Public Version
`
`V
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`1
`
`
` In the Matter of
`
`
`CERTAIN POWERED COVER PLATES
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1124
`
`ORDER NO. 40:
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATON GRANTING SNAPPOWER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION THAT
`SNAPPOWER SATISFIES THE TECHNICAL PRONG OF
`
`DOMESTIC INDUSTRY [MOTION DOCKET NO. 1124-024]
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`(July 22, 2019)
`
`This Order provides the rationale and .evidentiary support for an oral Order that granted a
`
`Motion for Summary Determination (“MSD”) filed by Complainant SnapRays, LLC d/b/a as
`
`SnapPower (‘-‘SnapPower”). The oral Order was announced during a telephone conference held
`
`on January 31, 2019. (Telephone Conference Tr. (Doc. ID No. 668355 (Feb. 26, 2019)) at 13:5-
`15:1). In advance ofthe Hearing, the oral Order resolved SnapPower’s MSD That SnapPower '
`
`K
`
`Satisfies the Technical Prong of Domestic Industry (“Tech DI MSD,” and accompanying, “Tech
`
`DI Memorandum”). (Mot. Docket No. 1124-024 (Nov. 28,. 2018).).l
`
`' SnapPower certified pursuant to Ground Rule 2.2 that it contacted the parties that remained1n the
`Investigation about its intention to file the above-mentioned motion. (Tech DI MSD at 2.). At least two
`business daysprior to filing the Tech DI MSD, SnapPower’ s counsel communicated its intent to file the
`Tech DI MSD with counsel for Respondents Enstant Technology Co., Ltd. (“Enstant”) and Vistek
`Technology Co., Ltd. (“Vistek”) (collectively “Respondents”) and Commission Investigative Staff
`(“Staff,” and with Enstant and Vistek, the “Parties”), as well as counsel for then-Respondent AllTrade
`Tools LLC (“Alltrade”).(1d..) Alltrade opposed the motion but has since been terminated from the
`Investigation (Id.; Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting Joint
`Motion for Partial Termination of the Investigation as to Respondent AllTrade Tools, LLC Based on a
`Settlement Agreement (Doc. ID No. 675330 (May 8, 2019)).). Enstant and Vistek reserved their position.
`(Tech DI MSD at‘2.).- Staff indicated that it would take a position afier reviewing the papers. (Id.).
`
`Page 1 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version ~
`
`7
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND l
`SnapPower’s Tech DI MSD asserted that “SnapPower designs, produces, and sells the
`following powered cover‘plate products:
`the‘GuideLight, including the Original GuideLight and
`
`the GuideL'ight 2+, the SnapPower Charger and Charger 2, the SafeLight, the GFCI GuideLight,
`
`and the SwitchLight (collectively, the ‘DI Products’).” (Tech DI Mem. at 3 (citing Compl., Ex.
`
`V
`
`70).). According to SnapPower, the DI Products practice one or more claims of US. Patent No.
`‘ 9,871,324 (“the ’324 patent”), US. Patent No. 9,917,430 (“the ’430 patent”), US. Patent No.
`
`9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent,” and with the ’324 and ’430 patents, the “Utility Patents”), and US.
`
`Design PatentNo. D819,426 (“the ’426 patent” or the “Design Patent,” and with the Utility
`Patents, the “Asserted Patents”).2 (Id. at 4 (citing Comp]. 111] 142-147, Exs. 66-69).),
`
`Specifically, SnapPower’s Tech DI MSD contended that the DI Products practiced
`
`specific claims of the Asserted Patents as set forth below in Figure 1. (Id.).
`
`, Table 1: Claims of Asserted Patents (Listed in Top Row) Allegedly Practiced by DI
`Products (Listed in Column 1)
`
`,
`
`DI Product
`
`Light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Safellght
`
`GFCI GuideLight
`
`SwitchLight
`
`'324 Patent
`
`’36] Patent
`
`1 2, 4 8 13
`'
`13 15
`
`-
`13 15
`
`1 2, 3, 6, 7
`
`1, 2, 3, 6, 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NA
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The Asserted Patents were identified in ShapPower’s Complaint and have not been terminated from this
`Investigation.
`
`(
`
`,
`
`Page 2 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`'
`
`(Id.).
`
`1
`
`In support .of its Tech DI MSD, SnapPower presented a declaration from its expert, Dr.
`Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. (“Horenstein Declaration”), which referenced and attached Dr.
