NewFlux v. Zagg

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NewFlux, LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: Zagg Inc. (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Budo Law P.C.; Wasatch-IP, A Professional Corp.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00033, D. Utah, 03/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Zagg Inc. maintaining a regular and established place of business in the District of Utah.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pro Keys" line of keyboard cases for Apple iPads infringes two patents related to protective and positionable covers for portable electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves multi-functional protective cases for tablet computers that use magnetic components to provide a detachable cover and a highly adjustable viewing stand.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between the parties, beginning in 2014, under a non-disclosure agreement. During this period, Plaintiff allegedly disclosed its technology, prototypes, and a pending patent application to Defendant. The complaint asserts that after Defendant declined a business relationship, it launched a product line with a "nearly identical design," which forms the basis for the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-12-05	Earliest Priority Date for '903 and '756 Patents
2014-06-16	Plaintiff allegedly provides pending patent application to Defendant
2014-07-09	Plaintiff and Defendant allegedly enter into a non-disclosure agreement
2014-07-21	Plaintiff allegedly provides prototypes and other trade secrets to Defendant
2014-08-27	Defendant allegedly informs Plaintiff it is not interested in licensing
2015-09-15	U.S. Patent No. 9,131,756 issues
2016-12-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,511,903 issues
2023-10-23	Plaintiff allegedly sends notice letter to Defendant regarding infringement
2025-03-17	Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,511,903 - "Covering, protecting, and positioning a portable electronic device," issued December 6, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art protective covers for electronic devices as often being "bulky and cumbersome" or failing to offer complete protection, while also providing only "pre-set and not customizable" viewing angles ('903 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a protective cover system featuring an "articulating member" (e.g., a flap) that magnetically and detachably fastens to a component on the back of the electronic device. This articulating member props up the device, while a "display protector" portion of the cover provides a "contact surface" for the device to rest on, enabling a wide range of stable viewing positions ('903 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a single product that combines comprehensive device protection with a lightweight, highly versatile, and easily removable stand mechanism. ('903 Patent, col. 1:52-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A "display protector" that provides a "contact surface" to support the device.
  • An "articulating member" connected to the display protector that props up the device.
  • The articulating member has a "fastening component" that "detachably fastens" to a "compatible fastening component" on the device's backside.
  • The display protector includes a "fastening region" along its contact surface that is "detachably coupleable" with components on a "peripheral edge" of the display or a back cover.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,131,756 - "Device covering, protecting, and positioning a portable electronic device," issued September 15, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the '903 Patent, noting that existing solutions can be inconvenient, offer poor protection, or limit user viewing options ('756 Patent, col. 1:29-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention solves these problems using a similar protective cover system with a magnetic, articulating stand. The core concept involves a display protector that covers the screen for transport and then folds to become a stable base, an articulating member that props up the device, and a system of magnetic fasteners and components that secure the assembly in various positions ('756 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:58-67).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows a user to securely position a device at a nearly unlimited number of viewing angles on various surfaces, a significant improvement over cases with fixed-angle stands ('756 Patent, col. 5:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A "display protector" providing a "contact surface".
  • An "articulating member" connected to the display protector that props up the device.
  • The articulating member includes a "magnetic fastener" that "magnetically detachably fastens" to a "compatible magnetic component" on the device's backside.
  • The display protector includes one or more "magnetic strips" extending along it.
  • These magnetic strips are "magnetically coupleable" with "compatible magnetic components" situated along a "peripheral edge" of the display or a back cover.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are the "Zagg Pro Keys" line of iPad cases, which includes various models for different iPad generations, both with and without an integrated trackpad (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are keyboard cases for iPads, which the complaint alleges have a "nearly identical design" to Plaintiff's "FluxFlap" product (Compl. ¶29). Functionally, they provide a protective enclosure and a keyboard, and the case holding the iPad can be detached from the keyboard cover. The cover can be folded to act as a stand, supporting the iPad at multiple viewing angles (Compl. ¶¶44, 65). The complaint references a YouTube video demonstrating these features (Compl. ¶44, fn. 5). It also cites Zagg’s product webpages for advertising and instructions on how to use the allegedly infringing features (Compl. ¶44, fn. 1).
• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are commercially significant, as evidenced by the extensive list of models offered for numerous generations of iPads and iPad Pros (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits D and E, which were not available for this analysis. The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the complaint's narrative allegations and referenced materials.

