Toka LLC v. Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Toka, LLC (Connecticut)
  • Defendant: SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ference & Associates LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00414, W.D. Pa., 03/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendants do not reside in the United States and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges defendants solicit and transact business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers infringe its utility and design patents covering a wall outlet extender and engage in false advertising by marketing and selling unsafe, non-grounded "knock-off" versions of Plaintiff's product.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves relocatable power outlets, which provide a semi-permanent way to extend access to a wall socket to a more convenient location without requiring professional electrical installation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,155,158 - "WALL MOUNTING OUTLET EXTENDER"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,155,158 ("the '158 Patent"), titled "WALL MOUNTING OUTLET EXTENDER," issued November 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of stationary wall outlets being located in inconvenient or inaccessible places, such as behind furniture ʼ158 Patent, col. 1:26-31 It notes that conventional solutions like extension cords create clutter and potential hazards, while permanently relocating an outlet is invasive and costly ʼ158 Patent, col. 1:41-59
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a wall power outlet extender designed to "relocate the wall power outlet to a different position on the wall without requiring electrical work or professional installation and without cluttering adjacent surfaces" ʼ158 Patent, abstract The device features a plug end, an outlet end, and a shaft connecting them, which can be telescopic to adjust its length and features a rotatable plug to adapt to different spatial constraints ʼ158 Patent, col. 2:4-8 ʼ158 Patent, col. 2:10-13
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a semi-permanent, repositionable, and non-damaging method for extending power outlet access, which may improve convenience and safety compared to traditional flexible extension cords ʼ158 Patent, col. 4:20-29

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the '158 Patent are asserted Compl. ¶32 Compl., prayer 3(a) Independent claim 1 is the broadest utility claim and its elements include:

• a plug end configured to selectively plug into a wall outlet;
• an outlet end configured to selectively receive one or more plugs;
• an extendable shaft positioned between the plug end and the outlet end, wherein the plug end is rotatable;
• an electrical cord portion positioned between the extendable shaft and the plug end, wherein the extendable shaft comprises a bend collar configured to enable flexibility in the extendable shaft adjacent to the plug end; and
• an engagement portion, wherein the engagement portion is positioned on a wall-facing side of the outlet end and is configured to selectively engage the wall.

U.S. Patent No. D1,006,758 - "OUTLET EXTENDER"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,006,758 ("the '758 Patent"), titled "OUTLET EXTENDER," issued December 5, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '758 Patent addresses the ornamental, rather than functional, aspects of a product. It seeks to protect a unique aesthetic appearance for an outlet extender.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design of the outlet extender as depicted in the patent's figures ʼ758 Patent, Figs. 1-7 The claimed design elements include the particular shape and contours of the outlet head, the configuration of the plug end, and the overall visual impression of the device.
• Technical Importance: In the consumer products market, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier, build brand recognition, and differentiate a product from competitors.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for an outlet extender, as shown and described" '758 Patent, claim

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off and infringing versions of Plaintiff's patented EZ OUTLET® outlet extender," referred to as the "Infringing Products" Compl. ¶1 They are allegedly sold by numerous anonymous sellers on online marketplaces including Amazon.com, Temu.com, and Walmart.com Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are "virtually identical in appearance to Plaintiff's authentic products" Compl. ¶36 A central allegation is that the defendants use images of Plaintiff's product to advertise, but deliver an inferior and unsafe version Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶37 Specifically, the Infringing Products are advertised as being electrically grounded but are sold without a ground wire, creating a "serious risk of harm to users by exposing them to the risk of electrical fires or shock" Compl. ¶7 Compl. ¶42 The complaint includes a table with photographic evidence comparing the advertised product to the sold product, illustrating the missing ground wire in the received item Compl. p. 4 The defendants are characterized as a "swarm of infringers" engaged in "mass piracy" at prices below the authentic product Compl. ¶21

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'158 Patent (Utility) Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of the accused products to the elements of any specific asserted claim from the '158 Patent. The infringement theory is presented narratively, alleging that the "Infringing Products" are "knock-offs" of Plaintiff's product and therefore utilize its patented technology Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶32

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to show that the "Infringing Products," which are alleged to be "poorly designed and manufactured" Compl. ¶7, meet every limitation of an asserted claim. For example, it is unclear from the complaint whether the accused products possess a "rotatable" plug end or a "bend collar" as required by claim 1.
  • Pleading Sufficiency: The lack of specific, element-by-element infringement allegations for the utility patent in the complaint may itself become a point of contention.

'758 Patent (Design) Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "virtually identical in appearance to Plaintiff's authentic products" Compl. ¶36 The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing them to purchase one supposing it to be the other.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The core dispute will likely center on the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether the accused products are substantially similar in their overall ornamental appearance to the design claimed in the '758 Patent.
  • Deception: The allegation that defendants use Plaintiff's own marketing images to advertise the infringing products may strengthen the argument that consumers are likely to be confused Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶37

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not offer a basis for claim construction analysis. However, based on the technology of the '158 Patent, certain terms may become central to the dispute.

• The Term: "rotatable" (in claim 1 of the '158 Patent)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term could be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality and construction of the accused "knock-off" products are unknown. Whether "rotatable" requires a full 360-degree range of motion or is satisfied by any degree of movement could determine whether the accused products infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 simply requires the plug end to be "rotatable," without specifying a mechanism or degree. The specification describes 360-degree rotation as one possible embodiment, not necessarily a limitation on the term itself '158 Patent, col. 2:21-22
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a "swivel component" and "swivel seat" as the mechanism for rotation '158 Patent, col. 8:10-12 '158 Patent, Fig. 8 A defendant may argue that this context limits the term "rotatable" to the specific type of mechanism disclosed.

• The Term: "engagement portion" (in claim 1 of the '158 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term defines how the outlet end attaches to a wall. Its construction is important because if the accused products lack a corresponding feature or use a different method of attachment, they may not infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides several examples of what the "engagement portion" could be, including "non-permanent adhesive, removable putty, or stickable surface," suggesting the term is not limited to a single structure '158 Patent, col. 2:26-27
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly states that the engagement portion is "free from any attachment to the wall that traverses or damages the wall surface" '158 Patent, col. 2:28-30 This language could be used to argue that the term is limited to non-damaging attachment methods.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges defendants are "contributing to, inducing, and engaging in the sale of Infringing and Falsely Advertised Products," but does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for inducement or contributory infringement Compl. ¶44
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the EZ OUTLET® patents" and have "knowingly and willfully pirated" the product Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶50 The prayer for relief explicitly requests a judgment of willful infringement Compl., prayer 3(a)

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

• A central issue will be one of visual identity: for the design patent claim, the case will likely turn on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused products, allegedly marketed using Plaintiff's own images, to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the '758 Patent.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of element-by-element proof: for the utility patent claim, Plaintiff faces the challenge of demonstrating that the "Infringing Products," which it describes as "inferior" and "poorly designed," actually practice every required element of an asserted claim from the '158 Patent.
• Beyond infringement, a significant question will relate to deceptive advertising and safety: the complaint heavily emphasizes that defendants market products as electrically grounded while allegedly selling ungrounded and unsafe versions. The evidence supporting this safety-related false advertising claim may heavily influence the trajectory and potential damages in the case.