`
`Horenstein’s opening expert report (“Horenstein Report”). (Tech DI Mem., Ex. 1 (Horenstein
`
`Declaration) 111] 3—6.). Dr. Horenstein is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at ,
`
`Boston University and has a PhD. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`Technology. (Id., Ex. 1 (Horenstein Report) W 4-5.).
`I
`
`'Staff filed a response in support of SnapPower’s Tech DI MSD. (Doc. ID No. 663684
`
`(Dec. 10, 2018).). In the Staff‘s view: “Dr. Horenstein has the necessary expertise to '
`
`I competently opine on the technical issues related to the technical prong ofthe domestic industry
`
`requirement in this Investigation.
`The Staff believes Dr. Horenstein’s analysis is reasonable
`and does not dispute that SnapPower’s domestic industry products practice the asserted patent
`claims, as alleged by SnapPower and opined‘by Dr. Horenstein.
`The Staffis therefore ofthe
`view that SnapPoweris entitled to'a summary determination that it has satisfied the technical
`
`prong of the domestic industry requirement for each of the asserted patents.” (Id. at 4-6.).
`
`This decision finds that Dr. Horenstein is a person of ordinary skill in the art consistent
`
`with the definition adopted in the Markman Order, Order No. 28, in this Investigation._ (See
`
`Markman Order, “Construing Certain Terms of the Asserted Claims of the Patents at Issue
`
`(Markman Claim Construction),” Order No. 28 at 13, Doc. ID No. 667702 (Feb. 21, 2019).).
`Additionally,_ it is a finding that Dr. Horenstein’s opinions are reasonable and supported by his
`
`examination of the products at issue, and his analysis that explains why the products described
`
`practice certain claims of the Asserted Patent.
`
`Page 3 of 41
`
`I,
`
`"
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`snapPower’s Tech DI MSD also asserted that “Respondents 'do not challenge
`
`SnapPower’s satisfaction of the technical prong. Respondents did not depose SnapPower’s '
`expert on technical prong issues, and did not provide meaningful contentions‘inresponse to the
`
`technical prong.” (Tech DI Mem. at 4.). Indeed, Respondents Enstant and Vistek,
`
`simultaneously with then-Respondent Alltrade, filed responses‘indicating their lack of opposition
`
`to SnapPower’s Tech DI MSD. (Doc. ID No. 663 730 (Dec. 10, 2019) (Enstant and Vistek); Doc.
`ID No. 663734 (Dec. 10,2019) (Alltrade).). ‘Moreover, then-Respondent Alltrade was the only
`
`respondent to submit a rebuttal expert report in response to Dr. Horenstein’s opening expert
`
`report, and that report did not address any technical prong issues. (Staff Resp. at 6.).
`
`On February 21, 2019, after SnapPower filed its Tech DI MSD, the Court issued an order
`
`construing dispute claim terms and adopting constructions agreed-upon by the Parties (“Markman
`Order”). (See Order No. 28). The Markman Order is referenced in the analysis infra.
`
`With respect to the ’430 and ’361 patents, no party raised a dispute about the meaning or
`.
`-1
`
`scope of a claim term.
`
`(Tech DI Mem. at 7.). With respect to the ’324 patent and the Design
`
`Patent, claim scope disputes among the Parties were not material to SnapPower’s Tech DI MSD
`
`and also largely"resolved in SnapPower’s favor." (Order No. 28, App. A, Claim Chart No. 1; Tech
`
`> DI Mem. at 7—8.). Dr. Horenstein’s analysis, set forth below, accounted for the one disputed term
`
`that was not resolved in SnapPower’s favor. 3
`
`However, Dr. Horenstein Concluded in his
`
`3 That term at issue was “[t]he conductoris sandwiched between the front insulator and the rear
`insulator” in claim 13 of the ’324 patent. (Order No 28, App. A, Claim Chart No. I at 1..) The
`Court eonstrued this term in favor of Alltrade and Staff to mean: “Plain and ordinary meaning,
`for example, the conductoris enclosed between the fi‘ont insulator on one side and the rear
`insulator on the other side. The conductor carmot be separated frOm the front insulator and the
`rear insulator by an air gap.” (Id). As set forth below, this construction is clearly satisfied by
`the corresponding DI Products.
`
`.
`
`Page 4 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I
`
`r
`
`Declaration and expert report before the Markman Order issued that corresponding DI Products
`
`practiced claim 13 of the 7324 patent regardless of which claim construction was adopted. (Tech
`
`DI Mem., Ex. 1 at 115.).
