US 11721844

US Patent 11721844: Summary and Independent Claim Analysis

Title: Vehicular battery charger, charging system, and method for transmitting battery charge threshold information

Assignee: CHARGELOGIC LLC

Inventors: Christopher B. Austin

Filing Date: March 14, 2022

Issue Date: August 8, 2023

Abstract:
A vehicle charger for charging a vehicle battery includes a controller, a display, and a user-manipulatable control. A user can enter a desired end time for the charging session. The controller then adjusts the power supply to the battery (increasing/decreasing charge rate, starting/stopping charging) to meet the entered end time. The charger can also supply power to the battery if the charge level is below a threshold, regardless of the user-entered time, until that threshold is met. The system can also communicate with a remote controller (e.g., from a power utility) to manage charging based on factors like power cost or grid demand.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent includes 20 claims, with claims 1, 10, and 19 being independent claims.

Independent Claim 1:
This claim describes a vehicle charger that charges a vehicle battery. It includes an electrical power cord that can be attached to the vehicle and a power source. The charger has a controller connected to the power cord, and a transmitter/receiver that communicates with a first controller located remotely from both the vehicle and the charger itself. The charger's controller (the second controller) can change the charging state of the vehicle charger (e.g., start, stop, or adjust charging rate) in response to signals received from that first remote controller.

Independent Claim 10:
This claim focuses on a vehicle charger for charging a vehicle battery during a charging session. Key components include a controller, a display showing the current time, and a user-manipulatable control. A user can use this control to enter a specific time of day by which the charging session should conclude. The charger's controller then manages the supply of electric power to the battery (by increasing/decreasing charge rate, starting, or stopping charging) to ensure the battery is charged by the user-defined end time.

Independent Claim 19:
This claim describes a method for controlling the charging of batteries in multiple vehicles connected to a power generation and distribution system. The method involves first establishing communication with a controller associated with each vehicle's battery charger. Next, it obtains from each charger the time of day by which the respective vehicle's battery charging must be finished. Finally, it changes the power supply to at least some of these battery chargers, with these changes being based, at least in part, on the completion times received from the chargers.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:

As of April 26, 2026, a direct search of CAFC dockets specifically for patent 11721844 for cases filed or active in 2026 did not yield specific results within the provided search snippets. However, the general information for the patent (from the provided source document) states "Family has litigation" and references external legal databases (Darts-ip and Unified Patents) where litigation is noted, including a "US case filed in Texas Western District Court". This indicates ongoing or past litigation related to the patent family, but further specific details regarding any direct appeal to the CAFC in 2026 are not immediately available from the general search results.Title: Vehicular battery charger, charging system, and method for transmitting battery charge threshold information

Assignee: CHARGELOGIC LLC

Inventors: Christopher B. Austin

Filing Date: March 14, 2022

Issue Date: August 8, 2023

Abstract:
A vehicle charger for charging a vehicle battery includes a controller, a display, and a user-manipulatable control. A user can enter a desired end time for the charging session. The controller then adjusts the power supply to the battery (increasing/decreasing charge rate, starting/stopping charging) to meet the entered end time. The charger can also supply power to the battery if the charge level is below a threshold, regardless of the user-entered time, until that threshold is met. The system can also communicate with a remote controller (e.g., from a power utility) to manage charging based on factors like power cost or grid demand.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent includes 20 claims, with claims 1, 10, and 19 being independent claims.

Independent Claim 1:
This claim describes a vehicle charger that charges a vehicle battery. It includes an electrical power cord that can be attached to the vehicle and a power source. The charger has a controller connected to the power cord, and a transmitter/receiver that communicates with a first controller located remotely from both the vehicle and the charger itself. The charger's controller (the second controller) can change the charging state of the vehicle charger (e.g., start, stop, or adjust charging rate) in response to signals received from that first remote controller.

Independent Claim 10:
This claim focuses on a vehicle charger for charging a vehicle battery during a charging session. Key components include a controller, a display showing the current time, and a user-manipulatable control. A user can use this control to enter a specific time of day by which the charging session should conclude. The charger's controller then manages the supply of electric power to the battery (by increasing/decreasing charge rate, starting, or stopping charging) to ensure the battery is charged by the user-defined end time.

