CyboEnergy Inc v. Altenergy Power System USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CyboEnergy, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01136, W.D. Tex., 10/28/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s power inverters infringe patents related to scalable, daisy-chainable power inverter systems and a method for maximizing power generation in low-light conditions.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of module-level power electronics (MLPE), which involve using small inverters for individual or small groups of solar panels to improve the overall efficiency, reliability, and scalability of solar power systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the patents-in-suit since at least October 15, 2021, the filing date of a separate lawsuit against Sensata, Inc. that allegedly involved Defendant's inverters.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 - “Smart and Scalable Power Inverters” (Issued Jul. 22, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies several shortcomings of traditional solar power systems that use a single, large, centralized inverter. These include the entire system failing if the inverter fails, high cost and installation complexity, and reduced power output for the entire system if even one solar panel is shaded or underperforming (’133 Patent, col. 1:31-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular and scalable system using multiple "smart" power inverters. Instead of wiring all solar panels to one central inverter, individual or small groups of panels connect to their own smaller inverter. These inverters are then connected in a "daisy chain" on the AC side, where their power outputs are combined in parallel onto the main AC powerline ('133 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-col. 4:4). This design aims to simplify installation, improve fault tolerance (a single failed inverter does not shut down the system), and enable panel-level optimization ('133 Patent, col. 4:1-9).
• Technical Importance: This distributed architecture was designed to provide "great scalability and flexibility to easily and cost-effectively install a photovoltaic solar power system with optimal power generation efficiency" ('133 Patent, col. 1:59-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-24, which includes independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • A plurality of power inverters, each having one DC input port, 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.
  • Each inverter includes internal components such as a DC-DC boost converter, a DC-AC inverter, an internal AC powerline, a load interface circuit, and a microcontroller (MFA microcontroller) for control and optimization functions like Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

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: Solar inverters require a minimum DC voltage from the solar panels to power their own internal control electronics. In low-light conditions (like sunrise, sunset, or partial shading), the panel voltage can drop below this threshold, forcing the inverter to shut down and lose potential power generation time (’489 Patent, col. 3:52-col. 4:21).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a multi-channel inverter that can operate in a special "low power mode." When the microcontroller detects that input power is below a predetermined value, it reconfigures the system. It selects one input channel and its connected solar panel to be "dedicated to supply DC power to the DC power supply" for the inverter's internal electronics ('489 Patent, col. 11:47-54). The remaining channels can then continue to invert whatever small amount of power they receive and send it to the grid, rather than the entire unit shutting down ('489 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:25-53).
• Technical Importance: This approach is intended to "significantly reduce the required startup and shutdown irradiance and DC power for the solar power inverter...and allow the inverter to run in power generation mode for a few more hours each day" ('489 Patent, col. 2:62-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-16, which includes independent claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 14 (Compl. ¶15).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a multiple-channel DC-to-AC power inverter comprising:
  • At least two DC power input ports.
  • An AC power output port.
  • Internal components including DC-DC boost converters for each port, a DC power combiner, a DC-AC inverter, and a digital microcontroller.
  • A DC power supply configured with one input channel and its solar panel "dedicated to supply DC power to the DC power supply when the digital microcontroller detects that calculated input power is below a pre-determined value."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "power inverters" that Defendant "maintains, operates, manufactures, offers for sale and sells" (Compl. ¶8, ¶15). These are referred to generally as the "Accused Products/Systems" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused power inverters are used in systems that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶8, ¶15). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details on the design, architecture, or operational modes of the accused APsystems inverters. The allegations are framed in terms of the inverters performing the functions recited in the patent claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits A and B) that were not included with the filed complaint document; therefore, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

• '133 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that APsystems infringes by making, using, and selling power inverters that are used in systems embodying the claimed invention (Compl. ¶8). The core of this allegation is that Defendant's inverters are installed in a "daisy chain" configuration, as described in claims like independent claim 1, to create a scalable solar power system where the AC power from multiple inverters is combined.
• '489 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that APsystems' multi-channel power inverters infringe by implementing the claimed low-power operating mode (Compl. ¶15). The theory is that when the accused inverters detect low sunlight, they dedicate the power from one connected solar panel to run their internal electronics, while using the power from the remaining panels to continue generating AC power for the grid, as recited in claims like independent claim 1.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions ('133 Patent): A primary question will be whether the physical and electrical connections of the accused APsystems inverters, when installed, meet the "daisy chain" limitation of the claims. The patent describes connecting the "AC power output port of each inverter...to the AC power input port of the next inverter" ('133 Patent, cl. 1(b)). The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused products are wired in this specific serial manner or if they simply connect in parallel to a common AC bus, and whether the latter arrangement falls within the scope of the claims.
  • Functional Questions ('489 Patent): The infringement analysis will turn on an evidentiary question: does the accused inverter's control logic actually perform the claimed low-power function? The court will require evidence showing that the accused inverter, upon detecting low input power, reconfigures one of its DC input channels to be "dedicated to supply DC power" to its internal electronics while the other channels continue AC power generation, as required by the claims ('489 Patent, cl. 1(l)).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "connected in a daisy chain" (’133 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted system claims of the '133 patent, defining the core architecture of the invention. Whether the accused systems infringe will depend heavily on the construction of this phrase.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "actual connection of the inverters is pass-through. That means, the generated AC power from each power inverter is added in parallel onto the AC powerline" ('133 Patent, col. 4:60-64). This language could be used to argue that any configuration resulting in a parallel combination of AC power on a shared line meets the "daisy chain" requirement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is specific, requiring the "AC power output port of each inverter" to be connected "to the AC power input port of the next inverter" ('133 Patent, cl. 1(b)). Patent figures like Fig. 3 depict distinct AC input (51) and output (52) ports. This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific physical, sequential wiring from one unit's output to the next unit's input.

• The Term: "dedicated to supply DC power to the DC power supply" (’489 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the unique functionality of the claimed low-power mode in the '489 patent. Infringement hinges on whether a channel in the accused inverter is exclusively re-tasked in this manner. Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes a specific change in the inverter's operational state.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue the term is met if the inverter's logic simply prioritizes drawing power from one panel to run its electronics in low-light conditions, without necessarily ceasing all other functions for that channel.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a complete change in function for the selected channel. It states the microcontroller controls the corresponding boost converter "so that it stops pulling power from its connected solar panel for AC power generation" ('489 Patent, col. 5:31-35). This suggests the channel is fully repurposed and ceases to perform its power generation function, supporting a more limited definition of "dedicated."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant allegedly encouraging and instructing customers on how to use the accused inverters in an infringing manner through "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials" (Compl. ¶10, ¶17). The contributory infringement allegation adds that the accused inverters are a material part of the invention and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶11, ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit against Sensata, Inc of October 15, 2021, as Sensata used APsystems inverters" (Compl. ¶10, ¶17). The complaint seeks treble damages as a result (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

This dispute appears to center on highly specific questions of architecture and function. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue for the '133 patent will be one of architectural scope: does the term "connected in a daisy chain," which the patent specification links to distinct input and output ports, read on the actual installation and connection method of the accused APsystems inverters?
2. A key evidentiary question for the '489 patent will be one of operational function: does the accused multi-channel inverter possess and execute the specific low-power mode claimed, where it detects low irradiance and dedicates one of its input channels to exclusively power its internal electronics while the other channels continue to generate AC power?
3. Finally, the viability of the indirect and willful infringement claims will likely depend on a factual determination of knowledge: what specific information regarding the patents-in-suit was known to the Defendant as a result of the prior Sensata litigation, and did that knowledge rise to the level required to establish intent?