CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Aptos Solar Technology, LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the docket, the litigation campaign, and IPR activity.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. CyboEnergy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Rancho Cordova/Sacramento, California, and a subsidiary of CyboSoft (founded 1994, a process-control software company whose Model-Free Adaptive control technology predates the solar business). CyboEnergy is an operating company, not a classic shell plaintiff: it develops and sells the "CyboInverter" line of solar mini-inverters — grid-tied, off-grid, and hybrid units marketed for water heating, PV air conditioning, and battery-less microgrids — and its CEO/inventor of record on the asserted patents is Dr. George Shu-Xing Cheng. Because CyboEnergy's revenue model has become heavily litigation-driven, Unified Patents describes it flatly as an "NPE" in its PATROLL prior-art bounty on the '489 patent, and Chinese trade press has noted its high propensity to sue. Both characterizations are accurate in different senses: it has real products, but since 2021 it has asserted the same two-patent family against a long chain of microinverter rivals and their U.S. distributors. Defendant Aptos Solar Technology, LLC is a U.S. solar-equipment supplier based in Santa Clara, California (per its USPTO trademark filings), selling its own "DNA Series" panels and MAC-series microinverters; the company claims decades of U.S. distribution experience. Defense counsel in this docket is not identified in the public filings I could verify.

The accused technology and asserted patents. CyboEnergy accused Aptos's MAC 800R dual-unit (2:1) microinverter — an 800 W, 2-input-channel unit — of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 ("Smart and scalable power inverters," issued July 22, 2014 from a July 2010 application; expiry ~2032) and U.S. Patent No. 9,331,489 ("Maximizing power production at low sunlight by solar power mini-inverters," issued May 3, 2016). In one line each: the '133 patent claims a multi-channel DC-to-AC inverter with an AC input port and AC output port allowing units to be daisy-chained together, so a solar system scales incrementally in a plug-and-play fashion while each input channel gets its own control and MPPT (addressing partial shading); the '489 patent claims a solar mini-inverter that keeps operating in low-irradiance conditions — sunrise, sunset, cloud cover, shading — by using one connected panel's DC power to feed the inverter's internal electronics while still inverting the other panels' DC to AC. The complaint did not just parrot claim language: it charted claim elements against Aptos's MAC 800R datasheet and user manual (e.g., the manual's daisy-chain AC wiring instructions and "maximum units per branch" spec as evidence of incremental scalability), and pleaded induced and contributory infringement based on Aptos's installation manuals and marketing. CyboEnergy sought infringement of claims 1–24 of the '133 patent, the '489 patent claims, damages, fees, trebling, and a permanent injunction (Dkt. 1; complaint PDF at cdn.lawlytics.com).

Procedural posture and venue. Filed March 16, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, case 6:22-cv-00281, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (Dkt. 1, 4; standing order at Dkt. 5, Apr. 14, 2022). Venue choice was the point: in 2021–22 Waco/Albright was the single busiest patent docket in the country, with a one-judge division, an extremely fast median time-to-trial, plaintiff-friendly standing orders, and no local co-defendant to fight transfer. The case, however, barely got moving — the docket shows only the complaint, summons, standing order, and then a one-page stipulation of dismissal filed July 11, 2022 (Dkt. 6), followed by the Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 7). There was no answer, no motion to dismiss, no claim construction, and no IPR against the '133 or '489 patents arising from Aptos. The dismissal terms, and whether it was with or without prejudice, are not disclosed in the public record I could verify — so any characterization of it as a paid license is inference, not fact. The dismissal also came roughly two weeks before the W.D. Tex.'s July 25, 2022 "Order Assigning Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases," which redistributed patent filings across the district and sharply cut the Waco/Albright share — a reminder that this case sits in the last months of the peak Waco filing era.