`
`III.‘ OVERVIEW OF ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`This Investigation involves cover plates that are placed over an electrical receptacle body
`
`“to cover the openingto the [electrical] box While allowing access to the outlet receptacles on the
`face ofthe outlet body.” (JXM-OOOI (’324 patent) at 2:20-31.). The products involved are
`called “cover plates” or “wall cover plates.” Specifically, the technology at issue relates to
`powered cover plates that derive electrical power from an outlet body to power electrical devices?
`
`such'as “lights, motion detectors, photocells, wireless nodes, Bluetooth connectors, smoke
`
`detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, cameras, heat detectors, speakers,- microphones or any .
`
`other desired electrical device.” (Id. at 6:14-18.).
`
`As shown belOw in Figure 1, one embodiment of a powered cover plate includes three (3)
`
`‘
`
`LED lights (212) along the bottom edge of the cover plate. (Id. at 6:19-28.).
`
`Figure 1: Illustrative Cover Plate: Figures 2A and 2B from the ’324 Patent
`
`200 \
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`-
`
`r
`
`-(1d. at Figs. 2A, 23.).
`
`' The powered cover plates include an electrically conductive structure, such as a
`
`. “conducting strip” (208a; 208b in Figures 2 and 3), that comes into contact with screw terminals
`
`(114 in Figure 3) ofthe outlet body. (Id. at 5:31-38). This contact allows the powered cover
`
`plate to draw power from the outlet body and power the load without needing to hardwire the
`cover plate to the outlet body. (Id; see also id. at 7:7'13’)‘.
`4
`
`Shown below in Figure 2 is a “rear view” (i.e., from behind the plate looking out) of an
`
`- eXemplary powered cover plate (200) connected to an outlet body (100). (1d,).
`
`Figure 2: Cover Plate Placed Over Outlet: Figure 3 from the ’324 Patent
`216
`
`200 _
`
`’
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3.).
`
`Page 6 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Versibn
`
`"
`
`1. V
`
`Utility Patents
`
`The exemplary ’324 patent, entitled “Active Cover Plates,” was filed on April 12, 2017
`as U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/486,273 (“the ’273 application”). (Id at (21), (22),
`
`(54).). The ’273 application issued as the ’324 patent on January 16, 2018, and names as
`inventors Jeremy Smith,Martin Johnson, Phil Dietz, and Darren Knight. (Id. at (72).).
`
`snapPower owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to the ’324 patent and
`
`the remaining Utility Patents. (See, e.g. , id. at (73); Comp]. at Ex. 5'; Tech DI Mem. at 4.).
`
`The Utility Patent claims are apparatus claimsgenerally directed towards the structure
`
`and functionality of a powered cover plate, i.e., a_ cover plate that consumes electricity from the
`receptacle body (such as an outlet or switch) to power an electrical device (such as one or more
`LED lights). As shown below in Figure 3, talren from the ’324 patent, a “duplex style” electrical
`’ outlet body (100) has two outlet receptacles (115) where electrical cords can be plugged in to
`deliver power to a device. (JXM-0001 (’324 patent) at 3:52-58, 4:5—9.). Electrical power from
`the building is delivered to the outlet body by wrapping?the stripped ends ofwires (175, 170)
`
`/
`-
`.
`.
`.
`ardund the screw terminals (105, 110) located on the sides of the outlet body. (Id. at 3:59-64.)
`
`Page 7 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`‘ r
`
`, Figure 3: Outlet and Illustrative Cover Plate Configured
`To Fit Over Outlet: Figures 1A, 18 and 1C from the ’324 Patent
`
`135
`
`100
`
`} 11°
`
`14s
`160
`
`(1d at Figs, .lA, 13, 10.).
`
`As shown below in Figure 4, the Utility Patents disclose the use of clips (1210, 1212) that
`
`extend rearward from the Cover plate to make contact with the screw terminals on the outlet
`
`body. (Id. at 21:15.),
`
`Page 8 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`‘
`
`r
`
`Figure 4: Cover Plate with Clips: Figure 1-2 to the ’324 Patent
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 12.).
`When the cover plate is placed over an outlet body, a portion ofthe clip (1240) contacts
`
`the electrified screw terminal to extract power from the outlet. (Id. at 21:14-20). The clips are
`
`then electrically connected to a load, such as one or more LED lights, to power the load. (Id. at _
`
`21:21-28). The clips eliminate the need to hardwire a cover plate to the electrical supply in a
`
`, building. (Id. at 7:8-11.). Additionally, ‘when covering an outlet body, the powered cover plate
`is electrically connected to the outlet without occupying a socket- (Id. at 7:9-13.).
