Kortek Industries Pty Ltd v. Shenzhen Sonoff Tech Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kortek Industries Pty Ltd. (Australia)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Sonoff Technologies Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Spencer Fane LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00540, W.D. Tex., 05/26/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in, and directed product sales to, the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s WiFi-enabled smart home devices infringe five U.S. patents related to wireless power, light, and automation control systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the Internet of Things (IoT) domain, specifically concerning methods and systems for wirelessly controlling electrical devices without relying on a central network access point.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,465,377 - "Wireless power, light and automation control"

• Issued: October 11, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of conventional Wi-Fi-based home automation systems, which typically rely on a central wireless Access Point (AP). This creates a single point of failure; if the AP is disabled or overloaded, the entire automation system fails (US 9,465,377 Patent, col. 1:46-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a power control device that establishes a direct, peer-to-peer wireless communication link with a controller, such as a smartphone, thereby eliminating the need for a central AP (’377 Patent, Abstract). The device's microprocessor is configured to establish this link using one of two methods: either by "simulating a Wi-Fi access point" to connect with older "legacy" Wi-Fi controllers, or by "negotiating" with a modern Wi-Fi Direct-capable controller to determine which device will act as the "group owner" for the peer-to-peer connection (’377 Patent, col. 3:20-29).
• Technical Importance: This dual-mode approach was designed to increase the reliability and simplify the setup of smart home devices by removing dependence on a central network router.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A power control device for controlling an electrical apparatus through a peer-to-peer link with a controller (e.g., a smartphone).
  • The device includes a microprocessor, a power control circuit to vary electricity supply, and a wireless communications transceiver.
  • The microprocessor is configured to open the peer-to-peer link by one of two alternative methods:
    1. "simulating a Wi-Fi access point if the controller is a legacy Wi-Fi device"; or
    2. "negotiating with the controller as to which... will assume a group owner role if the controller is a Wi-Fi Direct device."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶27).

---

U.S. Patent No. 9,590,427 - "Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system"

• Issued: March 7, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’427 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’377 Patent: the unreliability and complexity of home automation systems that depend on a central wireless Access Point (US 9,590,427 Patent, col. 1:46-55).
• The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming a device, this patent claims a method for remotely controlling an electrical apparatus. The core of the method is the step of "opening a secure two-way, peer-to-peer wireless communications link" between a controller and the power control device (’427 Patent, Abstract). This "opening" step mirrors the functionality of the ’377 Patent's device, requiring either "assigning a Wi-Fi access point role" to the power device for legacy controllers or "negotiating" a "Wi-Fi Direct group owner role" for modern controllers (’427 Patent, col. 3:35-48). The method further includes the steps of displaying device status, transmitting a command, and varying the electricity supply.
• Technical Importance: The patent protects the process of using a device to achieve the simplified and more reliable peer-to-peer control architecture.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for remotely controlling an electrical apparatus.
  • Opening a secure, two-way, peer-to-peer wireless link between a controller and a power control device.
  • The link opening step includes one of two alternative actions:
    1. "assigning a Wi-Fi access point role to the power control device if the controller is not utilizing Wi-Fi Direct"; or
    2. "negotiating between the power control device and the controller which... will assume a Wi-Fi Direct group owner role" if the controller is utilizing Wi-Fi Direct.
  • Displaying a status of the power control device on the controller's user interface.
  • Transmitting a command from the controller to the device to vary the supply of electricity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶39).

---

U.S. Patent No. 9,923,376 - "Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,923,376, "Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system," issued March 20, 2018 (Compl. ¶14).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a power control system that comprises both the controller and the power control unit. The system is characterized by the power control unit's ability to operate in two distinct modes: a peer-to-peer communications mode (e.g., Wi-Fi Direct) and a non-peer-to-peer mode where it connects to a standard wireless local area network (WLAN) (US 9,923,376 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 12 (Compl. ¶51).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's WiFi-enabled products and the associated control systems of infringement (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 10,429,869 - "Wireless power, light and automation control"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,429,869, "Wireless power, light and automation control," issued October 1, 2019 (Compl. ¶15).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a power control device configured for peer-to-peer communication. A key limitation requires the device's microprocessor to be configured to always send a discovery message to initiate contact with a controller and to operate by simulating a network access point to establish the link (US 10,429,869 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's WiFi-enabled products of infringing by making, using, and selling devices with the claimed functionality (Compl. ¶63).

