Litigation

CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

voluntarily dismissed/stayed

7:24-cv-00319

Filed
2024-12-06

Patents at issue (2)

8786133
9331488

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

CyboEnergy, Inc. sued Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. asserting U.S. Patents 8,786,133 and 9,331,488. CyboEnergy expressly withdrew its direct-infringement claim on the '133 patent and proceeded only on indirect infringement for that patent. The docket shows a stay and a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed/stayed rather than litigated to judgment.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case now, starting with the parties, the patents, and the docket.

Good initial harvest. Now let me dig into the IPR linkage, CyboEnergy's other litigation, and the patent titles.

Now let me nail down the docket events, the stay basis, and CyboEnergy's corporate background.

Case Overview and Background

The parties and what they do. CyboEnergy, Inc. is a small U.S. solar power-electronics company that makes and sells its own power inverters (the "CyboInverter" line) and whose patent portfolio is inventor-rooted — the '133/'488 family lists George Shu-Xing Cheng among the named inventors, and the December 2023 PTAB filings by Altenergy Power System are captioned against "Cheng, George Shu-Xing" (per Patexia's related-case listing for the Deye suit). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies CyboEnergy as a "Practicing Entity" and a "product company," while Unified Patents' September 18, 2026 PATROLL post describes CyboEnergy as "an NPE." The most accurate characterization is a hybrid operating company that monetizes a small patent family through serial litigation, using William P. Ramey III and Ramey LLP — one of the highest-volume patent-plaintiff firms in the country — as counsel of record here (Dkt. 1). Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is the largest U.S. home-improvement retailer and is sued purely in its downstream/retail capacity as a seller of solar power inverters rather than as a manufacturer. The complaint describes "power inverters" and "enclosures with message systems for power inverters" that Home Depot "maintains, operates, manufactures, offers for sale and sells" but does not identify specific brands, models, or SKUs, and the claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D) were referenced but not filed (see complaint analysis, Ex Parte / CourtListener docket). Given the timing — CyboEnergy filed against Duracell Power Center LLC in N.D. Cal. four days later, on December 10, 2024, accusing the "Duracell Power Center D1500 Solar Power Micro-Inverter" and "D700 Solar Power Inverter" — the Home Depot case appears to be an attack on the retail distribution channel for third-party microinverter products, but I could not verify which products Home Depot actually sold.

