DCT

2:23-cv-00515

ThroughTEK Co Ltd v. Anker Innovations Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00515, W.D. Wash., 04/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants committing acts of infringement in the district, including advertising, offering for sale, and selling the accused products to consumers in the State of Washington, thereby placing the products into the stream of commerce with the expectation they would be purchased and used there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ eufy-brand networked security cameras and related systems infringe two patents related to methods for establishing peer-to-peer (P2P) network connections and for remotely waking up devices from a sleep mode.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses common usability and power management challenges in the consumer Internet of Things (IoT) market, specifically simplifying the setup process and extending the battery life of devices like security cameras.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice of infringement and cease-and-desist letter regarding the asserted patents to Defendant Power Mobile Life on October 13, 2022. The U.S. Patent No. RE47,842 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,787,498, which may suggest a prior effort by the patentee to refine claim scope after the original grant.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-04-16 ’842 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-29 ’448 Patent Priority Date
2017-08-24 ’448 Patent Filing Date
2017-10-10 ’842 Patent Original Grant (No. 9,787,498)
2020-02-04 ’842 Patent Reissue Date
2020-03-24 ’448 Patent Issue Date
2022-10-13 Notice of Infringement Letter Sent to Power Mobile Life
2023-04-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE47,842 E - “SYSTEM AND METHOD OF IDENTIFYING NETWORKED DEVICE FOR ESTABLISHING A P2P CONNECTION,” issued February 4, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the difficulty and inconvenience for users in establishing a network connection to an IoT device, particularly when it requires manually inputting a lengthy and complex identification code. (’842 Patent, col. 1:56-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention simplifies this setup process. A user employs a terminal device, like a smartphone, to capture an "image pattern" (e.g., a QR code) located on the networked device. (’842 Patent, col. 4:51-59). The terminal device automatically generates a connection request containing the device’s identification from the captured image and sends it to a network server. The server then uses this information to identify the networked device and facilitate a direct peer-to-peer (P2P) connection, bypassing the need for manual data entry. (’842 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:19-34).
  • Technical Importance: The technology streamlined the initial onboarding experience for consumer electronics, which is a critical factor for adoption in the mass-market IoT space. (’842 Patent, col. 2:3-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claim 12 by way of example (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 12 include:
    • (a) connecting a first networked monitoring device to a network server, where the server maintains a pre-registered list of devices and their associated IP addresses.
    • (b) registering the first networked monitoring device's identification into the server's list.
    • (c) providing an image pattern comprising the identification on the monitoring device.
    • (d) generating and transmitting a connection request signal from a terminal device after it captures the image pattern.
    • (e) the network server identifying the monitoring device from its list using the request signal, obtaining its IP address, and transmitting "hole-punching messages" to both the terminal and monitoring devices to establish the P2P connection, all without the monitoring device needing to capture an image from the terminal device.

U.S. Patent No. 10,602,448 B2 - “REMOTE WAKEUP METHOD, CONNECTION SERVER, AND NETWORKING APPARATUS HAVING SLEEP MODE,” issued March 24, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the challenge for networked IoT devices that need to conserve power by entering a sleep mode while remaining remotely accessible. Waking such a device from sleep via the internet is technically difficult without special, often complex, network configurations. (’448 Patent, col. 1:25-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where an initiating device (e.g., a smartphone) sends a "wakeup request packet" to a connection server. This packet includes an identifier for the target sleeping device. (’448 Patent, col. 5:20-30). The server then generates and sends a corresponding "apparatus wakeup packet" to the sleeping device. A portion of the sleeping device—its network module—remains in a low-power, active state to receive this packet. It then compares a specific segment of the packet ("wakeup feature data") to data pre-stored on the device to authenticate the request and, if valid, wakes up the entire apparatus. (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:42-56).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables energy-efficient operation for devices like battery-powered cameras, allowing them to provide on-demand access without constant power consumption. (’448 Patent, col. 1:31-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claim 1, server claim 11, and apparatus claim 19 by way of example (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A connection server receiving a "wakeup request packet" from a first apparatus, where the packet contains a device identifier for a second apparatus.
    • The server obtaining "wakeup information" for the second apparatus based on the request.
    • The server generating an "apparatus wakeup packet" containing the device identifier and the obtained wakeup information.
    • The server sending the apparatus wakeup packet to the second apparatus.
    • The packet containing "wakeup feature data", which is a segment of the packet's data used for determining whether the entire second apparatus should be awoken.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "eufy® brand networked monitoring security products," including security cameras and network video recorders (NVRs), as well as the associated software and firmware, such as a software App for consumers (Compl. ¶¶19, 33-35, 39).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are networked monitoring devices that establish a P2P connection with a user's terminal device (e.g., a smartphone) through the use of a server (Compl. ¶¶33, 39).
  • The setup process for this P2P connection allegedly involves the consumer using a software App to scan an image, such as a QR code, on the eufy device (Compl. ¶¶33, 44). The complaint references a figure from the '842 patent's specification showing a cell phone scanning an image on a monitoring device to initiate a connection via a server (Compl. ¶29, p. 7).
  • The products are also alleged to use a "remote wakeup method" that allows them to be accessed while in a low-power state, a process that is mediated by a connection server (Compl. ¶¶34, 39). The complaint illustrates this with a figure from the '448 patent showing a phone sending a wakeup request to a server, which then sends a packet to the monitoring device (Compl. ¶32, p. 10).
  • The complaint alleges these products are sold through major U.S. retailers such as Amazon, Home Depot, Target, and Walmart (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE47,842 E Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) connecting a first networked monitoring device to a network server...wherein the network server has a list of networked devices that are pre-registered... The eufy system uses a server to manage connections, which implies a list of registered devices associated with user accounts. ¶39 col. 4:2-17
(b) registering a first identification of the first networked monitoring device into the list of networked devices of the server; The setup process for eufy devices involves adding the device to a user's account via the server, which constitutes registration. ¶39 col. 10:48-50
(c) providing an image pattern comprising the first identification, wherein the image pattern is attached on the first networked monitoring device... Accused eufy products provide a QR code on the device for consumers to scan during setup. ¶44 col. 4:7-9
(d) generating a connection request signal by a terminal device when the image pattern is captured to the terminal device and transmitting the connection request signal to the network server... The consumer's software App scans the QR code to initiate the P2P connection process with the server. ¶¶39, 44 col. 4:9-14
(e) identifying the first networked monitoring device...obtain the corresponding IP address...transmits hole-punching messages to the terminal device and the first networked monitoring device...to establish the P2P connection... The server facilitates a P2P connection between the camera and the user's App. ¶39 col. 6:1-12