'903 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that the Zagg Pro Keys products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’903 Patent (Compl. ¶¶37, 39). The infringement theory appears to map the claimed elements onto the accused product's structure: the detachable case holding the iPad is the "back cover component," the keyboard/cover section is the "display protector" and "articulating member," and magnets are used for both the detachable connection and for propping the iPad at various angles by securing the case edge to the cover surface (Compl. ¶44). The complaint points to Zagg’s own marketing and instructional materials as evidence of infringement (Compl. ¶44).

'756 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The infringement theory for the ’756 Patent is parallel to that for the '903 Patent, alleging that the Accused Products meet all limitations of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶58, 60). The allegations contend that the Zagg Pro Keys products contain a "display protector" with "magnetic strips" and an "articulating member" with a "magnetic fastener" that interact with "compatible magnetic components" on the device case to form a versatile stand, as claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶65).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the language of the claims, written to describe a cover with a simple contact surface, can be construed to read on the more complex surface of a keyboard. For instance, does the Zagg keyboard surface function as the claimed "contact surface" for supporting the device, and can the keyboard itself be considered a "display protector" within the meaning of the patent?
• Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the specific placement and function of the magnets in the Zagg Pro Keys products. A key factual question is whether the Accused Products utilize magnets along the "peripheral edge" of the iPad case to couple with "magnetic strips" on the cover in the specific manner required by the claims, or if they employ a different magnetic arrangement that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "display protector"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claims. Its construction will be critical because the accused product is a keyboard case. Whether a functional keyboard can be considered a "display protector" that provides a "contact surface" will likely be a central point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The specification states its function is to "substantially cover a display" ('756 Patent, col. 2:59-62), which a keyboard cover does.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "contact surface" of the display protector as comprising a "non-scratching microfiber material" with a "texturized surface" (e.g., a "ribbed surface texture") to facilitate "micro-adjustments" of the viewing angle ('756 Patent, col. 2:64-67; col. 15:57-65). This language may support a narrower construction that excludes a plastic keyboard with keys.

The Term: "articulating member"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the part of the invention that props up the device. How this functional language maps to the physical structure of the Zagg product's folding cover is key to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the member by its function: "configured to prop up the portable electronic device when the display protector is articulated to the viewing position" ('756 Patent, col. 2:2-4). This could be argued to encompass any folding structure that achieves this result.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures disclose a specific flap-like structure (element 108 in Fig. 1B) with distinct sub-components like an "arm portion" and a "tilt portion" connected by joints ('756 Patent, col. 9:49-67). This may suggest the term requires a more specific structure than a simple hinged cover.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant's advertisements, product webpages, and instructional videos actively encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶43-44, 64-65). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the products have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶48, 69).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant was aware of the technology as early as June 16, 2014, when it received Plaintiff's pending patent application, and was again notified via letter on October 23, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶50, 71). The allegation that Defendant developed a "nearly identical" product after being given access to Plaintiff's confidential information under an NDA provides a strong basis for the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶¶29, 51).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "display protector", described in the patent specification with a "non-scratching microfiber" contact surface, be construed to read on the functional keyboard surface of the accused Zagg Pro Keys products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: Does the magnetic system in the Accused Products operate in the specific manner claimed—requiring coupling between "magnetic strips" on the cover and "compatible magnetic components" on the "peripheral edge" of the device's case—or is there a functional or structural mismatch?
• Given the detailed allegations of a prior relationship and technology disclosure under an NDA, a central question for the fact-finder will be intent: Do the facts surrounding the parties' 2014 interactions and the subsequent launch of the Accused Products support a finding of willful infringement?