`
`2.
`
`Design Patent
`
`As shown below in Figure 5, the Design Patent consists of six (6) figures that depict
`
`“[t]he ornamental design for a lighted wall plate.” (JXM—OOOZ at Claim (57), Figs. 1-6.). The
`'
`.l
`
`. Design Patent discloses and claims only the front of the plate, i.e., the side visible to a user when
`
`the plate is installed on a wall. (Id. at Description (57) (“The back of the lighted wall plate is not
`
`visible during use and forms no part of the claimed design.”).). Consistent with the standard' /
`
`Page 9 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`practice of design patents, the “broken lines” shown in Figures 1-6 “represent unclaimed subject
`\»
`
`matter and form no part ofthe claimed design.” (Id).
`
`.
`
`Figure 5: Figures 1-6 of the Design Patent
`
`
`
`'/
`
`(Id., Figs. 1-6.).
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION AND TECHNICAL
`DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
`'
`.
`
`Summary determination under Commission Rule 210. 1 8_is analogous to summary
`
`judgement under Federal Rule 'of Civil Procedure 56, and may be granted only where the
`
`evidence shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
`is entitled to suminary determination as a matter of law}; See 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b). “Any party
`may move with any necessary supporting affidavits for a summary determination in [its] favor V
`[upon all or any part ofthe issues toKbe determined in the investigation.” '19 C.F.R. §'210.18(a);
`
`see also» Certain Digital Processors andDigital Processing Sys., Components Thereof and
`
`Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-559, 2006 [TC LEXIS 522, at *6, Order No. 13 (Sept.
`
`Page 10 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I
`
`6, 2006)(collecting cases). The party moving for summary determination bears the initial
`
`burden of establishing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US. 317, 323 (1986).
`Ifthe movant satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to
`
`I
`
`demonstrate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty
`lobby, Inc., 477 US. 242, 255 (1986). . When evaluating a motion for summary determination,
`
`the evidence must be examined in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all
`justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson, 477 US. at 255 (1986). The non-
`
`moving party “must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of fact.” Certain
`Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power Talce-Ofi"Horsepower, lnv. No. 337—TA—380, Order No.
`
`40 at 3, (August8, 1996) (citing Anderson, 477 US. at 248). Summary determination should
`
`therefore be granted when a hearing on the matter at issue would serve no useful purpose and the
`
`.movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. See. Certain Recombinant Erythropoietin,
`
`-
`Inv. No. 337-TA-28l, U.S.I.T.C. Pub. No. 2l86, Initial Determination at 70 (Jan. 10, 1989).
`‘
`With respect to the technical prOng ofdomestic industry, a complainant in a. patent-based
`
`Section 337 investigatidn must demonstrate that it is practicing or exploiting the patents at issue.
`
`See 19 U.S.C.‘ § l337(a)(2) and (3); Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Processfor Making Same,
`and Prods. Containing Same, Including Self-Stick Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366,
`
`Comm’n Op. at 8, Pub. No. 2949 (U.SiI.T.C. Jan. 16, 1996) (“Microsphere Adhesives”). “'In
`order to satisfy the technical prong ofthe domestic industry requirement, it is sufiicient to show
`
`that the domestic industry practices any claim of that patent, not necessarily an asserted claim of
`
`that patent.” Certain Ammonium Octamolybdate Isomers(“Certain Isomers”), Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`477, Comm’n Op. at 55 (U.S.I.T.C. Jan. 5, 2004).
`
`Page 11 of41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I‘ The test for claim coverage for purposes of the technical prong of the domestic industry
`
`requirement is the same as that for infringement. Certain Doxorubicin and Preparations
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-T/A-300, Initial Determination at 109, 41990 WL 710463
`
`(U.S.I.T.C. May 21, 1990), afid, Views of the Commission at 22 (October 31, 1990)
`
`(“Doxorubicin”). “First, the claims of the patent are construed. ' Second, the complainant’s
`
`article or process is examined to determine whether it falls within the scope of the claims.” Id.