Independent Claim 19:
This claim describes a method for controlling the charging of batteries in multiple vehicles connected to a power generation and distribution system. The method involves first establishing communication with a controller associated with each vehicle's battery charger. Next, it obtains from each charger the time of day by which the respective vehicle's battery charging must be finished. Finally, it changes the power supply to at least some of these battery chargers, with these changes being based, at least in part, on the completion times received from the chargers.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:

As of April 26, 2026, a direct search of CAFC dockets for patent 11721844 did not yield specific results indicating an active case in 2026. However, information from Unified Patents, dated June 8, 2026, mentions "Chargelogic EV battery patent prior art found". While this does not directly confirm a CAFC docket, it indicates ongoing activity related to patents held by CHARGELOGIC LLC, the assignee of US11721844, involving prior art challenges. This type of activity often precedes or is related to proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which can subsequently be appealed to the CAFC. The patent information also notes "Family has litigation" and points to a "US case filed in Texas Western District Court". At present, specific dockets for US11721844 at the CAFC in 2026 are not directly available through the current search.

Known litigation involving US Patent 11721844 includes the following case:

• Plaintiff(s): ChargeLogic LLC
• Defendant(s): Tesla, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 7:26-cv-00100
• Filing Date: March 23, 2026
• Current Status: As of April 9, 2026, the Defendant's (Tesla, Inc.) unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's complaint was granted. The new answer deadline for Tesla, Inc. is June 1, 2026. The case has also been referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland.

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11721844, which is an active Inter Partes Review (IPR). This early stage IPR means the patent's claims are currently being challenged, and the defensive posture for a defendant is to monitor this proceeding closely, as the patent's validity is still under examination.

IPR2026-00380 — Tesla Inc. v. Christopher B. Austin

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-06-18
• Status: Pending. This IPR was filed very recently, on June 18, 2026, and is in its initial stages, awaiting preliminary responses and an institution decision.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges assigned to this panel is not yet publicly available in the search results for such an early-stage proceeding.
• Petition grounds: The petition for IPR2026-00380 was filed by Tesla Inc. and alleges that claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,721,844 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over a combination of prior art references including US 2008/0208404 A1 (Sperling) and US 8,569,800 B2 (Austin) in view of common general knowledge. Specifically, the petition challenges independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2-9.
• Institution decision: An institution decision has not yet been issued, as the proceeding was filed just yesterday. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to decide whether to institute an IPR is typically one year from the filing date of the petition, but often occurs within six months.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; no institution decision has been rendered.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is too early for a settlement or termination to have been reached.
• Appeal: Not applicable; no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: As this IPR is in its very nascent stages, its direct defensive value for a defendant facing assertion of this patent is currently limited. However, it indicates that a major player (Tesla Inc.) views claims 1-10 as vulnerable. Monitoring the institution decision and the arguments presented could provide significant insights into potential invalidity arguments.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US11721844 are legally UNTESTED in terms of final PTAB validity decisions. Independent claims 1 and 10, along with dependent claims 2-9, are currently being challenged in IPR2026-00380 by Tesla Inc. No claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB yet. Claims 11-20 remain entirely unchallenged by IPR.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since no institution decision or Final Written Decision has been issued in IPR2026-00380, the petitioner estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) are not yet applicable. This means that if institution is denied or the IPR is terminated before a Final Written Decision, Tesla (and its privies) would likely not be estopped from raising the same or similar grounds in other proceedings. If the IPR is instituted and proceeds to a Final Written Decision, then Tesla would be estopped from asserting (in district court or ITC) invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR concerning the claims challenged. For other potential defendants, the specific prior art and arguments used by Tesla in IPR2026-00380 (Sperling and Austin) remain available for use in their own challenges or defenses until an FWD is issued in this or another IPR.

The filing of this IPR by Tesla Inc. signals that at least claims 1-10 of the patent are perceived as potentially invalid. The patent owner, CHARGELOGIC LLC, is now engaged in defending these claims before the PTAB. There are no immediate "pattern signals" beyond this initial challenge; however, the involvement of Tesla Inc. as a petitioner is notable.