Why the case matters. Three reasons. First, it is an early link in a sustained campaign over one patent family: the '489 patent (per Unified Patents) has been asserted against Sensata Technologies, Northern Electric Power, Aptos, Altenergy Power Systems, Hoymiles, Duracell, and Yotta Energy, with the '133 paired alongside in most of those suits — a pattern of suing U.S. importers/distributors of Chinese-made microinverters (Hoymiles, APsystems/Altenergy, Deye, NEP) rather than only the overseas manufacturers. Second, the Aptos suit looks like the opening move against what became a Hoymiles supply relationship: Aptos announced a partnership with Hoymiles in October 2022 to bring the MAC-800/MAC-400 microinverters to the U.S. market, and CyboEnergy then sued Hoymiles in the Eastern District of Texas (2:23-cv-00311) in June 2023 — a case that produced a substantive pleading ruling, CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Hoymiles Power Elecs. USA, Inc., 2024 WL 1219725 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024), dismissing direct-infringement and pre-suit indirect-infringement claims with leave to amend, and that ended when Hoymiles filed IPR2024-01106 and the parties jointly terminated it on October 23, 2024 under a confidential license and settlement agreement. That Hoymiles IPR is the clearest IPR linkage to this dispute. Third, the campaign's economics are visible: in the parallel Altenergy case (W.D. Tex. No. WA-22-cv-01136-KC, Judge Kathleen Cardone), the court granted dismissal of the '133 direct-infringement claims (CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023)); the Hoymiles opinion has since been cited by other defendants as pleading-stage precedent on pre-suit knowledge for induced/contributory infringement; and APsystems/Altenergy publicly disclosed a $300,000 settlement in March 2024 against roughly RMB 5.52 million in attorney fees. With the '489 patent now the target of a Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contest (Sept. 14 – Oct. 17, 2026) seeking art against at least claim 14, and new suits filed in 2025 against Yotta Energy (W.D. Tex. No. 1:25-cv-01300) and Deye (C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-07964), this 2022 Aptos case reads less as a standalone dispute than as the first, cheapest stop in a multi-year monetization program over microinverter architecture.

Sourcing note: the docket entries, filing dates, judge assignment, and dismissal documents are corroborated by the Patexia docket listing for 6:22-cv-00281 and IPWatchdog's March 24, 2022 patent filings roundup; the accused product and claim charts come from the complaint itself; patent descriptions come from the patents and CyboEnergy's own press materials; and the campaign/IPR facts come from the Altenergy and Hoymiles opinions, Unified Patents' PATROLL page, and Ramey LLP's case announcements. I could not verify Aptos's litigation counsel, the settlement amount or prejudice status of this dismissal, or a formal finding that the MAC 800R was a Hoymiles-manufactured unit — that last point is strongly indicated by contemporaneous industry press and product specs but was not confirmed in any court filing I located.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the docket, PTAB proceedings, and parallel cases.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Aptos Solar Technology, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00281 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, "file-and-settle" case. It lasted 117 days from complaint to dismissal and never progressed past the pleadings. There was no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no Markman, no discovery, no IPR, and no trial. The entire docket consists of seven entries.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2022-03-16 to 2022-04-14)

Sources: Patexia case docket, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CYBOENERGY-INC-v-APTOS-SOLAR-TECHNOLOGY-LLC-id-[162482](/patent/162482)/documents; IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup (2022-03-24), https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/03/24/patent-filings-roundup-fintiv-files-paypal-ppc-broadband-patents-challenged-based-successful-reexams-last-[cbm](/resources/patent-reviews)-decision-issues/ (listing "6:22-cv-00281 | Filed | Cyboenergy Inc. | Aptos Solar Technology LLC | 8786133 9331489").

Parties & patents.

• Plaintiff: CyboEnergy, Inc. (Delaware corporation; principal place of business Sacramento, California), represented by Ramey LLP (William P. Ramey, III; Jeffrey E. Kubiak). Ramey LLP publicly announced the suit. https://www.rameyfirm.com/ramey-llp-files-new-litigation-cases-on-behalf-of-cyboenergy-inc
• Defendant: Aptos Solar Technology, LLC.
• Asserted patents: US 8,786,133 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters") and US 9,331,489 ("Maximizing Power Production at Low Sunlight by Solar Power Mini-Inverters").
• Accused product: the Aptos MAC 800R microinverter and systems enabled by it.

Complaint substance. The complaint's infringement charts mapped Aptos's own product literature — the MAC 800R Microinverter User Manual and the MAC 800R product datasheet — against asserted claims including claim 15 (scalable DC-to-AC inversion system) and claim 19 (method of making an incrementally scalable DC-to-AC conversion system). Key charted limitations included the daisy-chained AC output/input ports (claim 15(b)) and "Maximum units per branch²: 5/4" as evidence of incremental scalability (claim 15(c)). Complaint text: https://cdn.lawlytics.com/law-media/uploads/2360/[184522](/patent/184522)/original/Complaint-CyboEnergy-v.-Aptos.pdf

Answer & counterclaims: None. The docket contains no answer, no counterclaim, no Rule 12 motion, and no attorney appearance for Aptos before dismissal. The case resolved pre-answer.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None filed. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion for judgment on the pleadings, and no summary judgment motion appears on the docket.

