DCT

6:25-cv-00494

Roadway Retail LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Roadway Retail LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00494, W.D. Tex., 10/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target and conduct business with consumers in Texas through interactive e-commerce stores, ship products to Texas, and accept payment in U.S. dollars.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ illuminating mirrors for car visors infringe a patent related to a portable, sensor-activated illumination device.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns portable electronic devices with automatic, sensor-based lighting, a common feature in consumer goods such as cosmetic accessories and portable electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventors to Schrims GmbH in 2013 and subsequently assigned to Brainstream GmbH in 2015. Plaintiff Roadway Retail LLC is identified as the exclusive licensee with full rights to enforce the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-03 ’261 Patent Priority Date
2013-03-20 ’261 Patent assigned to Schrims GmbH
2015-10-23 ’261 Patent assigned to Brainstream GmbH
2015-11-24 ’261 Patent Issued
2024-06-01 Alleged first availability of Plaintiff's "Roadway Products"
2025-10-22 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,198,261, "Illuminating Device," issued November 24, 2015 (the "’261 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies challenges with portable illuminated objects, such as cosmetic mirrors stored in a purse. Such devices can be difficult to find in the dark, and once found, their lights may be inadvertently activated by other objects in the bag, leading to rapid battery discharge (’261 Patent, col. 1:21-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an illumination device, often for an object that can be opened and closed (like a makeup compact), that uses a sensor system to manage power. A first sensor detects motion or a user's touch, activating a light source so the object can be easily located. A separate, second sensor detects when the object is opened, which then activates the same or a second light source to illuminate the object’s contents or a mirror (’261 Patent, col. 1:36-54; Fig. 1). The complaint reproduces a diagrammatic view of this device from the patent's Figure 1 (Compl. ¶10). This dual-sensor approach aims to provide illumination only when actively sought or in use.
  • Technical Importance: The described solution provides context-aware illumination for portable objects, aiming to improve user experience while conserving energy from the "electric energy storage device" (’261 Patent, col. 1:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (’261 Patent, col. 7:1-17; Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of claim 19 are:
    • An illumination device for an object that can be opened and closed.
    • At least a first light source and an electric energy storage device.
    • A switch device with a control unit and a sensor unit.
    • A dimmer "actuatable by the control unit" to reduce power to the light source.
    • The light source is supplied with power when a "first sensor" of the sensor unit is touched or detects motion.
    • The "first sensor" includes a "capacitive sensor."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "illuminating mirrors configured to be mounted to car visors" (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these products are sold by numerous foreign entities through various online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶¶2, 6). The complaint states that screenshots of each Defendant offering the Infringing Products are included in a "Schedule A-2," and a comparison of the products to claim 19 is provided in a "Schedule A-1" (Compl. ¶6). These schedules were not attached to the publicly filed complaint document.

Without the referenced schedules, the complaint offers limited technical detail on the specific functionality of the accused mirrors beyond the general allegation that they practice the elements of claim 19 of the ’261 Patent (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Schedule A-1) that was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶6). The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe at least claim 19 of the ’261 Patent by "making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering to sell the Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶30). These products are described as "illuminating mirrors" for car visors that incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶3). The complaint reproduces Figure 1 from the patent, which shows a diagram of the claimed illumination device, to illustrate the patented configuration (Compl. ¶10). However, the complaint does not provide a corresponding diagram or description of the accused product's internal circuitry to show how it allegedly maps to the claimed elements.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused car visor mirrors contain the specific components recited in claim 19. For instance, does the touch or proximity activation feature in the accused products operate using a "capacitive sensor" as the claim requires, or does it use a different technology (e.g., an infrared or simple mechanical switch)?
  • Scope Questions: The claim recites a "dimmer that is actuatable by the control unit." A likely point of dispute is whether the accused products' lighting controls meet this limitation. Does a simple on/off switch or a multi-level brightness setting (e.g., low/medium/high) constitute a "dimmer" that can "abruptly or steadily" reduce power, or does the term imply continuous, variable control?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "dimmer that is actuatable by the control unit" (claim 19)

  • Context and Importance: The presence and functionality of a "dimmer" is a specific limitation in the asserted claim. The definition of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the invention from a device with a simple on/off power switch.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the dimmer as enabling power to be "abruptly or steadily reduced down to zero" (’261 Patent, col. 3:20-24). This language could support a construction that includes abrupt power-off functions, potentially encompassing sophisticated on/off switches.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "dimmer" itself, along with the phrase "steadily reduced," suggests a capability for gradual or variable light intensity control, not just a binary on/off state. An argument could be made that the term requires more than a simple switch.

The Term: "capacitive sensor" (claim 19)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 19 explicitly requires that the "first sensor" (for detecting touch or motion) includes a "capacitive sensor." This is a specific technological requirement. Infringement will hinge on whether the accused products employ this type of sensor technology.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide evidence supporting a broad interpretation. The term is precise.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification lists a "pyrosensor" and an "ultrasonic sensor" as alternative motion detectors in a separate, non-asserted claim's context (’261 Patent, col. 2:56-59). The explicit choice of "capacitive sensor" in claim 19 suggests a deliberate limitation to that specific technology, potentially excluding other types of touch or proximity sensors.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a passing reference to products that "infringe... indirectly" (Compl. ¶29) but does not plead specific facts required to support claims for induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge, intent, or the absence of substantial non-infringing uses.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "is and has been willful" (Compl. ¶25) and requests treble damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D). The basis alleged is that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in offering the products for sale (Compl. ¶24), but it does not allege any pre-suit notice or knowledge of the ’261 Patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What evidence will be produced to show that the accused car visor mirrors, sold by a diffuse group of online sellers, actually contain the specific combination of a "capacitive sensor" for activation and a "dimmer" for power reduction, as explicitly required by the asserted claim? The complaint's lack of attached exhibits makes this a primary open question.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the term "dimmer," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the power control circuitry found in mass-market consumer electronics, which may only provide discrete brightness levels or a simple on/off function, or is it limited to technology that allows for continuous, steady reduction of light?