Xebec Inc v. United Supply Alliance Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xebec, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: United Supply Alliance, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barks PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-06094, S.D. Tex., 12/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has transacted business and derived substantial revenue from selling the accused products within the Southern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s auxiliary screen mounting systems, supplied under a U.S. government contract, infringe a patent related to mounting systems for attaching secondary screens to laptops.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for portable, multi-screen setups for laptop computers, a market segment that has grown with the rise of mobile and remote work.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff acquired the patent-in-suit in 2022. It also states that the patent survived an ex parte reexamination requested by a competitor, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issuing a Reexamination Certificate in September 2023, confirming the patentability of the asserted independent claim. This post-grant review proceeding may strengthen the patent’s presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,395,757 - “Auxiliary Screen Mounting System,” issued July 19, 2016 (“’757 Patent”)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a simple, robust, and portable method to attach auxiliary screens to computing devices like laptops. It notes that conventional desktop monitors are unsuitable for mobile use, and prior portable solutions involved complex and potentially fragile clamping mechanisms (’757 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a support system comprising two mounting members that are placed on opposite sides of a laptop screen and held in place by a connecting "retaining member." The mounting members are shaped to fit over the corners of the primary screen, and at least one is configured to bear the weight of an auxiliary screen, allowing it to be "hung" next to the main display (’757 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 8). The system relies on tension from the retaining member, rather than complex clamps, to secure the mounts (’757 Patent, col. 9:4-14).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a mechanically simple and non-permanent way to create a multi-monitor setup for a laptop, enhancing productivity for mobile professionals without requiring modification to the laptop itself (Compl. ¶14-¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A plurality of mounting members for placement on opposing lateral sides of a computing device.
  • A retaining member that extends between the mounting members to hold them in place.
  • At least one mounting member is configured to bear an auxiliary screen so it is "hung" relative to the device.
  • The retaining member is "length adjustable" to hold the mounting members by "resisting separation."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as the "tri-fold screen extenders" that Defendant offered to sell and sold to the U.S. Navy Recruiting Command ("NRC") in fulfillment of Solicitation N0018925QZ375 (the "NRC RFQ") (Compl. ¶37, ¶41).
• Functionality and Market Context: The functionality of the accused products is defined by the technical specifications within the NRC RFQ. These specifications require a device that attaches two auxiliary screens to the left and right of a laptop screen (Compl. p. 10). A photograph included in the complaint shows Plaintiff's own product, the Xebec Tri-Screen, which exemplifies the type of device at issue (Compl. p. 4). Critically, the NRC RFQ specifies that the "Mounting Method" must not require magnets, adhesives, or modification to the laptop (Compl. p. 10). The complaint alleges that these specifications were developed after extensive conversations between the NRC and Plaintiff, during which Plaintiff provided technical details about its own product and its patented technology (Compl. ¶24-¶36). The complaint further alleges Defendant is a "products and equipment broker," not a technology company, that won the government contract to supply these devices (Compl. ¶42-¶43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart (Exhibit E), but it provides a narrative summary of infringement allegations against the accused products, arguing that the government's required specifications meet the limitations of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).

’757 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the complaint’s reliance on the government’s RFQ specifications is sufficient to plead infringement. The analysis will depend on whether the actual products supplied by Defendant embody the claimed features. The case raises the question of whether a defendant infringes by supplying a product that is required by contract to meet specifications that mirror patent claims.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the mechanism used in the accused products constitutes a "length adjustable" "retaining member" that functions by "resisting separation," as claimed. The complaint's description of "Sole Source Three Key Features" provided to the NRC explicitly references the ’757 Patent for its "Patented Removable Attachment" that uses "tension alone" (Compl. p. 9). The dispute may focus on whether the accused device achieves its stability through a comparable tension-based mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "retaining member"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanical simplicity. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to the specific elastic strap shown in the patent's figures or covers a broader class of connecting structures. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent discloses multiple potential structures, including rigid and adjustable ones.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the member to be "length adjustable" and to hold the mounts by "resisting separation," which are functional descriptions. The specification supports a broader reading by disclosing alternatives, such as "two opposing members, e.g. arm members, which could be rigid, and a length adjustment mechanism therebetween, such as a rack-and-pinion type arrangement" (’757 Patent, col. 9:19-23).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is "made from a flexible and/or elastic material, e.g. a textile material" (’757 Patent, col. 7:13-16). A defendant may argue that the overall context of a simple, lightweight, tension-based system favors a construction limited to strap-like structures.

• The Term: "hung relative to the computing device"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the physical relationship between the auxiliary screen and the laptop. The definition is critical to determining whether the accused product's support mechanism infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the mounting members being "held vertically upon the primary screen...by abutment between the upper wall...with the upper edge of primary screen," which suggests a general state of being supported from above (’757 Patent, col. 9:6-9). The specification also notes the shape "allows the support system to hang on a primary screen" (’757 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "hung" implies a specific reliance on gravity where the component rests loosely over the top of the screen, and that a more rigid or clamping attachment method would not qualify as "hung."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads induced infringement, alleging Defendant encouraged third parties (presumably the manufacturer or end-users) to use the infringing products (Compl. ¶2). The prayer for relief also mentions contributory infringement (Compl. p. 14, ¶A). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific facts supporting knowledge and intent for these claims beyond the general narrative.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement (Compl. ¶56). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the detailed narrative of the government procurement process. The complaint alleges that the NRC developed its technical specifications after being educated by Plaintiff on its product, and that Plaintiff explicitly informed the NRC that its technology was patented, even providing the patent number (Compl. ¶34). This sequence of events may support an inference that Defendant, in bidding on and fulfilling a contract with these specific requirements, knew of or was willfully blind to the risk of infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint’s infringement theory rests heavily on the allegation that the government’s technical specifications require the patented technology. A central question for the court will be whether the actual products supplied by Defendant meet every limitation of the asserted claims, an issue that will turn on evidence gathered during discovery.
• The case will also present a question of claim scope: The construction of the term "retaining member" will be critical. The outcome may depend on whether this term is interpreted broadly to cover any length-adjustable connector that creates tension, or narrowly to the specific flexible strap embodiment detailed in the patent.
• Finally, a key question will be one of intent: Given the detailed procurement history outlined in the complaint, where Plaintiff alleges it disclosed its patented technology to the government customer, the court will likely need to determine whether Defendant’s actions in supplying products to meet the resulting specifications rise to the level of willful infringement, which could lead to enhanced damages.