • The exterior-facing member has an indentation and at least one magnet received within that indentation.
  • The indentation faces the rear wall of the case.
  • The rear wall of the case and the exterior-facing member fully enclose the at least one magnet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The TORRAS Ostand Q1 Product Line, TORRAS R Fusion/Ostand O3 Case Product Line, and TORRAS Ostand Q3 Product Line (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are described as protective phone cases featuring an integrated, removable ring-like member on the rear surface (Compl. ¶¶18-20). This member allegedly contains magnets, enabling the case to attach to magnetic mounts and accessories. The complaint includes photographs depicting this member being separated from the main case body, revealing magnets housed within it. For example, a series of three photographs of the Ostand Q1 Guardian Case shows the case, the case with the ring-member removed, and the separated ring-member itself (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges these products are sold in the United States through Defendant's website and online marketplaces like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's multi-functional, rotating ring stand qualifies as an "exterior-facing member" as contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification primarily describes this element as a static "non-slip member," raising the question of whether the claim term is limited to such structures or can be read more broadly.
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on the claim requirement that the magnet be "fully enclose[d]" by both the "rear wall of the case" and the "exterior facing member." The complaint’s evidence shows magnets embedded within the removable ring member, but the degree to which the case's own rear wall contributes to this enclosure, as required by the claim, will likely be a point of factual dispute dependent on the products' physical construction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"exterior-facing member"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused feature is a rotating ring stand, whereas the patent's primary embodiment is a static "non-slip member." The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the scope of this term is broad enough to cover the accused structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed invention and the accused product's design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Independent claim 9 uses the general term "exterior-facing member" without the "non-slip" qualifier present in other parts of the patent (e.g., dependent claim 10). This suggests the inventor may have intended a broader scope for the independent claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes this component as a "non-slip member 112" designed for friction and magnetic attachment (’019 Patent, col. 8:6-8; Abstract). A defendant may argue that the invention is limited to this disclosed embodiment.

"unitary structure"

• Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 9 requires that the accused case's rear wall and sidewall be a single, integrated piece. While many modern cases are made this way, any evidence that the accused cases are multi-part assemblies (beyond the removable "exterior-facing member") could present a non-infringement defense.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is common in mechanical arts and its plain and ordinary meaning would likely apply.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification discloses embodiments of a two-piece shell (upper part 102 and lower part 104) while also mentioning the possibility of a "unitary or single-piece shell" (’019 Patent, col. 5:32-36, 41-43). The explicit choice to claim a "unitary structure" in claim 9, in light of the disclosed two-piece alternative, may invite scrutiny as to its precise scope and what constructions it was intended to exclude.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by continuing to "direct and/or instruct others to use and/or operate" the Accused Products after receiving notice of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶17).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts Defendants "knew, or should have known" of the objectively high risk of infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint and/or the date this Complaint was served" (Compl. ¶23).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "exterior-facing member," which is primarily described in the patent's specification as a static, non-slip insert, be construed to cover the multi-functional, rotating ring stand used in the accused products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural configuration: does the accused product's design, where magnets are embedded within a removable ring, satisfy the claim limitation that the magnet be "fully enclose[d]" by the combined structure of the "rear wall of the case and the exterior facing member," or does the magnet's enclosure rely solely on the removable member itself? The physical construction of the products will be dispositive on this point.