Federal Circuit Issues Mixed Ruling on Infringement of Powered Cover Plate Patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in O’Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC, reversing in part, affirming in part, and vacating in part a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on two powered cover plate patents. The CAFC concluded that claim 1 of one patent is not as limited as the district court determined, and it upheld the district court’s rulings on other disputed claim limitations.

SnapRays, LLC, doing business as SnapPower, owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,871,324 and 9,035,180. The patents relate to active cover plates, meaning thin plates that cover indoor electrical outlets or light switch receptacles and power a load built into the cover, such as a night light.

O’Reilly Winship LLC, doing business as OWL, competes with SnapPower and began selling BriteOWL active cover plates in 2019. On November 2, 2021, OWL filed a lawsuit against SnapPower in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking a declaration of non-infringement of all claims of the patents. The district court granted OWL’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on November 18, 2024, and denied SnapPower’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement.

SnapPower appealed, and the CAFC exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1295(a)(1). Circuit Judge Hughes wrote for the court, joined by Circuit Judges Chen and Cunningham, and reversed the grant of summary judgment as to claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the ‘324 patent.

Claim 1 of the ‘324 patent recites a clip with a contact that is “joined to” a resilient strip. At claim construction, the district court agreed with SnapPower that “joined” required no construction. At summary judgment, the district court found that the contact in OWL’s products was not joined to the strip, since it sat within an opening in the strip and was secured only by a separate rear cover, which allowed the contact to slide out once that cover was removed.

The CAFC agreed with SnapPower because “the claim language does not specify the mechanism or means by which the contact is “joined to” the resilient strip; it simply provides that “the contact is joined to the resilient strip.” The district court had relied on a distinction in the specification between “support” and “joined,” “but this observation does not compel the conclusion that ‘joined’ requires some unknown ‘more.’”

Under a reading consistent with the ordinary meaning of “joined,” the CAFC found “no question that the only claim limitation in dispute is met.” The CAFC remanded with instructions to grant partial summary judgment of infringement as to claims 1, 2, and 8, and remanded for further proceedings as necessary as to claims 4, 9, and 10, which SnapPower had not included in its motion for partial summary judgment.

On claim 11 of the ‘180 patent, which requires a spring clip with a portion configured to contact a wall of a receptacle box, SnapPower argued that material questions of fact existed as to whether the accused spring clips meet the “configured to” limitation. The district court had applied an ordinary meaning of “designed to” for “configured to,” which the experts for SnapPower and OWL had agreed on, and found that the spring clips in OWL’s products, which measure approximately 2 to 2.15 inches wide, do not contact the wall of a standard 2.25-inch receptacle box.

Since the construction was agreed on, the CAFC agreed with the district court that a product designed to touch the wall “would do so for more than the narrowest outlier receptacle box.” Evidence of some infringing uses with narrow receptacle boxes did not create a genuine dispute of material fact, since it was not genuinely disputed that the clips do not touch the wall of most receptacle boxes and could be damaged in a narrow one. The CAFC affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement as to claims 11, 12, 13, and 15 of the ‘180 patent.

The CAFC also rejected SnapPower’s additional challenges. For claims 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘324 patent, SnapPower contested the construction of “sandwiched between” as requiring direct contact with the front and rear insulators, and pointed to Figure 4B as depicting an air gap. The CAFC saw no error in a construction that allows some air but requires each insulator to come into some direct contact with the conductor, noting that the patent does not state that Figure 4B is drawn to scale.

For claims 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 of the ‘324 patent, the CAFC agreed with the district court that “aperture” means a physical opening, consistent with the term’s ordinary meaning and the specification. OWL’s products have one opening along the faceplate edge, covered by a translucent plastic piece, so they did not meet the “three spaced apertures” limitation.

On claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the ‘180 patent, the CAFC noted that SnapPower had directed the district court to treat the wire in OWL’s products as the flexible conductive portion, and found no error in an analysis that followed that claim mapping.

Ultimately, the CAFC affirmed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement as to claims 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 of the ‘324 patent and claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 15 of the ‘180 patent, and reversed as to claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the ‘324 patent.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 70164509
Author: billperry