Recommended next steps

For any party concerned about US Patent 11721844, particularly claims 1-10, the most critical next step is to closely monitor IPR2026-00380. The key upcoming milestone will be the institution decision, which is expected within approximately six months from the filing date of 2026-06-18. A grant of institution would indicate that Tesla has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, making the patent's enforceability of those claims questionable. The absence of PTAB activity on claims 11-20 also suggests they have not yet faced scrutiny and might represent the patent's strongest remaining claims if the current IPR proceeds to invalidate the challenged claims. You can follow this proceeding on the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2026-00380.

Inventors

• Christopher B. Austin: No employer explicitly listed at the time of filing. The Google Patents information states "Application filed by Individual" and "Original Assignee: Individual," suggesting he was not employed by an entity that was initially assigned the patent.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as per the Google Patents information, was "Individual," referring to Christopher B. Austin. The patent was later assigned to CHARGELOGIC LLC. Since the original assignee was an individual inventor, the questions about product shipment, primary line of business, and current status don't directly apply in the same way they would for a corporate entity.

Assignment timeline

USPTO Assignment Search results for US11721844:

• 2026-02-23 (executed) / recorded 2026-02-23 — Reel 060007/0304
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Austin, Christopher B. (Individual)
  • Assignee: CHARGELOGIC LLC, 6080 Tennyson Drive, Unit 100, Plano, TX, 75024
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey B. Stone, 6080 Tennyson Drive, Unit 100, Plano, TX, 75024. This correspondent's address matches the assignee's address.
  • Context: Transfer of patent from individual inventor to an LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11721844
    2022 : Filed by Christopher B. Austin (Individual)
    2023 : Issued to Christopher B. Austin
    2026 : Assigned to CHARGELOGIC LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was assigned from the individual inventor, Christopher B. Austin, to CHARGELOGIC LLC on 2026-02-23 (Reel 060007/0304). CHARGELOGIC LLC's website explicitly states, "At ChargeLogic, we specialize in licensing innovative patents that enhance the charging experience for electric vehicles." and "ChargeLogic LLC offers licensing solutions to a portfolio of patents that cover technology relating to Electric Vehicle charging." This indicates a primary business model centered on licensing patents rather than producing products, which is characteristic of a shell or licensing-only entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Unclear. While CHARGELOGIC LLC describes itself as a patent licensing entity, it does not currently appear on widely recognized public NPE lists such as Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, or Intellectual Ventures in the provided search results. However, Unified Patents has noted "Chargelogic EV battery patent prior art found," suggesting they are on their radar for potential assertion activities.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment in the chain from the inventor to CHARGELOGIC LLC. The correspondent, Jeffrey B. Stone, is associated with the assignee's address, which is common in patent assignments. Given only one recorded assignment, there's no recurrence to observe.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment has been recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While the patent family has litigation noted and a "US case filed in Texas Western District Court," the specific date of the first infringement suit naming this patent is not precisely provided in relation to the assignment date (2026-02-23). The litigation notes are general to the "family" rather than specifically tied to US11721844 and its assignment date.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The assignment was from an individual inventor to an LLC, not from a bankrupt operating company.

7. Privateering — Not present. There's no indication of an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates with CHARGELOGIC LLC, which identifies itself as a patent licensing entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

The verdict is moderate confidence due to the explicit self-identification of CHARGELOGIC LLC as a patent licensing company, indicating a non-operating entity business model. This is a strong signal for a shell entity transfer, as evidenced by the assignment on 2026-02-23 (Reel 060007/0304). While other classic NPE signals like repeat correspondents or cascading transfers are not observable with only one recorded assignment, the stated business model strongly supports an NPE classification.

Verification of assignment record can be found at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

As a technical patent analyst, I understand the importance of identifying relevant prior art by searching the USPTO database for patent 11721844. However, as an AI, I do not have direct, real-time access to interact with the USPTO Patent Public Search (PPS) tool or other patent databases to perform the specific search and retrieve the "References Cited" section for US11721844.

Therefore, I cannot directly provide the comprehensive list of patent citations, their publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as requested, because I cannot execute the required search to obtain the primary data (the list of cited patents) from the USPTO database.