`
`The technical prong of the domestic industry can be satisfied either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents. Certain Dynamic Sequential Gradient Devices and Component Parts Thereof, (
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-335, Initial Determination at 44, Pub. No. 2575 (U.S.I.T.C. Nov. 1992). '
`
`With respect to the ’426 patent, or the Design Patent, the Supreme Court has recognized
`that a design “is better-represented by [an] illustration than it could be by any description, and a
`description would probably not be intelligible without the illustration.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc.
`v. Swisa, Inc. , 543 F.3d 665,. 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en-bane) (quoting Dobson v. Dornan, 118
`US. 10, 14 (1886)); see also Crocs, Inc. v. Int ’1 Trade Comm ’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) (“Design patents are typically claimed as shown in drawings, and claim construction must
`be adapted to a pictorial setting”). “Given the recognized difficulties entailed in trying to
`
`describe a design in words, the preferable course ordinarily will be for a district court not to
`
`attempt to "construe’ a design patent claimby providing a detailed verbal description of the!
`
`claimed design.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679 (emphasis added); see also Ethicon Endo-
`Surgery, Inc v Covidien, Inc, 796 F.3d 1312,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he design patent’s
`focusIS on its figures, not its text, and‘ [n]o [written] description, other than a reference to the
`
`drawing, is ordinarily required.’” Reddy v. Lowe ’s Cos., 60 F. Supp. 3d 249, 252 (D. Mass.
`
`2014) (Markman Memorandum) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.153(a) (2012)); see also Manual of
`
`Page 12 of4l
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`_
`
`r
`
`Patent Examining Procedure § 1503 .401 (8th ed. 2006) (“[A]s a rule, the illustration in the
`drawing views is its own best description”).
`V
`
`V.
`
`TECHNICAL PRONG OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
`
`A SnapPower’s Tech DI MSD and accompanying Tech DI Memorandum are supported by
`
`I undisputed, material evidence. This includes evidence provided in the Complaint that identifies
`
`the DI Products and establishes that at least SnapPower’s GuideLight DI Product practices
`
`certain claims ofthe Asserted Patents. (Compl. 1H 5,. 11, 53-56, 147, Exs. 66-69). “Since 2014,
`
`SnapPower has s01d its powered cover plate products, which include the GuideLight, an electric
`
`outlet cover with built—in LED lighting and a light sensor.
`In addition to the GuideLight,
`SnapPower offers the'SafeLight, an electrical outlet cover with sliding safety covers that.close
`afier power cords are removed, and with built-in LED lighting and a light sensor; and the
`
`SnapPower Charger, an electric outlet cover with a built-in USB charger[.]” (Id. 1M 53-54.). As
`pictured inthe Complaint, exemplary images ofthe DI Products are shown below in Figure 6.
`
`>
`
`Figure 6: D1 Products Pictured in the Complaint
`,.
`-A ..
`.,....‘A’.—.._-.
`
`
`
`(1d. 1] 56 (without SnapPower’s identification ofeach pictured DI Product by name).).
`As mentioned above, in support of its Tech DI MSD, SnapPower presented the
`Horenstein Declaration as Exhibit 1, which referenced and attached the Horenstein Report on
`
`pages 6 through 136‘ of Exhibit 1. (Tech DI Mem., Ex. 1' (Horenstein Declaration).). As shown
`
`below in Figure 8, Dr. Horenstein performed his analysis on physical samples of the DI Products
`
`Page 13 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`-
`
`r
`
`with the sole exception of the Charger 1 D1 Product. (Horenstein Report 11 265.). For his
`
`analysis of the Charger 1 D1 Product, Dr. Horenstein relied on photographs. (Id. at 269.).
`
`Table 2: D1 Products Analyzed by Dr. Horenstein as Physical Samples
`
`
`
`(Id. at 269.).
`
`As shown below in Figures 7-9, unlike the Complaint, the Horenstein Report includes
`
`some exemplary pictures of the DI Products labeled, in some cases, by name and model number.
`
`/
`
`Figure 7: Front View of Exemplary DI Products
`
`
`
`(Id. 1] 269 (faceplate on far right is Charger 1 D1 Product).).
`
`Figure 8: Back View of Exemplary DI Products
`
`Page 14 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`
`
`Back Plates
`
`(Id. 1] 280 (lefi and middle faceplates are GuideLights, while ngeLight is shown on the right).).
`
`Page 15 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Figure 9: Views of Exemplary DI Products Engaged With Receptacles or Switch Bodies
`(with the exception of GFCI GuideLight DI Products on lower_right)
`
`l I'llo
`
`"iii“.
`mm»
`
`a.