10,602,448 B2 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a connection server receiving a wakeup request packet from a first apparatus, wherein the wakeup request packet comprises a device identifier of a second apparatus... The accused eufy products use a remote wakeup method involving a server, where a user's App (first apparatus) sends a request to wake a specific camera (second apparatus). ¶¶34, 39 col. 5:20-25
the connection server obtaining wakeup information stored in the connection server according to the wakeup request packet... The server retrieves stored information corresponding to the target camera to process the wakeup request. ¶30 col. 5:32-37
the connection server generating an apparatus wakeup packet according to the wakeup request packet and the wakeup information... The server creates a specific packet designed to be sent to the sleeping device to trigger it to wake up. ¶30 col. 5:37-41
the connection server sending the apparatus wakeup packet to the second apparatus based on the network address... The server transmits the generated wakeup packet to the target camera over the network. ¶30 col. 6:34-40
wherein wakeup feature data is a segment of data of the apparatus wakeup packet and is for determining whether the entire second apparatus be awoken. The complaint alleges the accused products use the claimed remote wakeup method, which implies the use of a packet that causes the device to wake up. ¶34 col. 8:28-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’842 Patent, a central issue may be the interpretation of "hole-punching messages." The infringement analysis will question whether the complaint provides evidence that the accused system uses this specific technique for establishing a P2P connection, or if it uses an alternative server-mediated method (e.g., a fully relayed connection) that might fall outside the claim's scope.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’448 Patent, the infringement case raises the question of whether the accused system's wakeup packet contains a specific "wakeup feature data" segment that the sleeping device's network module compares against "pre-stored feature data" to determine whether to wake up, as the patent specification suggests. The complaint's general allegation that the products "use the remote wakeup method" may not be sufficiently detailed to establish that this specific mechanism is practiced.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: “hole-punching messages” (’842 Patent, Claim 12)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because "hole-punching" describes a specific class of techniques for traversing Network Address Translators (NATs) to establish a direct P2P connection. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system's server-sent messages perform this function or establish the connection through a different method, such as a persistent relay, which may not be "hole-punching."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to establish a "P2P connection" and a "direct communication passage 50" (’842 Patent, col. 11:49-50). A party could argue that any server-sent messages that successfully result in such a direct connection should be considered "hole-punching messages" in the context of the invention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself has a recognized technical meaning in the field of networking, referring to a process where two clients behind NATs use a public server to discover each other's public IP address and port, and then simultaneously send packets to each other to "punch" holes in their respective firewalls. A party may argue the term should be limited to this specific process, as distinct from other P2P establishment protocols.

Term 2: “wakeup feature data” (’448 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the non-obviousness and infringement arguments for the remote wakeup invention. The claim defines it as a "segment of data... for determining whether the entire second apparatus be awoken." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any wakeup packet infringes or only those with a specific, separable data segment used in a particular decision-making process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any data within the wakeup packet that the sleeping device uses, in any way, to make its decision to wake up.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation where the "network module 133 compares the wakeup feature data with the pre-stored feature data (step S590), so as to determine whether the two are the same (step S592)" (’448 Patent, col. 7:28-32; Fig. 8). This suggests the term requires a specific segment of data that is used in a direct comparison against stored credentials to authenticate the wakeup command, rather than being part of a more general instruction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced infringement and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on Defendants allegedly encouraging and instructing consumers to use the accused products in an infringing manner, citing supporting documents for setting up the devices (Compl. ¶¶44, 57-58). The contributory infringement claim alleges that Defendants provide the cameras and software App, which are material components of the patented systems with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶62-63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on a cease-and-desist letter sent to Defendant Power Mobile Life on October 13, 2022, which allegedly provided actual notice of infringement (Compl. ¶¶46, 69). The complaint further alleges that other "Group I Defendants" knew or should have known of the infringement due to their "affiliated and/or... close business relationship" with Power Mobile Life (Compl. ¶73).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical specificity: does the accused eufy system practice the precise technical steps recited in the claims? Specifically, does its P2P setup rely on "hole-punching messages" as required by the ’842 patent, and does its remote wakeup function use a discrete "wakeup feature data" segment for a comparative authentication check as required by the ’448 patent? The general allegations in the complaint leave these detailed operational questions open.
  • A key legal question will be one of imputed knowledge: for the willfulness claim, can the pre-suit notice of infringement sent to a single defendant (Power Mobile Life) be legally imputed to the other manufacturing and parent entities based on allegations of a "close business relationship"? The answer will determine the temporal scope and potential damages exposure for the willfulness allegations against the broader group of defendants.