To obtain this information, one would typically:

1. Navigate to the USPTO Patent Public Search website.
2. Use the advanced search interface or a quick lookup function to input the patent number "US11721844".
3. Once the patent document is retrieved, locate the "References Cited" section, which lists the prior art documents considered by the patent examiner during prosecution.
4. For each listed prior art patent, access its full text (e.g., via Google Patents or the USPTO site) to extract its full citation, publication/filing date, and abstract/claims for a brief description.
5. Compare the teachings of each prior art document with the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 of US11721844 to assess potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

This analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 11721844 is based on the general state of the art and technological trends prior to the patent's priority date of August 18, 2008, and the prior art keywords provided ("battery, vehicle, charging, controller, charge"). It is important to note that specific prior art documents (e.g., other patent numbers or publications) that would directly render the claims obvious are not provided in the supplied patent text. Therefore, this analysis will discuss the types of known elements and the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them, rather than citing specific reference numbers.

A PHOSITA in the field of vehicular battery charging in 2008 would likely possess knowledge of electrical engineering, power electronics, battery management systems, communication protocols, and basic user interface design.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Independent Claim 1: Remote Control of Vehicle Charger

Claim 1 describes a vehicle charger comprising:

• An electrical power cord releasably attachable to a vehicle and a power source.
• A second controller electrically coupled to the power cord.
• A transmitter and/or receiver coupled to the second controller, adapted for communication with a first controller remote from the vehicle and vehicle charger.
• The second controller responsive to signals from the first controller by changing a charging state (increasing/decreasing rate, starting/stopping).

Obviousness Rationale:
By the priority date of August 18, 2008, the fundamental components of this claim were well-known in various technological fields:

1. Vehicle battery chargers with power cords: Devices for charging vehicle batteries were common, and their connection via electrical power cords to both the vehicle and a power source was standard practice.
2. Controllers in electronic devices: It was routine to include microcontrollers or processors in electronic devices, including battery chargers, to manage their operation and charging parameters (e.g., voltage, current, duration).
3. Remote communication with controllers: The concept of remotely controlling electronic devices via wired (e.g., power line communication, LAN) or wireless (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular) networks was established. Smart home systems, industrial control systems, and early smart grid discussions already involved remote monitoring and control of various appliances and infrastructure components. For instance, power line communication (PLC) systems were used for data transmission over existing power lines, as acknowledged in the patent description itself (e.g., distribution line carrier (DLC) PLC systems, broadband over lines carrier (BLC) systems).
4. Changing charging states: Battery chargers often had the capability to adjust charging parameters (e.g., rate, on/off) based on internal logic (e.g., battery state of charge).

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to address several market demands and design needs prevalent before 2008:

• Energy Management/Smart Grid: With growing concerns about energy consumption and the nascent development of electric vehicles, power utilities and energy management companies sought ways to manage electrical load, especially from high-power devices like EV chargers. Remotely controlled chargers offered a solution for demand-side management, allowing utilities to optimize grid stability and efficiency by adjusting charging schedules during peak demand or when renewable energy was abundant.
• Cost Optimization: As variable electricity pricing (e.g., time-of-use tariffs) became more common, consumers and utilities alike had an interest in scheduling charging during off-peak hours to reduce costs. Remote control would enable utilities to push real-time pricing signals or direct charging commands to minimize consumer cost and grid strain.
• Convenience and User Control: Remote control offered convenience for users who might want to start, stop, or adjust charging from a mobile device or home computer, even if not physically present with the charger or vehicle.

Therefore, the combination of a vehicle charger with an internal controller and a communication interface to a remote controller, allowing the remote controller to change the charger's state, would have been an obvious design choice driven by energy management, cost optimization, and user convenience considerations prior to August 18, 2008.

Independent Claim 10: User-Entered Charge Completion Time

Claim 10 describes a vehicle charger comprising:

• A controller.
• A display coupled to the controller and adapted to display a time.
• A user-manipulatable control operable by a user to enter a time of day at which the charging session will end.
• The controller changing the supply of electric power to the vehicle battery (increasing/decreasing rate, starting, stopping) based at least in part upon the time needed to charge the vehicle battery by the entered time of day.

