Yakar Tech LLC v. Das Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yakar Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: DAS Companies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00508, D. Utah, 06/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s phone accessory mount infringes patents related to magnetic mounts for electronic devices that feature a secondary, foldable support leg.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of securely mounting increasingly large and heavy mobile devices, particularly in vehicles, by combining the convenience of a magnet with the stability of a mechanical support.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities related to its patents. It contends these licenses were to terminate litigation and should not trigger patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-23	Priority Date for ’058 and ’309 Patents
2017-12-19	U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058 Issues
2021-06-15	U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309 Issues
2025-06-24	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,034,309, "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount," issued June 15, 2021

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings with existing electronic device mounts. It notes that cradle-style mounts may lack sufficient clamping force for large devices, while simple magnetic mounts may be too weak, especially when a ferromagnetic plate is placed behind a protective case. The patent also describes exposed ferromagnetic plates as potentially "distracting or unsightly" for users (’309 Patent, col. 1:31-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention combines a magnetic mount with a foldable support leg to provide two forms of support. A ferromagnetic element is designed to be positioned inside an electronic device's cover or case, and the mount body contains a magnet to attract it. For additional stability, the mount includes at least one leg that can be moved from a "stored position," where it is flush or "coplanar" with the mount’s face, to a "support position," where it is "substantially normal" to the face to physically hold the device (’309 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-50). This dual-support mechanism aims to reliably hold heavy or oversized devices.
  • Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to merge the ease-of-use of magnetic mounting with the structural integrity of a physical brace, addressing a market need for more robust mounting solutions for larger smartphones and tablets (’309 Patent, col. 1:31-40).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a mount system including:
    • A ferromagnetic element "shaped and configured to be positionable inside a cover of the electronic device";
    • A mount body with a magnet, a face plate, and at least one movable leg configured to "directly support the device";
    • The leg is "adjustably extendible" and "foldable" from a stored position to a support position that is "substantially normal to the face plate."
  • Independent Claim 6 recites a mount system including:
    • A mount body constructed from a front and back plate with a magnet positioned in an opening;
    • At least one leg movable from a "stored position coplanar with the face to a support position substantially perpendicular to the face";
    • A ferromagnetic element "positionable within an electronic device" such that the device's body is between the plate and the mount.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent No. 9,845,058, "Heavy Duty Magnet Mount," issued December 19, 2017

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: As the parent to the ’309 Patent, the ’058 Patent addresses the same technical problems: the inability of conventional mounts to reliably secure increasingly heavy electronic devices, and the aesthetic drawback of externally mounted metal plates (’058 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’058 Patent discloses the same core invention of a hybrid magnetic and mechanical support system. The solution involves a mount body with an internal magnet and a movable leg that transitions from a stored, flush position to a deployed, supporting position to buttress the device against gravitational or inertial forces (’058 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:35-46).
  • Technical Importance: This patent establishes the foundational concept of combining a magnetic interface with a stowable, physical support leg to enhance the stability and reliability of vehicle mounts for electronic devices (’058 Patent, col. 1:30-35).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a mount system including:
    • A ferromagnetic element "securable to the electronic device";
    • A mount body with a magnet, face plate, and at least one movable leg;
    • The leg further comprises a "pair of leg extensions rotatably mounted to the leg" to form a support.
  • Independent Claim 5 recites a mount system including:
    • A mount body with a housing, a magnet, and at least one movable leg;
    • The leg comprises an "extendible, foldable leg extension" that is "extendible substantially coplanar to the mount face" and foldable to a "second position substantially perpendicular to the mount face."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "DAS's Phone Accessories," specifically naming the "universal-cradle-and-magnet-cupholder-mount" available through Defendant's website (Compl. ¶16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are mounting devices for cell phones or other PDAs (Compl. ¶20). The product’s name, "universal-cradle-and-magnet-cupholder-mount," suggests it incorporates both a magnetic attachment mechanism and a physical cradle or support structure (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the product's operation, instead referencing claim chart exhibits that were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶19, 28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products directly and indirectly infringe the patents-in-suit but refers to evidentiary claim charts in Exhibits B, C, E, and F, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶19, 28). Without these exhibits, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The infringement theory appears to be that the accused product's combination of magnetic and cradle/support features reads on the patented claims for a mount with a magnet and a movable support leg.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’309 Patent will be whether the accused product meets the limitation of a ferromagnetic element "positionable inside a cover of the electronic device" (Claim 1) or "positionable within an electronic device" (Claim 6). The interpretation of these terms may be critical.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute for both patents will likely concern the structure and function of the accused product's "cradle." The analysis will question whether this cradle operates as the claimed "leg" that is "movable" from a "stored position" (coplanar with the face) to a "support position" (substantially perpendicular to the face). Evidence of this specific geometric transformation will be necessary to support the infringement allegation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "positionable inside a cover of the electronic device" (’309 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining what configurations of the ferromagnetic plate fall within the claim scope. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this requires placement within the device's original manufactured housing or if placement within a separate, third-party case is sufficient.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that ferromagnetic plates can be placed "inside a back cover of a device, or between a device and a case" (’309 Patent, col. 3:13-16), which may support construing "cover" to include accessory cases.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term, especially in light of figures like FIG. 16 which shows a plate inside a device's removable backplate, implies placement within the original housing of the device itself, not an aftermarket accessory.

Term 2: "at least one leg movable... from a stored position coplanar with the face to a support position substantially perpendicular to the face" (’309 Patent, Claim 6)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes the core mechanical functionality and geometric relationship of the invention's support structure. Infringement will hinge on whether the accused product's "cradle" performs this specific, claimed motion.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff could argue that the terms "coplanar" and "substantially perpendicular" do not require perfect geometric precision and that any support mechanism that folds away to be generally flush and deploys to provide support at a roughly 90-degree angle meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a distinct, hinged leg that folds flat into the mount body (FIG. 1) and pivots outward to a perpendicular orientation (FIG. 17, arrow 702). A defendant may argue that this specific folding and pivoting action is required, and a different type of cradle or support arm mechanism would not meet the claim's geometric constraints.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is premised on Defendant allegedly providing instructions and advertisements that encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., to mount a device) (Compl. ¶¶20, 29). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶21, 30).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," establishing a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶20, 29). The prayer for relief also seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement if discovery reveals that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. p. 11, ¶e).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of several key issues, framed as open questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "inside a cover," as taught in the ’309 Patent, be construed to include a ferromagnetic plate placed inside a third-party accessory case, or is it limited to placement within the electronic device's own manufactured body?

2. A second key issue will be one of structural and functional correspondence: does the accused product's "cradle" feature constitute the "leg" required by the claims? Specifically, the case will require evidence demonstrating whether the accused cradle performs the claimed geometric movement—transforming from a "stored position coplanar with the face" to a "support position substantially perpendicular to the face."