`
`‘ Back Plate
`
`I
`
`Charger 2
`
`SwitchLight
`
`Back Plate Abuts Lower Edge of Cover Pate
`
`Charger
`
`Guidélight
`
`‘
`
`GFCI Guidelight
`
`Page 16 of 41
`
`

`

`. Public Version
`
`7
`
`(Id. w 285, 311.);
`
`A.
`
`’324 Patent — Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 (Practiced by GuideLight, SafeLight, and
`Charger 1 D1 Products)
`
`As set forth below in Table No. 3, SnapPower has proven by a preponderance of the .
`
`evidence that its GuideLight, SafeLight, and Charger 1 D1 Products practice claims 1, 2, 4, and 8
`
`of the ’324 patent. Evidence in the form of exemplary photographs of these DI Products,4 along
`
`with unchallenged opinions found in the Horenstein Report, prove that each claim limitation is
`
`satisfied. (Id. 1111 267, 277-78.)._.
`
`Table No. 3: Evidence That GuideLight, SafeLight, and Charger 1 D1 Products Practice
`Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of the ’324 Patent
`
`
`
`.
`Id. 1] 268 (“Each of the products listed in the table above .
`
`An active cover plate
`as meeting claim 1 are devices having an electrical load.
`comprising:
`This fact puts them into the category of an “active”
`
`
`device, in this case a cover plate”).
`
`
`
`
`4 In the Horenstein Declaration and Horenstein Report, Dr. Horenstein did not include photographic
`evidence linking each limitation of a domestic industry claim to each DI Product that practices that claim.
`For example, for limitation 13[c] of the ’324 patent, Dr. Horenstein provided photographs of the
`GuideLight, Charger 2, and SwitchLight DI Products as representative of the GuideLight, GuideLight—2+,
`GFCI—GuideLight, Charger, Charger-2, SafeLight, and SwitchLight DI Products. Yet, Dr. Horenstein did.
`not fully explain why it was appropriate, in terms of feature overlap, for certain DI Products to represent
`other DI Products with respect to satisfying the technical prong of domestic industry. Notwithstanding
`the presentation of incomplete photographic evidence, Dr. Horenstein did represent that, after reviewing
`samples or photos of all of the DI Products, he was of the opinion that each DI Product practiced claims
`of the Asserted Patents as set forth in his report. While this is a rather cavalier manner in which to satisfy
`the technical prong of domestic industry, it passes muster here, in large part, because there is no
`opposition and because SnapPower’s evidence is sufficient to prove that SnapPower’s relatively simple
`and intuitive DI Products practice the Asserted Patents.
`
`Page 17 of4lv
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`V .
`
`a face plate;
`
`Id. 1] 269 (showing Charger 2 although that DI Product is
`not implicated in this chart).
`
`an electrical load;
`'
`
`_
`
`1d. 1] 27.0 (“Each of the products . .. has an electrical load
`consisting of either LEDs (e.g., GuideLight, SafeLight)
`or a USB charging circuit (Charger 1).”).
`
`Clips Extending Rearward
`
`
`
`at least one clip extending
`rearward from the
`
`faceplate, the clip'
`comprising: a contact,
`
`Guidelight
`
`' Guidelight, Safelight
`
`-
`
`Id. fl 271.
`
`....—_J
`Charger 1
`
`Id. 11 273 (“I have examined the metallic piece on the
`a resilient strip supporting
`a front side of the contact, GuideLight and SafeLight products, and I found it to be
`wherein the contactis
`flexible and resistant to deflection when ressed with a
`
`Page 18 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version .
`
`r
`
`
`
`
`
`
`finger. The metallic piece, which supports a contact that
`joined to the resilient strip
`
`is attached like a rivet through the metallic piece, can be
`and extends through an
`
`
`
`
`deformed by applying force to the contact in the direction
`aperture in the resilient
`
`away from the center of the faceplate. This force causes
`strip, and
`
`
`the metallic piece to be deflected toward an outer edge of
`'
`
`
`the faceplate. The fact that the metallic piece resists
`
`
`
`Construction of
`deflection is evident by the force felt when trying to
`
`“resilient strip:”- “A
`displace it, and also because force is needed to keep the
`
`
`
`strip capable of springing
`contact supported by the metallic piece in contact with a
`
`back into a predetermined
`screw terminal of the receptacle”).
`
`
`shape afierbeing bent or
`
`
`compressed.” (Order No.
`
`
`,. 28, App. A, Claim Chart
`
`
`Resilient
`No. l at 6.).