Obviousness Rationale:
The elements of this claim were generally known in consumer electronics and battery management:

1. Displays and user controls: Electronic devices commonly featured displays (LCD, LED) to show time and other information, alongside user-manipulatable controls (buttons, dials) for inputting settings. Programmable timers for household appliances (e.g., VCRs, coffee makers, washing machines, thermostats) allowing users to set a desired "completion by" or "start at" time were ubiquitous.
2. Battery charge management: Controllers in battery chargers were already capable of monitoring battery state of charge and adjusting charging rates (e.g., fast charge, trickle charge) to optimize charging efficiency and battery lifespan.
3. Time-based scheduling: Scheduling events based on a user-entered time was a standard function for many electronic devices with internal clocks.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to provide enhanced user convenience and optimize charging based on user schedules:

• User Convenience: Electric vehicle owners often need their vehicles fully charged by a specific time (e.g., before commuting to work). Enabling users to simply input a desired "finish by" time directly into the charger or via an in-vehicle interface (as described in the patent, e.g., FIGS. 13-14) provides significant convenience. This eliminates the need for users to calculate optimal start times or constantly monitor charging progress.
• Integration with Variable Electricity Pricing: While Claim 10 doesn't explicitly mention external communication for pricing, providing a user-set completion time allows the charger's internal logic (or potential future integration with external systems, as in Claim 1) to determine the best charging profile to meet the deadline, potentially leveraging off-peak hours. The patent explicitly notes that power utilities encourage consumption at non-peak periods and offer discounts, providing a clear motivation for users to schedule charging.

Therefore, applying well-known programmable timer and scheduling functionalities, commonly found in other household appliances, to a vehicle battery charger to enable a user to specify a "charge by" time, and then managing the charge to meet that deadline, would have been an obvious adaptation driven by user convenience and energy management considerations prior to August 18, 2008.

Independent Claim 19: Centralized Control of Multiple Vehicle Charging Sessions

Claim 19 describes a method of controlling charging of batteries of multiple vehicles comprising:

• Establishing communication with a controller associated with a battery charger of each vehicle.
• Obtaining from each battery charger a time of day by which battery charging for the vehicle must be completed.
• Changing power supply to at least some of the battery chargers based at least in part upon the time of day received from the battery chargers.

Obviousness Rationale:
This method builds upon the principles discussed for Claim 1 and extends them to a multi-vehicle, system-wide context.

1. Networking controllers: Establishing communication with multiple networked devices (controllers in this case) was a core aspect of industrial control systems, building management systems, and early smart grid infrastructure discussions.
2. Centralized data collection: Collecting operational parameters (like desired completion times) from multiple networked devices at a central point was standard practice in supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and network management.
3. Dynamic power management: Power generation and distribution systems regularly manage and adjust power supply to various loads, often in response to demand fluctuations, grid conditions, or cost factors. The patent describes a power generation and distribution system (system 10) that includes sources of power (12) and power lines (14) to various locations (16).
4. Demand-side management (DSM): As mentioned, DSM was a recognized strategy in power utilities to influence customer energy consumption patterns to optimize grid operation.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA, particularly one working for a power utility or in smart grid development, would have been strongly motivated to combine these elements to address critical grid management challenges:

• Grid Stability and Load Balancing: The rapid increase in electric vehicles could lead to significant and unpredictable spikes in electricity demand if all vehicles charged simultaneously. A method to centrally coordinate charging based on user-defined completion times allows the power utility to intelligently "orchestrate" charging across many vehicles, smoothing out demand peaks and preventing grid overload. The patent highlights that "widespread use of the vehicle charging cord 22 may result in surges of power demand at particular off-peak times" and that the system "can help to reduce or eliminate these problems".
• Integration of Renewable Energy: Managing variable renewable energy sources (solar, wind) benefits from flexible loads. If a utility knows when vehicles must be charged by, it can strategically inject power into charging sessions when renewable generation is high or demand is low, without inconveniencing the user.
• Economic Efficiency: By controlling when power is supplied to chargers, utilities can purchase or generate electricity more efficiently, leveraging lower-cost periods and passing potential savings to consumers or improving their operational margins.

Therefore, the method of centrally managing the charging of multiple vehicles by communicating with individual chargers, collecting user-defined completion times, and then adjusting power supply based on these times, would have been an obvious application of known networking, data collection, and demand-side management principles to address the emerging challenges of widespread EV adoption on the electrical grid, prior to August 18, 2008.