U.S. Patent No. 10,862,313 - "Adaptable Wireless Power, Light and Automation System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,862,313, "Adaptable Wireless Power, Light and Automation System," issued December 8, 2020 (Compl. ¶16).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a controller for controlling a light. The controller contains a wireless module that is configured to operate in a first, peer-to-peer communications mode and a second, non-peer-to-peer (WLAN) mode, and is further configured to change between these modes upon receiving instructions from the user (US 10,862,313 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
• Accused Features: The infringement allegation targets Defendant’s accused products, which includes both the hardware devices and the software/apps used to control them (Compl. ¶19, ¶75).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "WiFi-enabled devices," providing a non-limiting list that includes the "Sonoff Smart Switch, Sonoff Mini, WiFi Smart Plug, Lite Smart Plug, Slampher R2 and ZB Bridge products" (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are described as Internet of Things (IoT) devices that allow users to "securely monitor, control and automate the power supplied to electrical equipment through a local wireless network or cloud platform" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint identifies the Accused Products for sale in the United States via a hyperlink to an online storefront (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶37, ¶49, ¶61, ¶73, ¶85). The infringement theories are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

• ’377 and ’427 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe the claims of the ’377 Patent (device) and ’427 Patent (method) (Compl. ¶27, ¶39). The core of the infringement theory is that the Accused Products contain the necessary components (microprocessor, power control circuit, wireless transceiver) and perform the key claimed function of establishing a direct, peer-to-peer wireless link with a controller, such as a user's smartphone. This connection is allegedly made by either "simulating a Wi-Fi access point" to connect with legacy devices or "negotiating" a "group owner role" for Wi-Fi Direct-capable devices, thereby practicing the central limitations of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be whether the Accused Products’ firmware actually implements the dual-mode, peer-to-peer connection logic required by the claims. The dispute may center on evidence of whether the products can, in fact, "simulate a Wi-Fi access point" for direct connection, or if they operate exclusively as standard Wi-Fi clients that must connect through an existing network router.
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the connection protocols used by the Accused Products fall within the scope of claim terms like "simulating a Wi-Fi access point" and "negotiating... a group owner role," as those terms are used and defined within the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "simulating a Wi-Fi access point" (asserted in claims of the ’377, ’427, and ’869 Patents)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to one of the two alternative methods for establishing the claimed peer-to-peer link. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the Accused Products’ functionality meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its products operate only as standard Wi-Fi clients and do not perform the functions of an "access point."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating that "simulating an access point" (or variations thereof) refers to a role in which a discovery message is sent in order to initiate contact with another device” (’869 Patent, col. 3:30-32). Plaintiff may argue this broad definition covers any device that broadcasts its availability for a direct connection.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes this functionality in the specific context of Wi-Fi Direct, which can "appear to legacy Wi-Fi devices, such as smartphones, as a Wi-Fi Access Point" (’869 Patent, col. 6:40-44). Defendant may argue this ties the term to a more specific technical implementation that fully emulates the behavior of a standard AP.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for all five patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials" that encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶28, ¶40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents "since at least the date of this Complaint" and its continued infringing activities thereafter (e.g., Compl. ¶30-31, ¶42-43).

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

This case will likely depend on the resolution of two central questions:

• A core issue will be one of technical operation: Do the accused Sonoff products function exclusively as standard Wi-Fi clients that connect through a home’s central router, or does their firmware also include the specific logic required by the patents to "simulate a Wi-Fi access point" and establish a direct, peer-to-peer link with a controller?
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the term "simulating a Wi-Fi access point," which the patents describe in the context of specific standards like Wi-Fi Direct, be construed broadly enough to read on the actual connection protocols implemented in the accused Sonoff devices?