Asserted patents and their technical sketch. Two patents are at issue: (1) U.S. 8,786,133, "Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" (filed July 15, 2010; issued July 22, 2014; estimated expiry June 7, 2032), which claims a scalable DC-to-AC inversion system in which a plurality of inverters — each with at least two DC input ports feeding a single DC-AC inverter — is wired in a "daisy chain," the AC output of each inverter feeding the AC input of the next, with the last inverter tied to the grid service panel; and (2) U.S. 9,331,488, "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" (filed June 29, 2012; issued May 3, 2016; estimated expiry December 17, 2034), which claims a multi-channel inverter enclosure whose microcontroller-driven LED "message system" indicates the status of the inverter as a whole and of each individual DC input channel (green = working, flashing red = error, etc.). Note a sourcing trap: the Ramey firm's own press release misdescribes the '488 patent as "Maximizing Power Production at Low Sunlight by Solar Power Mini-Inverters" — that is the '489 patent, a different member of the family asserted in the Duracell and Yotta cases, not the patent asserted here. The technically accurate '488 title is confirmed by the IP-NAVI dispute records and the Chinese trade-press analysis of the Deye complaint.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. CyboEnergy filed on December 6, 2024 in the Western District of Texas, and the docket shows the case initially assigned to Judge David Counts (the Ramey firm's press release says "Midland/Odessa Division") before being reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on December 18, 2024 (Dkt. 6, Order to Transfer) — Albright presides in Waco, which is consistent with the caption metadata but is a detail worth flagging, since the pleadings-stage venue description and the eventual presiding judge do not line up cleanly. Home Depot then sought an extension and appeared on February 5, 2025 (Dkt. 7–8), moved to stay on February 18, 2025 (Dkt. 9), and the court acted on the stay on February 20, 2025 (Dkt. 11), with further stay-related docket activity on March 27 and April 29, 2025 (Dkt. 12–13). CyboEnergy filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on May 19, 2025 (Dkt. 14), and the court formally entered an Order Dismissing Case and the AO-120 report on August 26, 2026 (Dkt. 15–16). Because Home Depot never answered and dismissal came by notice, the dismissal is presumably without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), but I have not verified that from the order text. Critically, on the '133 patent CyboEnergy pleaded only indirect infringement (induced and contributory) and expressly withdrew any direct-infringement claim — the same retreat it made after Judge Cardone dismissed its direct-infringement theory in CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, No. WA-22-CV-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023), and after Judge Gilstrap granted-in-part a motion to dismiss on that basis in CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles, No. 2:23-CV-00311-JRG (E.D. Tex. March 20, 2024). The structural reason is that the '133 system claims recite multiple daisy-chained inverters plus external DC sources, so a defendant that ships single inverters argues the end user, not the seller, assembles the claimed system. The case is notable on three axes: it is the retail-channel prong of a multi-front campaign against the microinverter market (asserted against Northern Electric Power, Home Depot, Duracell, Yotta Energy, Deye, Hoymiles, Altenergy/APsystems, Aptos Solar, and Generac, per Unified Patents and the Ramey firm's press releases); it is now subject to a live third-party invalidity challenge — on September 18, 2026 Unified Patents opened two PATROLL prior-art contests ($2,000 each, $4,000 total, expiring October 17, 2026) against the CyboEnergy power-inverter patents, expressly premised on the patents' broadening assertion history; and it illustrates the post-2022 W.D. Tex. patent-assignment dynamics, with a small operating company using Albright's Waco docket against a big-box retailer that is only a reseller.

Caveats on sourcing. The docket entries above are drawn from CourtListener/RECAP and Justia mirroring PACER and were last refreshed in early 2025 for some entries; the reasons for the February 2025 stay are not stated in the sources I could reach, and I did not verify whether the stay was tied to the parallel PTAB proceedings (Altenergy's IPR2024-00360 and IPR2024-00362, filed December 22/26, 2023, and Hoymiles' IPR2024-01106, per Patexia's related-case list for the Deye suit) — that linkage is plausible but unconfirmed, and I could not verify the IPR petition contents, institution decisions, or outcomes. CyboEnergy's corporate details (founding date, headquarters, revenue, employee count) were likewise not verifiable within this session; treat the "small U.S. solar manufacturer" description as supported by the Stanford NPE database and trade-press characterizations rather than by a primary corporate filing.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and pleadings, then moving through the case timeline and PTAB proceedings.

Let me pull the full docket and check the PTAB and related cases.

Bottom line

CyboEnergy v. Home Depot (W.D. Tex. No. 7:24-cv-00319) never advanced past the pleading stage. It was filed 2024-12-06, reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on 2024-12-18, stayed in February–April 2025 on a defense motion, and then terminated by CyboEnergy's own notice of voluntary dismissal filed 2025-05-19, followed by an order dismissing the case and the routine AO-120 patent report. There was no answer or counterclaim, no motion to dismiss, no motion to transfer, no Markman proceeding, no discovery, no trial, no verdict, and no fee motion. The stay appears to have been the pivotal event, but the public record I could retrieve does not disclose the stated basis for the stay (e.g., whether it was pending IPR, pending related litigation, or a consensual/administrative stay). I found no PTAB IPR or PGR challenging either asserted patent.

