CyboEnergy Inc v. Aptos Solar Technology LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CyboEnergy, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Aptos Solar Technology LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00281, W.D. Tex., 03/16/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s solar power microinverters infringe patents related to scalable power inversion systems and methods for maximizing power production in low-light conditions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns microinverters for solar power systems, which convert DC power from individual solar panels into AC power for a power grid, with a focus on modularity and efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 - "Smart and Scalable Power Inverters," Issued July 22, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings of traditional solar power systems that use a single, centralized inverter. These shortcomings include system-wide failure if the central inverter fails, non-uniform performance dictated by the weakest solar module, and costly, labor-intensive wiring (’133 Patent, col. 1:36-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of multiple, smaller "smart" inverters, each connected to one or more DC power sources (e.g., solar panels). These inverters can be connected to each other in a "daisy chain" to create a scalable system where total AC power output is the sum of the power supplied by each individual inverter (’133 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-65). This modular design is intended to simplify installation and improve system resilience and efficiency (’133 Patent, col. 2:58-65).
• Technical Importance: This distributed, modular architecture aimed to overcome the single-point-of-failure and performance-bottleneck issues of centralized inverters, offering greater flexibility and efficiency for solar installations (’133 Patent, col. 1:36-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 15 and 19 (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9).
• Independent Claim 15 (System Claim) essential elements include:
  • A plurality of power inverters, each with at least two DC input ports, an AC input port, and an AC output port.
  • The AC output port of each inverter is connected in a "daisy chain" to the AC input port of the next inverter.
  • The system is "incrementally scalable" by adding or subtracting DC power sources and daisy-chained inverters.
• Independent Claim 19 (Method Claim) essential elements include:
  • Providing a plurality of DC power sources and a plurality of multi-port DC to AC power inverters.
  • Connecting at least one DC power source to each DC input port.
  • Providing AC power to the power grid.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 1-14, 16-18, and 20-24 (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10).

U.S. Patent No. 9,331,489 - "Maximizing Power Production at Low Sunlight by Solar Power Mini-Inverters," Issued May 3, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem where conventional solar inverters shut down in low-light conditions (e.g., sunrise, sunset, partial shading) because the solar panel cannot produce enough DC power to both run the inverter's own electronics and generate AC power, resulting in lost power generation opportunities (’489 Patent, col. 3:1-14, col. 3:64-4:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-channel inverter that, in low-light conditions, can enter a "low power mode." In this mode, it dedicates one of its input channels to draw a small amount of DC power from its connected solar panel solely to power the inverter's internal electronics. This allows the inverter to use the power from the remaining channels to continue generating AC power for the grid, rather than shutting down completely (’489 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:20-41).
• Technical Importance: This solution allows solar inverters to operate for longer periods each day, capturing energy during low-irradiance conditions that would otherwise be lost, thereby increasing the total energy yield of the system (’489 Patent, col. 1:61-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16).
• Independent Claim 14 (System Claim) essential elements include:
  • At least two DC input channels, each with a DC-DC boost converter.
  • An AC power output port to supply power to a grid.
  • A DC power combiner for the output from the DC-DC boost converters.
  • A digital microcontroller to run the inverter in a normal or low power mode.
  • A DC power supply configured to take power from a "dedicated input channel" to power the inverter's electronics when the microcontroller detects input power is below a pre-determined value.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 1-13, 15, and 16 (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Aptos MAC 800R microinverter and systems incorporating it (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the MAC 800R is a microinverter used in solar power systems to convert DC power from solar panels to AC power for the grid (Compl. ¶9).
• It is described as having at least two DC input ports, an AC input port, and an AC output port, allowing multiple units to be connected in a "daisy chain" to form a scalable system (Compl. ¶9, p. 4). This diagram, sourced from the product's user manual, shows multiple MAC 800R inverters connected in series via their AC cables. (Compl. ¶9, p. 4).
• The complaint points to product literature indicating the system is scalable, with a "Maximum units per branch" specification of 4 or 5 (Compl. ¶9, p. 5).
• The product is also alleged to feature Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) to optimize power output (Compl. ¶16, p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’133 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The claim requires connection "in a daisy chain." The complaint alleges this is met by connecting the AC output of one inverter to the AC input of the next. The defense may argue that the accused product's connection is a parallel tap onto a common AC trunk cable, which may not meet the patent's specific definition of a daisy-chain connection (col. 4:58-65).
  • Scope Question: Does the "incrementally scalable" limitation in the "whereby" clause impose a distinct functional requirement, and if so, is it met by a product specification that merely lists a maximum number of units per branch?

’489 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint repeatedly infers the existence of internal components (DC-DC boost converter, DC power combiner, microcontroller) based on the product’s external features and marketing claims (e.g., number of ports, MPPT capability). A central question will be whether these allegations are sufficiently supported by factual evidence or are merely conclusory.
  • Technical Question: The core of the infringement allegation for claim 14 rests on the inverter having a specific low-power mode where one channel is dedicated to powering the unit's electronics. The complaint provides no direct evidence that the accused MAC 800R operates in this specific manner. The case may depend entirely on whether discovery reveals this specific internal architecture and control logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "daisy chain" (’133 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed system architecture in the ’133 Patent. The definition will determine whether the accused product's method of connecting multiple inverters to a common AC trunk line meets the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that while inverters are in a "daisy chain," the "actual connection... is pass-through. That means, the generated AC power from each power inverter is added in parallel onto the AC powerline" (’133 Patent, col. 4:58-63). This could support an argument that any parallel connection to a common AC line qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself recites "said AC power output port of each power inverter being connected in a daisy chain to the AC power input port of the next power inverter" (’133 Patent, col. 12:46-49). This, along with figures like Fig. 3, suggests a specific serial, port-to-port physical connection, which may be narrower than any parallel connection.

Term 2: "a DC power supply... configured to take DC power from a dedicated input channel" (’489 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core inventive concept of the ’489 Patent—the specific mechanism for self-powering in low-light conditions. The entire infringement case for this patent may hinge on whether the accused product has a power supply with this exact configuration and function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for this analysis.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this feature in detail: "In the low power mode, the digital microcontroller... will select a channel... so that it stops pulling power from its connected solar panel... for AC power generation. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the DC power from solar panel 18 can pass through the DC converter 26 and DC power combiner 32, and enter DC power supply 36" (’489 Patent, col. 5:31-38). This language describes a specific, active control process and power path that may be construed as a narrow functional requirement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It claims Defendant actively encourages infringement by providing product manuals, brochures, and other materials that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., by connecting them in a daisy chain) (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 17, 18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 17, 18). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 12, ¶ e).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Inference: For the ’489 Patent, a threshold issue will be whether the complaint's infringement theory, which infers the existence and specific configuration of multiple internal components (a power combiner, a microcontroller, and a unique low-light power supply) from high-level marketing claims, meets federal pleading standards or will be deemed conclusory.
2. A Definitional Question of Connection: For the ’133 Patent, the dispute may center on the scope of the term "daisy chain." The key question is whether this term requires a specific physical port-to-port series connection, as some patent language suggests, or if it can be read more broadly to cover the accused product's apparent parallel connection to a common AC trunk cable.
3. A Technical Question of Operation: The viability of the infringement claim against the ’489 Patent will ultimately depend on a question of technical fact: does the accused MAC 800R inverter actually implement the specific low-power mode claimed, where it dedicates one input channel to power its own electronics while using others to generate AC power? The complaint provides no direct evidence of this functionality.