`
`
`
`
`
`Construction of “a
`
`
`
`Gnidelight, Safelig’ht
`
`
`
`Id. 1] 272-74.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`resilient strip‘
`supporting a front side
`of the contact:” “plain
`and ordinary meaning, for
`‘ example, the resilient
`strip provides a
`foundation for or holds
`the front side of the
`
`
`
`contact.” (Order No. 28,
`App. A, Claim Chart No.
`
`2 at 1.).
`
`lnsulatorson Covering Rear Side of Contact
`
` a rear insulator covering a
`
`
` Guidelight, Safelight
`
`rear side of the contact;
`and
`'
`
`Id. tn 275.
`
`
`Page 19 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`insulation on Back Covering Bend
`
`Insulation on Front_Covering Upper Portion
`
`Id. 11 275 (Charger 1).
`
`
`
`an electrical connection
`
`between the clip and the
`'
`electrical load.
`.
`
`Id. 1[ 276 (“Shown [above] is the wiring inside the
`GuideLight cover plate (with the back plate removed).
`The wires going from clip to printed circuit board -
`(‘electrical load’) complete the electrical connection. I
`also have removed the cover of the SafeLight device and
`found similar connections. I also reviewed photographs
`of the Charger 1 device [apparently shown in picture on
`right] with the back cover removed and found similar
`connections.”).
`
`Page 20 of 41.
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`'
`
`The active cover plate of
`claim 1, wherein the
`resilient strip comprises a
`base, a bend, and an
`upright portion,
`
`The active cover plate of
`claim 2, wherein the rear
`insulator covers at least a
`
`portion of the bend and
`the upright portion.
`
`
`
`Guidelight‘ and Safelight
`
`Id. 1| 27s.
`
`Insulation on FronLCovering Upper Portion
`
`Id. 1] 279 ((showing Charger 1) (“This feature can be
`seen in the photo above for (IE) and claim 2. It is also
`shown in the figure [above] for the Charger 1. The
`structure of the GuideLight and SafeLight clips is
`similar.”)).
`
`Page 21 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Base Sandwiched Between Back Plate and Face Plate
`
`base sandwiched between the back and face plates.”)).
`
`Back Plates
`
`”Id. 11 280 (showing GuideLight (left) and SafeLight
`(right) (“I also reviewed photographs of the Charger 1
`device with the back cover removed and found a similar
`
`The active. cover plate of
`claim 1, further
`comprising a back plate,
`wherein the resilient strip
`comprises a base
`sandwiched between the
`
`back plate and the face
`plate.
`
`B.
`
`’324 Patent — Claim 13 (Practiced by All DI Products)
`
`As set forth below in Table No. 4, SnapPower has proven by a preponderance of the -
`evidence that GuideLight, GuideLight-2+, GFCI-GuideLight, Charger, Charger—2, SafeLight,
`and SwitchLight DI l’roducts practice claim 13 ofthe ’324 patent. Evidence in the form of
`exemplary photographs ofthese DI Prodlicts', along with unchallenged opinions-found in the
`Horenstein Report, prove that each claim limitation is satisfied. (Id. W 281, 291.).
`I
`
`Table No. 4: Evidence That GuideLight, GuideLight-2+, GFCI-GuideLight, Charger,
`Charger-2, SafeLight, and SwitchLight DI Products Practice Claim 13 of the ’324 Patent
`
`
`
`
`design”). Id. 1i 283 (“All of the SnapPower cover plates have a face
`
`
`
`
`.
`.
`An active cover plate
`comprising
`
`Id. 1] 282 (“All of the SnapPower cover plates are active,
`because each has either an, LED load or a USB charger
`load. These cover plates are designed to extract power '
`
`
`from the electrical system, hence they are “active” by
`
`
`
`. late, because each is desi_ ed to cover an outlet or
`
`Page 22 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`an electrical load;
`
`Id. 1] 284 (“Each of the SnapPower cover plates has an
`electrical load. Specifically, all of the products except for
`charger have LEDs that can be illuminated, While
`Charger has a USB charging circuit as its load”).
`
`a clip extending rearward
`from the face plate to
`interface with screw
`
`terminals of a receptacle
`bedy, wherein the clip
`comprises:
`
`a contact,
`
`
`
`Id. 1] 285 (“Shown are example photos of GuideLight,
`Charger 2, and 'SwitchLight, but I have verified that for
`all of the products, the receptacle will interface with the
`clips and contacts in the same way.”).