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2024-12-06 to 2024-12-18)

Complaint — 2024-12-06 (Dkt. 1). CyboEnergy, Inc., represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP, Houston), filed an Original Complaint asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters," issued 2014-07-22) and U.S. Patent No. 9,331,488 ("Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters," issued 2016-05-03). Jury demand by plaintiff. Filed with Exhibits A–H (patents plus claim charts). Complaint PDF: https://cdn.lawlytics.com/law-media/uploads/2360/[314056](/patent/314056)/original/CyboEnergy-v.-Home-Depot.pdf ; docket summary: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2024cv00319/1172816097

The caption identifies the Midland/Odessa Division (consistent with Ramey LLP's press release describing the filing as Midland/Odessa: https://www.rameyfirm.com/cyboenergy-takes-legal-action-against-home-depot-over-solar-power-technology-patents). The case is numbered 7:24-cv-00319, and the user-supplied metadata lists the Waco Division — because of the reassignment described immediately below, the practical venue/judge is Albright in Waco.

Two strategically important pleading choices:

  • '133 patent — indirect infringement only. The complaint pleads induced and contributory infringement (¶¶ 9–12) and expressly withdraws any direct-infringement theory for the '133 patent (Compl. ¶ 8 & n.1). See the clause-by-clause complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/7:24-cv-00319/doc/analysis/1
  • Accused products are unidentified. The complaint accuses generic "power inverters" and "enclosures with message systems," with no model numbers or SKUs disclosed in the publicly filed exhibits.

Other initial filings (all 2024-12-06): AO-120 patent form (Dkt. 2); summons request (Dkt. 3); certificate of interested parties (Dkt. 4); summons issued (Dkt. 5).

Judge reassignment — 2024-12-18 (Dkt. 6). Judge David Counts entered an "ORDER TO TRANSFER," reassigning the case to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings (Judge Counts no longer assigned). This is the standard W.D. Tex. patent-case assignment mechanism, not a § 1404 transfer to another district.

2. Defense appearance and deadline extensions (2025-02-05)

2025-02-05 (Dkt. 7–8). Home Depot entered an appearance and obtained an extension of time to answer/respond; a notice of attorney appearance was also filed. The identity of Home Depot's counsel is not confirmed in the sources I was able to retrieve — I am not going to guess at firm or attorney names.

2025-02-19 — deficiency notice. A minute-entry "Deficiency Notice" issued, indicating a filing that did not comply with local formatting/rule requirements. The docket text isn't publicly available; this is likely tied to the stay briefing, but that is an inference, not a verified fact.

3. The stay (2025-02-18 through 2025-04-29)

Docket entries categorized as "Stay Case" appear on 2025-02-18 (Dkt. 9), 2025-02-19 (Dkt. 10), 2025-03-27 (Dkt. 12), and 2025-04-29 (Dkt. 13), and the court entered an "Order on Motion to Stay Case" on 2025-02-20 (Dkt. 11). CourtListener docket/feed: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69444296/cyboenergy-inc-v-home-depot-usa-inc/

Sourcing caveat: I could not retrieve the text of the motion or the order, so the grounds for the stay are not verified. Two possibilities are consistent with the pattern: (a) a stay pending PTAB review of the asserted patents, or (b) a stay pending resolution of one or more of CyboEnergy's parallel infringement suits against the actual inverter manufacturers (which would make sense given the indirect-infringement-only theory against a retailer). The recurrence of stay-category entries across February–April 2025 suggests the stay was continued or extended more than once rather than being a single, one-time order.

4. Voluntary dismissal and termination (2025-05-19 onward)

  • 2025-05-19 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 14). CyboEnergy filed a unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal, presumably under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or by stipulation). Under Rule 41(a)(1), such a dismissal is without prejudice absent a statement otherwise.
  • Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 15) — closing the case.
  • Report on Patent/Trademark, AO-120 (Dkt. 16) — the form the clerk transmits to the USPTO on final disposition.

CourtListener's docket feed timestamps the newest entry (#16, the AO-120) at 2026-08-26, which is anomalous relative to the May 2025 dismissal filing and may reflect a delayed docketing/administrative entry rather than a substantive development. I am flagging this rather than asserting it as a litigated event.

