PopSockets LLC v. Mous Products Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PopSockets LLC (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Mous Products Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Irell & Manella LLP; Miller Fair Henry PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00081, E.D. Tex., 01/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign entity, which may be sued in any judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), and because the defendant has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MagSafe-compatible phone cases and accessories infringe two patents related to modular docking platforms for mobile electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for attaching and interchanging accessories, such as grips and wireless chargers, to mobile devices, a key area of competition in the smartphone accessory market.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit claim priority through a long chain of applications dating back to 2012, indicating a long-standing development effort in this technology space by the Plaintiff. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,989,058 - "Docking Accessory Platform for Mobile Electronic Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,989,058, "Docking Accessory Platform for Mobile Electronic Devices," issued May 21, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art docking solutions as inconvenient. Connectors on the edge of a device make the combined system unwieldy for transport, while accessory-integrated cases increase the device's overall size. Compl. ¶13 ’058 Patent, col. 1:40-54
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "docking platform" on the back of the mobile device that allows for the detachable magnetic attachment of different types of accessories, such as power accessories and grip accessories, with only a "nominal increase in the effective magnitude of any one dimension of the mobile device." Compl. ¶13 ’058 Patent, col. 3:12-26 Figure 8 of the patent, reproduced in the complaint, illustrates a platform configured as a case with two grip accessories attached. Compl. ¶14
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a versatile and modular accessory ecosystem for smartphones that does not significantly compromise the device's portability. Compl. ¶13

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. Compl. ¶23
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A docking accessory platform adapted to couple to a mobile electronic device.
  • A first docking connector portion with a first magnetic element for detachably attaching to a power accessory.
  • A back portion to be secured against the back surface of the mobile device.
  • A side portion extending around at least a portion of the side of the mobile device.
  • The first docking connector portion is also configured to detachably attach to a grip accessory with a third magnetic element.

U.S. Patent No. 11,899,496 - "Docking Connector Platform for Mobile Electronic Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,899,496, "Docking Connector Platform for Mobile Electronic Devices," issued February 13, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to enable accessories to attach to a mobile device "without significantly increasing the effective carrying size" by distributing the accessory's volume across a large portion of the device's surface. Compl. ¶18 ’496 Patent, col. 10:20-24
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system comprising a mobile device, a "platform" coupled to the device, and a "power docking accessory." The platform and accessory have corresponding docking connector portions that form a detachable attachment, enabling the accessory to inductively transfer power to the mobile device. Compl. ¶16 ’496 Patent, Abstract Figure 29, reproduced in the complaint, shows various embodiments, including platforms configured for "flush mounting an accessory to the back surface" of the device. Compl. ¶18 ’496 Patent, Fig. 29
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a standardized system for detachably connecting power accessories to a mobile device via a platform, facilitating inductive charging. (Compl. ¶16, ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. Compl. ¶32
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A detachable docking accessory system comprising:
  • A mobile electronic device.
  • A platform adapted to couple to the mobile device, including a first docking connector portion and a back portion.
  • A power docking accessory with an accessory body and a second docking connector portion, configured for detachable attachment to the platform.
  • An electronic assembly within the accessory body operable to inductively transfer power.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Accused Phone Case Products" and "Accused Charging Products." Compl. ¶¶20-21 The case products include the "Limitless," "Clarity," "Intralock," "Super Thin," and "Infinity" lines of MagSafe®/Qi2 compatible cases. Compl. ¶20 The charging products include wireless charging stands, mounts, and power banks. Compl. ¶21 An exemplary accused product is the "Mous' Clarity MagSafe phone case for use with the iPhone 17." Compl. ¶23

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Phone Case Products are smartphone cases featuring an "integrated magnetic array" that is "MagSafe®/Qi2 compatible." Compl. ¶¶20, 24, p. 12 This magnetic array allows for the detachable attachment of various accessories, including the Accused Charging Products (e.g., a power bank) and grip accessories (e.g., a magnetic phone ring and stand). Compl. ¶¶26-27 The complaint positions the Defendant, Mous, as a direct competitor to the Plaintiff, PopSockets. Compl. ¶19

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,989,058 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A key factual question will be whether the same "first docking connector portion" (the magnetic array in the Mous case) is configured to attach to both a power accessory and a grip accessory. The claim language "and the first docking connector portion... is further configured" suggests a single, dual-purpose connector is required. The court may need to determine if the general-purpose magnetic ring in the accused cases meets this specific conjunctive requirement.

11,899,496 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A potential point of contention is whether the accused "phone case" constitutes the claimed "platform." Defendant may argue that the term "platform" as used in the patent requires a component distinct from a full, protective case with sides.
  • Liability Question: As Claim 1 is a system claim requiring multiple components (device, platform, accessory), a central issue will be indirect infringement. The analysis will likely focus on whether Mous's actions of selling the case and accessories separately, while marketing them for use together, meets the legal standard for inducing or contributing to infringement by the end-user who assembles the system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "platform" (asserted in Claim 1 of both the ’058 and ’496 patents)
• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement theory for both patents. The dispute may turn on whether a full protective phone case, like the accused products, falls within the scope of "platform." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either broadly cover most modern accessory-mounting cases or be limited to a narrower set of back-plate-style adapters.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’496 patent states that the docking platform may be "integrally formed with one aspect of the mobile electronic device, e.g., the back cover." ’496 Patent, col. 3:17-20 This could support reading the term to encompass a phone case, which integrates with and acts as a new back cover for the device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '058 patent states the invention allows attachment "with at most a nominal increase in the effective magnitude of any one dimension of the mobile device." Compl. ¶13 ’058 Patent, col. 3:15-26 A party could argue that a full protective case inherently increases dimensions more than "nominally" and thus falls outside the scope of the claimed "platform."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. Compl. ¶¶28-29, 37-38 For inducement, the complaint alleges Mous provides advertisements, tutorials, and user instructions that encourage customers to combine the accused cases and accessories in an infringing manner. Compl. ¶¶28, 37 The complaint also includes a screenshot of a YouTube comment where Mous's official account allegedly confirms its cases are compatible with third-party MagSafe accessories. Compl. p. 15 For contributory infringement, it is alleged that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing use. Compl. ¶¶29, 38
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit "via PopSockets' website(s) and patent markings" prior to the lawsuit, and continued infringement after the complaint was filed. Compl. ¶¶30, 39

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "platform," as used in the patents, be construed to cover a full protective phone "case" like the accused products, or is its meaning limited to a component that adds only "nominal" bulk to the mobile device?
• A key technical and factual question for the ’058 patent will be whether the single magnetic ring on the accused cases is "further configured" to attach to both power and grip accessories in the specific manner required by the conjunctive limitations of Claim 1, or if there is a mismatch in capability.
• A central question of liability for the ’496 patent's system claim will be whether Plaintiff can prove Defendant possessed the requisite intent for indirect infringement by marketing and selling components that end-users are instructed or encouraged to combine into the patented system.