`
`GuideLigln
`
`Charger 2
`
`SwitchLighr
`
`i
`
`Id. 11 286 (“Each of the SnapPower products hastwo
`contacts. These fall into three categories delineated by
`the color of theinsulation surrounding the contact: green,
`white, and brown GFCI GuideLi
`hotos below
`
`Page 23 of 41
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I
`
`'
`
`
`show these three types Of contacts; all of the SnapPower
`products has one of these three contact types”).
`
`
`
`Id. 1] 287 (“Each of the products has a conductor
`connected to the contact. I haVe Shown photos for the
`conductor on the GuideLight, Charger, and SafeLight
`
`
`products. Based on my review of samples or photographs
`a conductor connected to
`
`
`of each of the other products, I find that each of the
`the contact,
`
`
`
`“green” or “white” contact types meets this claim
`element, as well as the “brown” contacts of the GFCI
`GuideLight-2+.”).
`'
`
`
`
`
`Id. 1] 288 (“The front insulator must be located on the '
`
`same side as the contact. As shown in the photos above, '
`
`
`
`a front insulator, and
`each of the SnapPower products meets this claim
`
`
`element. (See, e.g., photo at claim 2).”).'
`
`
`a rear insulator, wherein
`the conductor is
`
`sandwiched between the
`
`front insulator and the
`
`I
`rear insulator;
`
`
`Construction of “mm:
`
`conductor is ,
`
`sandwiched between
`the front insulator and
`
`the rear insulator”:
`‘
`
`“Plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, for example,
`
`\
`the conductor is enclosed
`
`
`between the front
`
`insulator on one side and
`
`the rear insulator on the
`
`other side. The
`
`conductor cannot be
`
`separated from the front
`
`insulator and the rear
`
`insulator by an air gap.”
`
`
`
`'
`(Order No. 28, App. A,
`
`'
`Claim Chart No. 1 at 1.).
`
`
`
`Id. 11 289 (“The contacts in the SnapPower products are
`
`sandwiched between . lastic on both sides. This feature is
`
`Brown plastic on GFCI GuideLigln 4+. sandwiches the conducting sm'p.
`
`\
`
`.
`
`Page 24 of 41
`
`

`

`Public - Version
`
`the dev1ces, this feature must be true”).
`
`present under any party’s proposedtclaim construction
`for ‘sandwiched’.”).
`
`See limitation 1[f] above. Id. 1[ 290 (“Were this not so,
`there would be no way for power to get from the outlet or
`.
`. a1
`ad
`sw1tch to the electric
`.lo
`. Hence by the very nature of
`
`an electrical connection
`between the contact and
`the electrical load
`‘
`_
`
`C.
`
`’324 Patent— Claims 14-15 (Practiced by GuideLight-2+, GFCI-GuideLight,
`SwitchLight, and Charger-2 DI Products)
`’ As set forth below in Table No. 5, SnapPower has proven by a preponderance ofthe
`evidence that GuideLight—2+, GFCI-GuideLight, SwitchLight, and Charger-2 DI Products
`
`practice claims 14 and 15 of the ‘324 patent. Evidence in the form of exemplary photographs of
`these DI Products, along with unchallenged opinions found in the Horenstein Report, prove that
`
`each claim limitationlS satisfied (Id. 1“] 292—94).
`
`Table No.5: Evidence That GuideLight-2+, GFCI-GuideLight, Switch'Light, and Charger-
`2 DI Products Practice Claims 14 and 15 of the ’324 Patent
`
`2+, SwitchLight, and Charger-2) (below).
`
`Insulator Covers Rear of Contact
`
`Front and Rear Insolators Meet at a Seam
`
`The active cover plate 0f
`claim 13, whereln the
`rear insulator is joined to
`the front insulator.
`‘
`
`1d. 1111 292 (GFCI-GuideLight) (above), 293 (GuideLight—
`
`Page 25 of 41
`
`.
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I
`
`r
`
`Front and Rear Insulators Meet at a Seam I
`is;
`
`See immediately above. 'Id. 1i 294.
`
`Insulator Covers. Rear of Contact
`W
`
`The active cover plate of
`claim 13, wherein rear
`insulator covers a rear of
`the contact.
`
`D.
`
`’324 Patent — Claim 17 (Practiced by GuideLight DI Product)
`
`As set forth below in Table No. 6, 'SnapPower has proven by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that its GuideLigh