Practical outcome: termination without prejudice, no adjudication of validity, enforceability, or infringement, and no estoppel effects on CyboEnergy from this docket. Consistent with that, CyboEnergy continued to enforce the same patent family elsewhere (e.g., filing against Deye ESS Technology USA / Ningbo Deye in the C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-07964, on 2025-08-22, asserting the '133 and '488 patents against SUN-series microinverters). Discussion: https://caifuhao.eastmoney.com/news/20250829085624192814880

5. What did not happen

For completeness, because the question asks about each milestone: there is no record of an answer or counterclaims, no Rule 12 motion, no § 1404 transfer motion, no preliminary injunction or § 101 motion, no Markman/claim-construction order, no scheduling order or discovery disputes, no expert reports, no summary judgment, no trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial or § 285 fee motion, and no appeal. The '488 patent also appears never to have been put in issue on the merits in this docket.

6. Parallel and related proceedings

PTAB: no IPR/PGR identified. I found no inter partes review, post-grant review, or CBM proceeding at the PTAB against U.S. 8,786,133 or 9,331,488. (A PTAB petition result mentioning "CyboEnergy" relates to a different CyboEnergy case, against UMC, and merely cites CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles as authority on indirect-infringement pleading — not a challenge to these patents.) If a stay was entered pending IPR, I could not corroborate that; treat any IPR-related explanation of the stay as unverified.

District court family (context, not this docket): CyboEnergy is a practicing entity (a product company, not an NPE — per Stanford NPE database: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[297917](/patent/297917)), and has run a coordinated campaign against inverter makers and retailers:

Why this matters for reading the Home Depot docket: by December 2024 CyboEnergy had been told twice by Texas courts (Altenergy, then Hoymiles) that its "individual inverter" theory cannot support direct infringement of the '133 patent. The Home Depot complaint's express withdrawal of direct infringement as to '133, and the resort to inducement/contributory theories against a retailer rather than a manufacturer, reads as a direct adaptation to that adverse precedent. That pleading posture is also why the case was vulnerable on knowledge/intent and why a stay followed by a no-prejudice dismissal is a plausible, low-cost exit for both sides rather than a signal of a merits ruling.

Verification notes

  • Verified from docket sources: filing date, case number, judge reassignment, appearance/extension dates, the sequence and dates of the stay-related entries and the order, the 2025-05-19 notice of voluntary dismissal, the dismissal order and AO-120, and plaintiff's counsel.
  • Not verified / not public in what I could retrieve: the text and grounds of the stay motion and order; whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice beyond the Rule 41(a)(1) default; Home Depot's counsel; any specific accused Home Depot SKUs; and the presence or absence of sealed papers. The 2026-08-26 timestamp on the AO-120 entry (#16) is inconsistent with the 2025 termination sequence and should be independently confirmed against PACER before being relied on.
  • Affirmative negative findings: no answer, counterclaim, motion to dismiss, Markman order, discovery order, trial, verdict, JMOL/new-trial/fee motion, appeal, or PTAB IPR/PGR on the '133 or '488 patents were located. These are negative findings from available public sources, not guarantees of nonexistence.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me dig into the docket entries to confirm all plaintiff-side appearances.

Let me pull the full docket sheet to see all appearances and the dismissal filings.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc.

Bottom line: Only one plaintiff-side attorney is confirmed on the docket in this case — William P. Ramey, III of Ramey LLP (Houston, TX), who is listed as sole "attorney to be noticed" for CyboEnergy and who personally signed the complaint, the AO-120 patent form, and the corporate disclosure. No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel for CyboEnergy appear in any of the docket data I could retrieve.

