Creekview IP LLC v. RadioShack Online OpCo LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Creekview IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Radioshack Online Opco, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:22-cv-02653, N.D. Tex., 11/28/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in the district and maintains an established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless charging pads infringe a patent related to methods for wirelessly providing power to and communicating with electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for wireless power transfer, specifically the protocols governing the interaction between a power-transmitting device and a power-receiving device.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier-expiring patent. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,608,472 Earliest Priority Date
2017-03-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,608,472 Issued
2022-11-28	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,608,472, Method and Apparatus for Wirelessly Transferring Power and Communicating with One or More Slave Devices, issued March 28, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that existing standards for wireless power and communication do not address the scenario of charging a "slave device" (e.g., a phone) before communicating with it, particularly when the slave device has no initial power ('472 Patent, col. 3:9-12). It also describes conventional non-resonant induction as being inefficient over larger distances and non-directive ('472 Patent, col. 1:25-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system comprising a "master device" (power transmitter) and a "slave device" (power receiver) ('472 Patent, Abstract). The system allows the master device to wirelessly transfer power to the slave device, which can then use that power for its own circuitry and to communicate ('472 Patent, col. 3:13-24). A central feature of the described system is a process where the master device can authenticate or authorize the slave device before or during power transfer, for example, by checking the slave's identification against a database of authorized devices ('472 Patent, col. 4:1-9, col. 12:22-28).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide an intelligent and secure framework for wireless charging, enabling a master device to manage power delivery to multiple slave devices based on authorization status and priority ('472 Patent, col. 3:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 19 (Compl. ¶15).
• The essential elements of claim 19, which is a method performed by a slave device, are:
  • transmitting a slave device identification to the master device for determining authorization to wirelessly receive energy from the master device;
  • wirelessly receiving, in response to transmitting the slave device identification, energy from the master device; and
  • generating power from the received wireless energy for use by the slave device's electronic circuitry.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to claim 19 as an "Exemplary" claim, thereby reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "wireless charging pads" sold by Defendant, with the "RadioShack 10W Fast Wireless Charging Pad" provided as a "non-limiting example" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint provides an image of the "RadioShack 10W Fast Wireless Charging Pad," identifying it as an exemplary accused product (Compl. p. 3, ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used in conjunction with "compatible Qi devices" (Compl. ¶14). In this context, the Accused Product (the charging pad) is alleged to function as the "master device" or "power transmitter," while the Qi-compatible device (e.g., a smartphone) acts as the "slave device" or "power receiver" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges that the Accused Product operates according to the Qi standard, wherein the power receiver sends an identification to the power transmitter for verification before the transmitter transfers power (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exemplary Infringement Chart" in an exhibit that was not available for review (Compl. ¶15). The narrative infringement theory for claim 19 is as follows:

The complaint alleges that end-users directly infringe claim 19 when they use a Qi-compatible device (the "slave device") with Defendant's Accused Product (the "master device") (Compl. ¶15, 23). The infringement theory posits that the standard Qi protocol handshake constitutes the claimed method steps. Specifically, the complaint alleges that a Qi-compatible device first "sends an identification to power transmitter for identification and verification," which is alleged to be the claimed step of "transmitting a slave device identification...for determining authorization" (Compl. ¶17). Subsequently, the Accused Product allegedly "transfers power after successful verification," which corresponds to the claimed step of "wirelessly receiving...energy from the master device" (Compl. ¶17). Finally, the Qi-compatible device is alleged to generate power from this energy for its own use, meeting the final limitation of the claim (Compl. ¶17).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 19 is a method claim practiced by the "slave device" (e.g., a Qi-compatible phone), while Defendant sells the "master device" (the charging pad). Defendant's liability is therefore predicated on theories of indirect infringement (Compl., Count II). A central dispute may arise over whether the Qi standard's technical handshake protocol for establishing a compatible charging link constitutes "determining authorization" as required by the claim.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the Qi standard's process of sending an "identification" for "verification" meets the "authorization" limitation (Compl. ¶17). A key technical question will be what information is actually transmitted during a Qi handshake and for what purpose. The dispute may focus on whether this is a simple compatibility check for power management or if it functions as a security or permission-based "authorization" as described in the patent's specification (e.g., checking an ID against an "authorized list") ('472 Patent, col. 12:22-28).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "transmitting a slave device identification...for determining authorization"
• Context and Importance: The interpretation of this phrase is central to the dispute. Plaintiff's infringement theory appears to depend on this term being construed broadly enough to read on the standard communication protocol of Qi-enabled devices. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case may turn on whether the routine technical handshake of the Qi standard is legally equivalent to the patent's concept of an "authorization" process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "for determining authorization" does not itself specify the type or rigor of authorization required. The specification provides a non-limiting list of what constitutes "identifying information," including a device's name or MAC ID ('472 Patent, col. 4:62-65). A party could argue that any protocol in which an identifier is sent by the slave and the master proceeds to provide power in response constitutes a "determination of authorization."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the authorization process in the context of security and permission, referencing an "authorized list" stored in a database ('472 Patent, col. 12:22-28). For instance, the patent describes a slave preventing "non-authorized masters" from charging it by "checking the master's identifying information with the authorized master's list" ('472 Patent, col. 4:1-6). A party could argue this context requires a more specific act of checking credentials against a pre-approved set, rather than a simple technical compatibility handshake.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads induced infringement, alleging Defendant sells the Accused Product knowing it will be used to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The factual basis for inducement includes the allegation that Defendant provides "instruction manuals" and "downloadable instructional guides" that encourage and instruct end-users on how to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner with Qi-compatible devices (Compl. ¶¶22-23).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant has knowledge of the ’472 Patent "since at least the filing of this complaint" and has continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶21-22).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "for determining authorization," which the patent specification often links to checking against "authorized lists," be construed to cover the technical compatibility handshake protocol inherent in the accused Qi wireless charging standard?
• A key liability question will be one of intent for inducement: assuming the underlying method is found to be infringing, can the plaintiff prove that the defendant, by selling a Qi-standard charging pad and providing standard operating instructions, possessed the specific intent to encourage its customers to perform every step of the claimed method, including the "authorization" step as it is ultimately construed by the court?