This is notable because CyboEnergy's identical pleadings fared poorly when tested by other defendants in parallel suits (see §7 below). Aptos avoided that exposure by resolving the case before responding.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

None. The case was dismissed roughly four months after filing — well before the Markman stage contemplated by Judge Albright's OVGP standing order (Dkt. 5). There are no claim construction briefs, no Markman hearing, and no construction order in this docket.

---

4. Discovery Milestones

None of strategic significance. No scheduling order was entered beyond the boilerplate OVGP standing order (Dkt. 5), no discovery was served, and no infringement/non-infringement or invalidity contentions appear on the docket. The case terminated during the pre-scheduling/pleading window.

---

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date was set, no verdict, and no JMOL/new trial/attorney's fees motions. No § 285 exceptional-case motion was filed.

---

6. Final Disposition (2022-07-11)

• On 2022-07-11, CyboEnergy filed a Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 6), and the Clerk transmitted the Report on Patent/Trademark (AO 120) to the USPTO (Dkt. 7). The docket reflects the case as terminated 2022-07-11.
• Character of the dismissal: The stipulation was filed by the plaintiff (per the docket entry, "STIPULATION of Dismissal by CYBOENERGY, INC."). This is the classic signature of a pre-answer settlement/license resolution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — a self-effectuating dismissal that requires no court order. CyboEnergy's parallel campaign shows the same pattern in other cases.
• ⚠️ Sourcing caveat: The text of the stipulation and any settlement/license terms are not publicly available in the sources located. I could not confirm from public records whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, or whether a license payment was made. CyboEnergy's subsequent dismissal of its Deye case was expressly without prejudice (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-07964, Dkt. 18, filed 2025-12-12), which is consistent with the Ramey LLP campaign template, but the Aptos dismissal terms are not verifiable. Do not assume settlement terms.
• Appeal: None. No notice of appeal appears; the case is closed.

---

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings & Related Litigation Context

PTAB (IPR/PGR)

• No IPR or PGR against US 8,786,133 or US 9,331,489 is reflected in the public record in connection with Aptos. No post-grant challenge by Aptos appears, and no motion to stay pending IPR was filed — unsurprising given the case resolved pre-answer.
• By 2026, the '489 patent remained a defensive-aggregator target: Unified Patents opened a PATROLL prior-art crowdsourcing contest on at least claim 14 of US 9,331,489, offering a $2,000 prize (contest window 2026-09-14 to 2026-10-17). Unified describes CyboEnergy as an NPE and lists prior assertion targets including Aptos Solar Tech, Sensata, Northern Electric Power, Altenergy, Hoymiles, Duracell, and Yotta Energy. This confirms that CyboEnergy's patents survived the Aptos episode un-challenged at the PTAB, but drew ongoing invalidty-scouting interest. https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/qMbpWma4WD5FCwjsq
• For comparison, a 2023–24 PTAB petition in an unrelated (UMC) matter cited CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles as pleading precedent — i.e., CyboEnergy's patents/litigation generated case law on pleading standards, not PTAB estoppel.

Related district court campaign on the same two patents (context for why Aptos settled early)

The same two patents were asserted in a serial campaign by Ramey LLP:

1. CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power System USA, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01136 (W.D. Tex., filed 2022-10-28, Judge Kathleen Cardone). On 2023-09-13, the court granted Altenergy's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the '133 direct-infringement claim — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, Inc., No. WA-22-CV-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023).
2. CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles Power Electronics USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex., filed 2023-06-27, Judge Rodney Gilstrap). On 2024-03-20, the court partially dismissed: CyboEnergy failed to plausibly allege that Hoymiles (rather than end users) performed every step of method claim 19 of the '133 patent, and failed to plead pre-suit knowledge for induced/contributory infringement — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Hoymiles Power Elecs. USA, Inc., 2024 WL 1219725 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2023cv00311/[223357](/patent/223357)/25/
3. CyboEnergy v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 7:24-cv-00319 (W.D. Tex., Midland/Odessa, filed 2024-12-06, then reassigned to Judge Albright). Voluntarily dismissed 2025-05-19 without reaching the merits.
4. CyboEnergy v. Deye ESS Technology USA / Ningbo Deye Inverter Technology, No. 2:25-cv-07964 (C.D. Cal., filed 2025-08-22, Judge Anne Hwang) — this one asserting '133 and '488 (the '488 sibling, not the '489). CyboEnergy voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2025-12-12 (Dkt. 18–19) after failing to secure timely service/answer and receiving an order to show cause for lack of prosecution.

