DCT
2:25-cv-00730
National Products Inc v. Dovey
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: National Products Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: Jack H. Dovey, Jr. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fenwick & West LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00730, W.D. Wash., 04/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant residing within the judicial district and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is personally liable for the patent infringement of his company, GPS Lockbox, which was previously found to infringe Plaintiff's patent for a docking sleeve for electronic devices but was subsequently placed in bankruptcy.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns protective sleeves for portable electronic devices that incorporate an electrical adapter, allowing the device to be docked for charging and data transfer without being removed from its protective case.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint follows prior litigation (2:20-cv-00428, W.D. Wash.) in which the same plaintiff, NPI, secured a summary judgment ruling that Defendant Dovey's company, GPS Lockbox, infringed claim 11 of the '026 patent and that the claim was not invalid. Before a trial on damages and willfulness could occur, Dovey allegedly placed GPS Lockbox into receivership and then Chapter 7 bankruptcy, staying the proceedings against the company. This new action seeks to hold Dovey personally liable for the infringement previously adjudicated against his company.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| c. 2010 | GPS Lockbox co-founded by Defendant Dovey |
| 2014-02-24 | '026 Patent Priority Date |
| c. 2015-03 | Defendant allegedly learned of NPI's products/pending patents |
| 2017-07-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,706,026 Issued |
| 2020-03-20 | Prior lawsuit filed against GPS Lockbox |
| 2024-09-17 | Court granted summary judgment of infringement and validity |
| 2025-04-22 | Complaint Filed in Present Case |
| 2025-05-05 | Scheduled trial date in prior, stayed litigation |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,706,026, “Docking Sleeve With Electrical Adapter,” issued July 11, 2017. (Compl. ¶11)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitation of conventional protective "skins" for portable electronic devices, which typically must be removed to allow the device to connect to a docking station for charging or data transfer. (’026 Patent, col. 1:34-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "protective arrangement" comprising a flexible cover that integrates an electrical adapter. The adapter features a male plug that extends into the cover's interior cavity to mate with the electronic device's port, and an external contactor on the cover's exterior. This design allows the protected device to be placed directly into a compatible docking cradle, establishing an electrical connection through the cover itself, thereby eliminating the need to remove the protective skin. (’026 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-59). Figure 11 illustrates the complete system with the protected device seated in the docking cradle. (’026 Patent, Fig. 11).
- Technical Importance: This innovation provides a method for devices to remain continuously protected by a flexible, often shock-absorbent, cover while still allowing for efficient and reliable docking, a key requirement in commercial and industrial environments where devices are handled frequently. (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts dependent claim 11, which relies on independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶64).
- The essential elements of independent claim 10 are:
- A protective cover with a shell, an internal male plug to mate with the device's socket, and an external contactor, where the cover extends over the device's back, front, and four side surfaces.
- A docking cradle configured to receive the cover, which includes a base receiver and a docking connector with a "rim to guide proper mating" with the cover's contactor.
- Dependent claim 11 adds the requirement that the cover's contactor and the cradle's docking connector have complementary male and female portions for mating.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are "cradle kits" manufactured and sold by GPS Lockbox, a company allegedly controlled by the Defendant. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 64).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the accused products' operation. Instead, it relies on a prior court order which granted summary judgment that these products infringe claim 11 of the '026 patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 64). The products are generally described as "mounting and protective cover systems for consumer electronics." (Compl. ¶4). The complaint alleges Defendant Dovey was responsible for all sales of the Infringing Products and made the decision to continue selling them even after the lawsuit was filed. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 38).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint's infringement theory rests on the legal doctrine of issue preclusion, asserting that a prior judicial determination of infringement by the Defendant's company is binding. The complaint does not present a new technical analysis of infringement.
'026 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10 and Dependent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A protective cover... comprising a shell forming an interior cavity... a male plug... extending into the interior cavity... and a contactor... adjacent to an exterior of the shell... wherein the cover is configured... to extend over at least a portion of a back surface, a front surface, and each of four side surfaces... | The complaint alleges the Infringing Products include a protective cover with these features, citing a prior court order that found infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 64). | ¶¶ 18, 64 | col. 8:36-50 |
| a docking cradle configured to receive the cover and comprising a base receiver... and a docking connector disposed on the base receiver... the docking connector defining a rim to guide proper mating of the contactor... | The complaint alleges the Infringing Products include a docking cradle with these features, citing a prior court order that found infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 64). | ¶¶ 18, 64 | col. 8:1-17 |
| wherein one of the contactor and the docking connector comprises a female portion and a different one... comprises a male portion complementary to the female portion. | The complaint alleges the accused system embodies this complementary male-female mating structure, citing a prior court order that specifically found infringement of claim 11. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 64). | ¶¶ 18, 64 | col. 33:25-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Legal Question: The central dispute is not over the technical merits of infringement but whether Defendant Dovey can be held personally liable for the infringement previously adjudicated against his company, GPS Lockbox. The analysis will focus on legal doctrines such as alter ego liability or piercing the corporate veil based on the facts alleged regarding Dovey's control. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-49).
- Evidentiary Question: A threshold question for the court will be whether the "Infringing Products" for which Dovey is being sued are identical to those that were the subject of the prior summary judgment order against GPS Lockbox. The complaint alleges they are. (Compl. ¶64).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
While infringement was previously adjudicated, a new case against a different defendant could potentially revisit claim construction.
The Term: "rim to guide proper mating"
Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural feature of the docking cradle's interface. The scope of "rim" and the functional requirement of "guiding" are central to the physical interaction between the two main components of the claimed system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction dictates how specific the physical alignment mechanism on the cradle must be.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a rim (105) that may be recessed, suggesting a general guiding or seating structure could satisfy the limitation. (’026 Patent, col. 8:21-23). This could support a construction that does not require a specific shape or complexity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A specific embodiment discloses a rim with an asymmetric, "elongated D-shape" to "facilitate proper alignment" and enforce a single orientation. (’026 Patent, col. 32:45-50; Fig. 53). An argument could be made that "guide proper mating" requires such an orientation-enforcing feature, not just a simple circular recess.
The Term: "contactor... adjacent to an exterior of the shell"
Context and Importance: This term defines the location of the external electrical interface on the protective cover. The meaning of "adjacent" is critical to determining whether the contacts must be flush with, recessed into, or protruding from the cover's surface.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses an embodiment where the contactor is on the "external surface of the flexible center panel," suggesting a surface-level placement is within the claim's scope. (’026 Patent, col. 4:62-65; Fig. 23).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other embodiments show the contactor "recessed in outer surface" and protected by an optional "dam" (132). (’026 Patent, col. 9:11-23; Fig. 8). A party could argue that "adjacent" should be narrowly construed to require the protective recessed configuration shown in these preferred embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Dovey induced GPS Lockbox to infringe. It claims he was the company's principal, made the decision to launch the infringing products, directed their continued sale after the lawsuit was filed, and controlled the company's actions. (Compl. ¶65).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit conduct. It claims Dovey had knowledge of NPI's patents and products before launching the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 50-51), continued to sell the products after being sued (Compl. ¶55), and, most significantly, continued to cause the products to be offered for sale even after the court granted summary judgment of infringement against his company. (Compl. ¶62).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of personal liability: will the court find that the Defendant's alleged absolute control over his company's operations, litigation, and subsequent bankruptcy is sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and hold him personally responsible for the infringement previously adjudicated against the corporate entity?
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness and damages: do the allegations that the Defendant directed the continued sale of products after a judicial finding of infringement constitute conduct so egregious as to justify a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages against him personally?