Cogent Insights Licensing Inc v. Marathon Electric LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Marathon Electric, LLC (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01035, W.D. Wis., 12/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business within the Western District of Wisconsin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to using induction motors as power generators, particularly by operating them above their rated speed.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns hybrid power systems, where an engine and generator charge an energy reservoir (like a battery), which in turn powers a load, finding applications in areas such as hybrid vehicles and independent power generation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-10-01	’016 Patent Priority Date
2008-02-12	’016 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-18	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,330,016 - "Induction generator power supply"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,330,016, "Induction generator power supply," issued February 12, 2008.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the practical limitations of using common, inexpensive induction motors as standalone power generators. A principal problem is that when not connected to a utility grid, an induction generator’s output voltage becomes unstable when powering reactive (inductive or capacitive) loads, which are extremely common, rendering the generator "unsuitable for normal operation" (’016 Patent, col. 2:54-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the AC output of the induction generator is rectified to create "a low ripple, almost pure DC waveform" (’016 Patent, col. 5:10-11). Because pure DC power is resistive and not reactive, this approach overcomes the voltage instability problem (’016 Patent, col. 5:11-15). This DC power can then be used to charge an energy reservoir, like a battery bank, which can power a DC load directly or an AC load via an inverter (’016 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:20-27). A second key aspect of the solution is intentionally operating the induction motor at an "overspeed"—a speed significantly higher than its rated speed—to achieve a much higher power output from a smaller, less expensive motor (’016 Patent, col. 11:11-19).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make hybrid electric systems more practical and economical by enabling the use of rugged, low-maintenance, and widely available induction motors in a manner that was previously limited (’016 Patent, col. 2:11-19, col. 5:4-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific claims, instead referencing charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • selecting a prime mover having a chosen power rating;
  • choosing an induction motor with a first power rating at a rated speed and a second, higher power rating at an "overspeed" of at least about 10% greater than the rated speed;
  • choosing the induction motor such that its second power rating at overspeed is "substantially equal" to the prime mover's power rating;
  • driving the induction motor with the prime mover to act as a generator; and
  • operating the generator at that overspeed.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’016 Patent (Compl. ¶13). No specific details regarding the functionality, operation, or market context of any accused instrumentality are provided in the body of the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’016 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations in its main body to support this claim. Instead, it states that infringement is detailed in "charts comparing the Exemplary ’016 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products," which were incorporated as Exhibit 2 but not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). The complaint makes only a conclusory assertion that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’016 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the reliance on method claims like Claim 1, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may question whether Defendant’s actions constitute "selecting" and "choosing" components as required by Claim 1, particularly if these are design-phase decisions. This could introduce disputes over divided infringement if different entities perform different steps of the claimed method.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products are operated at an "overspeed" as defined by the patent. Further, there may be a dispute over whether the power rating of the accused system’s prime mover is "substantially equal" to the overspeed power rating of its induction motor, as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "overspeed" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty of extracting more power from a standard motor. The claim requires an overspeed of "at least about 10% greater than the rated speed." The definition of "about" will be critical to determining the scope of infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "about" suggests the 10% figure is not a rigid cutoff, allowing for some flexibility (’016 Patent, col. 13:34). The specification also lists a wide range of possible overspeeds, such as "10 to 300%," which may support a broad and flexible interpretation (’016 Patent, col. 11:48-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides several specific examples, such as 25%, 50%, and 100% overspeed, which a party could argue are the preferred embodiments that should guide the term’s construction (’016 Patent, col. 11:46-50).

• The Term: "substantially equal" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term links the design of the prime mover to the performance of the induction motor at overspeed. The outcome of the case could depend on whether the power ratings of the components in the accused products are deemed "substantially equal."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: "Substantially" is a term of approximation, which may support a reading that does not require precise numerical equality and allows for standard engineering tolerances.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explains this matching of power ratings as a key design choice to optimize the system (’016 Patent, col. 13:38-40). A party could argue that this functional goal requires a close correspondence in power ratings, thereby narrowing the meaning of "substantially."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. It alleges that Defendant’s own employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products," which points toward direct infringement by use (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, in its prayer for relief, it requests a judgment that awards enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, remedies often predicated on a finding of willful or egregious infringement (Compl. p. 4, ¶D, ¶E.i). No facts are alleged regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be whether the complaint, which relies entirely on an unfiled exhibit to establish infringement, can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The case will depend on Plaintiff’s ability to produce evidence mapping specific, identified products to the patent’s claim limitations.
2. Scope of Method Claim Infringement: The case may turn on whether Defendant is properly considered the single actor performing all steps of the asserted method claims. If the "selecting" and "choosing" steps are performed by a component supplier or customer, it raises the possibility of a divided infringement defense.
3. Construction of Core Technical Terms: The dispute will likely focus on the proper construction of terms of degree, such as "overspeed," "about," and "substantially equal." The court’s interpretation of these terms will be critical in defining the boundary between practicing the invention and non-infringing design.