Strategic significance of the Aptos case: Aptos is chronologically the first assertion in the CyboEnergy campaign (filed 2022-03-16), and it is the only one that produced no publicly visible merits ruling. The Altenergy and Hoymiles decisions later showed that CyboEnergy's complaint template — which pleaded infringement largely by copying claim language and citing the defendant's own manuals — was vulnerable to Rule 12(b)(6) attack on both system claims (who "uses" each element) and method claims (whether the defendant or the end user performs the steps). Aptos resolved before that template was judicially tested, meaning the Aptos docket carries no precedential claim-construction or validity rulings.

---

Timeline Summary

---

What Is Not Sourced (explicit gaps)

• The text and terms of the Dkt. 6 stipulation (with vs. without prejudice; any license or payment) are not publicly retrievable from the sources I searched.
• Whether Aptos appeared before dismissal is not confirmed — the docket shows no appearance, but some appearances are not captured in third-party docket summaries.
• No PTAB IPR/PGR numbers for the '133 or '489 patents tied to Aptos could be located; treat "no IPR" as an absence of evidence in the searched sources rather than a certified negative.

Key URLs: Complaint PDF — https://cdn.lawlytics.com/law-media/uploads/2360/184522/original/Complaint-CyboEnergy-v.-Aptos.pdf · Patexia docket — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CYBOENERGY-INC-v-APTOS-SOLAR-TECHNOLOGY-LLC-id-162482/documents · Unified Patents PATROLL ('489) — https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/qMbpWma4WD5FCwjsq · Hoymiles opinion — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2023cv00311/223357/25/

I'll research the docket and counsel for the plaintiff in this case.

Let me dig into the docket details and any additional appearances or local counsel.

Let me confirm the docket entries and check for any additional appearances via CourtListener/RECAP.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc. — 6:22-cv-00281-ADA

Based on the filed pleadings and the docket entries in this case, the plaintiff was represented by a single attorney of record, from a single firm. There is no evidence of local counsel, in-house counsel, or additional firm attorneys appearing in this case.

Attorney of record

Docket basis. Ramey is the only person in the signature block of the March 16, 2022 Original Complaint (Doc. 1), which concludes "Ramey LLP … William P. Ramey, III … Attorneys for CyboEnergy, Inc." He also personally filed the Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 6, July 11, 2022), shown on the docket as "(Ramey, William)." Docket entries otherwise run only through Doc. 7 (Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO, July 11, 2022) — there is no notice of appearance, pro hac vice motion, or other attorney signature by anyone else for the plaintiff. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (Waco Division) and terminated roughly four months after filing, before any answer or counterclaim appears on the docket.

Relevant experience note

Ramey is managing partner of Ramey LLP and a registered patent attorney whose practice is almost entirely plaintiff-side patent infringement filing, including a long-running series of suits asserting CyboEnergy's '133/'489 (and '488) inverter patents against NEP, APsystems, Sensata, Yotta, Duracell, Generac and others. His litigation record is, however, heavily clouded by sanctions: in Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., No. 24-cv-03089-PHK, 2025 WL 917110 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025), Magistrate Judge Kang sanctioned him and other Ramey firm lawyers for unauthorized practice of law in California and for repeated false pro hac vice applications (a $45,264 monetary sanction plus reporting/notice requirements), and he was again subjected to an order to show cause in Lime Green Lighting (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025). In VDPP v. Volkswagen (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee Rosenthal held him jointly liable for over $207,000 in fees in a case she called "frivolous" from the outset; Reuters/ABA Journal reporting puts the aggregate of fee sanctions in Ramey cases at roughly $810,000 across at least seven orders. (Reported in ABA Journal, "Criticizing plaintiff's 'chutzpah'…," and Law360.)

