Creekview IP LLC v. Zagg Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Creekview IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Zagg Inc. (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01104, W.D. Tex., 10/25/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in the district and is incorporated in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless charging product infringes a patent related to systems for wirelessly transferring power after an authorization step.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns wireless power transfer technology, specifically the communication and authorization protocols between a charging base (master) and a device being charged (slave).
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer over a parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,686,685. This may limit the enforceable term of the patent and could create a common basis for invalidity arguments if the parent patent is challenged.

Case Timeline

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 describes shortcomings of prior art wireless power methods, including the short-range limitations of non-resonant induction and the non-directive nature of both resonant and non-resonant induction, which can lead to unwanted human exposure to magnetic fields (’472 Patent, col. 1:25-43). It also notes that existing standards do not address the process of charging slave devices before communicating with them (’472 Patent, col. 3:9-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system comprising a "master" device and a "slave" device, where the master authenticates the slave before providing power (’472 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-9). The slave transmits identifying information to the master, which compares it to a list of authorized devices. Only upon a successful match does the master transmit power, either via radio frequency (RF) beams or magnetic induction (’472 Patent, col. 4:1-9; Fig. 5). This authentication-first approach is intended to control which devices receive power.
• Technical Importance: The technology combines the functions of device identification, authorization, and wireless power transfer, aiming to create a more controlled and efficient charging ecosystem than simple, non-selective power transmission (’472 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 19 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 19 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 to the master device, energy from the master device; and
  • generating power from the wireless energy received from the master device for use by a set of electronic circuitry of the slave device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Zagg Mophie Snap+ Wireless Charger (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes an image of the wireless charging puck and its connected USB cable (Compl. p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a wireless charger that operates in compliance with the Qi standard (Compl. ¶18). When a Qi-compatible device (e.g., a smartphone) is placed on it, the product acts as a "power transmitter" that engages in an identification and verification process with the device (the "power receiver") before transferring power (Compl. ¶18). The product is marketed for its convenience in providing portable power and wireless charging (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exemplary Infringement Chart" in Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

’972 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint outlines its infringement theory for method claim 19 by mapping the roles of the Accused Product and a compatible Qi device to the "master" and "slave" roles of the patent (Compl. ¶18). It alleges that a Qi-compatible device (the slave) transmits an "identification" to the Accused Product (the master) for "identification and verification." Following this verification, the Accused Product wirelessly transmits energy, which the Qi device receives and uses to generate power. The complaint asserts this sequence of operations, which occurs when the Accused Product is used as intended, practices all steps of method claim 19 (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A central question will be whether the standard communication protocol of the Qi standard, which the complaint alleges the Accused Product follows, performs the specific step of "determining authorization" as required by claim 19. The defense may argue that the Qi handshake is for establishing technical compatibility and power level negotiation, not "authorization" in the sense of a security or access-control check.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the "slave device identification" recited in the claim can be read to cover the type of signals exchanged during a standard Qi-compliant handshake. The patent specification lists examples such as MAC IDs and serial numbers, which may or may not be part of the Qi protocol's initial handshake (’472 Patent, col. 4:63-65).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "slave device identification"
• Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether the initial signals sent from a Qi-compatible device to the Accused Product constitute a "slave device identification" for the purpose of "determining authorization." The construction of this term will define whether routine, standards-based interoperability checks fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the primary link between the accused Qi-standard functionality and the patented method.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of what identifying information could include: "MAC ID, network Internet protocol (IP) address, name, serial number, product name and manufacturer, capabilities, etc." (’472 Patent, col. 4:63-65). This broad list could support an interpretation that covers any unique signal used for identification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the identification process in the context of security and control, such as preventing "non-authorized masters (or networked servers) from trying to charge" a slave device (’472 Patent, col. 4:5-9). This context suggests the "identification" is for a specific security-related "authorization," potentially distinguishing it from a standard interoperability handshake.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. Count II). The factual basis is that Defendant provides the Accused Product along with "downloadable instructional guides" that encourage and instruct end-users to use the product with Qi-compatible devices in a manner that directly infringes method claim 19 (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of the ’472 Patent "since at least the filing of this complaint" (Compl. ¶22). This forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement, for which Plaintiff seeks enhanced damages (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶B).

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

1. Authorization vs. Interoperability: A core issue will be one of functional distinction: does the accused product's use of the Qi standard's handshake protocol, which verifies compatibility, constitute the specific claimed step of "determining authorization," or is the patent's authorization requirement a distinct, security-oriented step not present in the accused system?
2. Claim Scope and Public Standards: A key question for the court will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "slave device identification," as used in the context of the patent, be construed to cover the standardized signals used for device discovery and power negotiation in the ubiquitous Qi ecosystem? The outcome will likely depend on whether the patent is seen as claiming a specific security overlay or the fundamental process of a standardized charging handshake itself.