Confirmed appearances

Attorney Role Firm / Office Source
William P. Ramey, III Lead trial counsel (sole noticed attorney) Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006 · (713) 426-3923 Dkts. 1, 2, 4 (complainant's filings); CourtListener parties page

Detail and grounding:

  • Dkt. 1 (Complaint, filed 12/06/2024) — "COMPLAINT … filed by CyboEnergy, Inc. … (Ramey, William)," receipt no. ATXWDC‑19551423. (CourtListener docket #1)
  • Dkt. 2 (AO‑120 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form) and Dkt. 4 (Certificate of Interested Parties) — both filed by (Ramey, William), i.e., the same counsel who signed the complaint.
  • CourtListener "Parties" page lists CyboEnergy, Inc. as "Represented by William P. Ramey, III, Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006 — ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED," with no other plaintiff-side entry. (CourtListener parties)

Relevant experience: Ramey is the managing partner of Ramey LLP, a Houston-based IP/litigation boutique that describes itself as serving a national patent-litigation client base from Texas. The firm's own case announcement states CyboEnergy "represented by Ramey LLP, has filed an Original Complaint and demanded a jury trial," confirming the firm (not just the individual) as plaintiff's counsel. (rameyfirm.com case note) The same firm and the same two patents were previously asserted by CyboEnergy in CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Northern Electric Power Technology, Inc., No. 3:21‑cv‑08534 (N.D. Cal.) — the complaint in that matter was signed by Ramey and by Susan S.Q. Kalra of Ramey LLP's Redwood City, CA office. That prior case is relevant background because this case's '133-patent theory (indirect infringement only, with an express withdrawal of direct infringement) tracks the CyboEnergy/NEP dispute.

Appearance I could not attribute (flagging for accuracy)

  • Dkt. 7 (Notice of Attorney Appearance, entered 02/05/2025) appears on the docket on the same day as an extension of time to file answer, which strongly suggests it is defense-side (Home Depot) counsel. I could not retrieve the name on that notice from the free sources available to me, so I am not attributing it to plaintiff, and I have not identified Home Depot's counsel. If you need defense-side counsel identified, that requires a PACER pull of Dkt. 7.

Things I will not guess at

  • No in-house counsel for CyboEnergy appears anywhere in the retrieved docket data.
  • No local counsel (e.g., a Waco/Austin/Texas-based firm engaged alongside Ramey) is of record in these sources.
  • No pro hac vice application or second plaintiff-side appearance is reflected in the docket text I could retrieve.

Contextual notes bearing on counsel of record

  1. Filings post-dating the complaint were not made by plaintiff-side counsel of record names I can verify. The docket shows a motion to stay (entered ~02/18/2025), further stay-related filings (~03/27/2025, ~04/29/2025), a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 14, 05/19/2025), and an Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 15, entered 08/26/2026), followed by the AO‑120 report (Dkt. 16). I could not confirm from public sources which side filed the stay papers, nor the basis for the stay; the ~15‑month gap between the voluntary dismissal notice and the dismissal order is unexplained in the sources I retrieved. This should be verified against PACER before being relied on.
  2. Watch the division designation. CourtListener, Justia Dockets, and Ramey LLP's own announcement all describe this action as filed in the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division (consistent with the "7:24‑cv‑00319" prefix), and the hosted complaint PDF is captioned "WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION." (complaint PDF; Justia docket) The case was then reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright by the Dec. 18, 2024 transfer order (Dkt. 6). The caption metadata supplied for this matter says "Waco Division"; the public sources point to Midland/Odessa with Waco/Albright handling after reassignment.

If you need certainty: the definitive list of counsel of record requires a PACER docket-sheet pull (the "Attorneys" tab) for 7:24‑cv‑00319, which would also resolve Dkt. 7 and confirm whether any additional plaintiff-side appearance (pro hac vice or otherwise) was ever entered. Everything above that is not squarely supported by Dkts. 1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16 and the CourtListener parties page has been flagged rather than filled in.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me pull the full docket with entry details and search for the defense appearance.

Let me try to retrieve the actual docket entries and any RECAP documents.