Caveats

• No local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no second chair appear in this case. Ramey LLP's other CyboEnergy matters frequently list Susan S.Q. Kalra (Redwood City, CA office) and Jeffrey E. Kubiak as co-counsel, but neither is named in the Aptos complaint or on this docket, so I am not attributing them here.
• No pro hac vice motion was filed in this matter on Ramey's behalf; because the case was dismissed within four months and Ramey is a Texas-bar member, none was required in W.D. Tex.
• Sourcing limitation: I was unable to pull the PACER docket sheet or a RECAP copy directly; the entries above are drawn from the filed complaint PDF (hosted on the firm's site/CDN) and a third-party docket listing (Patexia) that reproduces Docs. 1–7. If a sealed appearance or a substituted-counsel filing exists outside that listing, it is not reflected here — flagging that as an unverified possibility rather than asserting the docket is complete.

I'll research defense counsel for Aptos Solar Technology in this case. Let me run several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper for the docket sheet and any appearance of defense counsel.

Let me try the specific docket pages and RECAP.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Aptos Solar Technology, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00281-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: there is no defense counsel of record in this case, because no counsel for Aptos Solar Technology, LLC ever appeared.

What the record shows

The docket for 6:22-cv-00281 contains seven entries, and every attorney-signed filing in the case came from the plaintiff's side (William P. Ramey, III / Ramey LLP). The docket, as reproduced in the Patexia case listing, runs:

Source: Patexia docket, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CYBOENERGY-INC-v-APTOS-SOLAR-TECHNOLOGY-LLC-id-162482/documents (Reproducing Docs. 1–7; last entry July 11, 2022).

Critically, the record contains no:

• Answer or Rule 12(b) motion by Aptos;
• Notice of attorney appearance for Aptos;
• pro hac vice application on Aptos's behalf;
• corporate disclosure statement / certificate of interested parties for Aptos (which a represented defendant must file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and W.D. Tex. local practice);
• counterclaim, motion to transfer (§ 1404(a)), or motion to stay; or
• any signature block for a defense firm anywhere in the filings.

Why there is no defense counsel to identify

This is a pre-answer, stipulation-of-dismissal case. The complaint was filed 2022-03-16; the stipulated dismissal was filed 117 days later, on 2022-07-11, before Aptos's answer deadline would have matured and before any responsive pleading. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties is self-effectuating and requires no court order — and here the docket entry records the stipulation as filed by the plaintiff alone, with no defense signature block appearing on the face of the docket. That procedural posture is why the docket never generated a defense appearance.

This matches the case summary already generated for this matter, which flagged "Defense counsel in this docket is not identified in the public filings I could verify." My research confirms that gap rather than filling it.

What I could not verify (explicit gaps)

• No defense attorney, firm, or office location can be stated for this case. I will not name counsel by inference. Unlike the plaintiff's side (Ramey LLP, confirmed from the complaint's signature block), the defense side produced zero attorney-signed documents in 6:22-cv-00281.
• A stipulation of dismissal typically implies that some defense-side attorney negotiated and signed it. But that signature block is not reproduced in the publicly available docket text for Dkt. 6 (Patexia lists the entry as a one-page filing attributed to "(Ramey, William)"), and I could not retrieve the underlying PDF of Dkt. 6 through the sources searched. So while it is highly likely a defense lawyer or in-house representative was involved behind the scenes, the identity is not documented in anything I can cite.
• I found no reported decision, Law360/Reuters item, or firm press release identifying Aptos's litigation counsel in this or any other patent matter. Aptos does not appear to have a publicly documented patent-litigation defense firm of record.
• Caveat on docket completeness: PACER itself was not directly accessible; the entries above come from the third-party Patexia docket listing and the complaint PDF. If a sealed appearance or a substituted-counsel filing exists outside that listing, it is not reflected here — but nothing in the seven-entry docket suggests one.

Context worth noting for the analyst

The absence of defense counsel of record is itself the analytically significant fact here: it corroborates that Aptos resolved this case at the earliest possible stage — before engaging on the merits, before any Rule 12 attack, and before the Markman process that Judge Albright's OVGP standing order (Dkt. 5) contemplated. CyboEnergy's later, parallel campaigns show defense-side counsel did appear and did defeat the same complaint template on the pleadings when given the chance — e.g., CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023), and CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles Power Elecs. USA, 2024 WL 1219725 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024). This Aptos docket produced none of that, which is consistent with a fast, quiet pre-answer resolution.

Recommendation: If the user needs the identity of Aptos's counsel as a factual matter, the only reliable paths are (1) pulling the PDF of Dkt. 6 (the stipulation) from PACER/RECAP, which would carry any defense signature block, or (2) a PACER docket-sheet "attorneys" query for the case. Based on the sources available to me, I cannot name a defendant's attorney without fabricating one.