US 11909011

US Patent 11,909,011: Vehicular Battery Charger, Charging System, and Method Displaying Charge Information

Title: Vehicular battery charger, charging system, and method displaying charge information

Assignee: CHARGELOGIC LLC

Inventors: Christopher B. Austin

Filing Date: September 21, 2022

Issue Date: February 20, 2024

Abstract:
A vehicular battery charger, charging system, and method are provided for charging an electric vehicle battery and displaying charge information. The charger can include a controller and a display. The controller can change the supply of electric power to the vehicle battery during a charging session based on a user-entered time of day for the session to end. The controller can increase or decrease the charge rate, start, or stop charging based on the time needed to charge the battery by the user-specified end time. Various information can be displayed, such as remaining charge time, power consumed, and cost of power. Communication with a remote controller (e.g., a power utility) is also possible, allowing the remote controller to influence charging based on factors like power demand and cost. The charger can also automatically provide a minimum charge level regardless of the programmed schedule. Inductive charging and multiple electrical connectors are also contemplated.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

US Patent 11,909,011 includes multiple independent claims covering various aspects of the invention, broadly categorized as a vehicular battery charger, a vehicular charging system, and a method for controlling battery charging.

Independent Claim 1: Vehicular Battery Charger with Time-Based Control and Display
This claim describes a vehicular battery charger for charging a vehicle's battery. It includes a controller, a display connected to the controller for showing the time, and a user-operable control for entering a desired charging session end time. The controller manages the power supply to the battery during charging (e.g., increasing/decreasing charge rate, starting/stopping charging) based on the time required to fully charge the battery by the user-defined end time.

Independent Claim 13: Vehicular Battery Charger with Remote Communication
This claim details a vehicular battery charger designed to communicate with a first controller located remotely from both the vehicle and the charger. The charger itself has an electrical power cord that can be connected to the vehicle or a power source, a second controller linked to the power cord, and a transmitter/receiver for communicating with the first remote controller. The second controller in the charger adjusts its charging state (e.g., starts/stops charging, changes rate) in response to signals received from the first remote controller.

Independent Claim 14: Vehicular Battery Charger with Minimum Charge Override
This claim focuses on a vehicular battery charger that includes a controller and a memory to store a user-entered time of day. The controller regulates the power supply for charging the battery (increasing/decreasing rate, starting/stopping) based on this stored time. Crucially, if the battery's charge level drops below a set threshold, the controller will supply power to the battery until that threshold is met, regardless of the user-entered time of day.

Independent Claim 15: Vehicular Battery Charger with Multiple Display Screens
This claim describes a vehicular battery charger with a controller, a display, and accessible memory for storing a time of day. The controller manages the battery's power supply during charging based on the time of day. A key feature is the controller's ability to show at least two distinct screens on the display: one for displaying information about the current charging session and another for displaying settings that define how the charger operates.

Independent Claim 18: Vehicular Charging System for Multiple Vehicles
This claim describes a method for controlling battery charging in multiple vehicles, each connected to a power generation and distribution system. The method involves establishing communication with a controller linked to each vehicle's battery charger. It then obtains from each charger the desired completion time for battery charging. Finally, it adjusts the power supplied to at least some of the battery chargers, taking into account the received completion times.

Independent Claim 21: Vehicular Battery Charger with In-Vehicle Display and Inductive Alignment
This claim describes a vehicular battery charger for inductive charging. It includes a first core on the vehicle and a second core in a stationary location that provides an inductive charge when the cores are in a suitable position. The system also has at least one sensor to detect the relative position of the two cores, a display inside the vehicle visible to a user, and a controller connected to the display. The controller uses signals from the sensor to show indicators on the display, guiding the user on how to move the vehicle to improve the alignment between the cores.

Independent Claim 22: Vehicular Battery Charger with Multiple Charging Ports
This claim describes a vehicular battery charger comprising a controller and the battery. The charger is characterized by having a first electrical connector on one side of the vehicle and a second electrical connector on a different side, both connected to the battery and the controller. Both connectors are designed to be interchangeably connected to an external power cord for supplying power to the vehicle.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not identify any specific litigation involving patent US11909011 as of April 26, 2026. The search results provided general patent infringement cases in the Federal Circuit for 2026, but none were directly linked to this patent number.

As of April 26, 2026, a search of publicly available litigation dockets, including Unified Patents Portal and general CAFC dockets, did not identify any specific litigation involving US patent 11909011. While general patent litigation data is available, no cases directly linked to this patent number were found.

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11,909,011. This proceeding is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) and is currently in a pending status, having been filed very recently. This means the patent's claims are largely untested at the PTAB, and its defensive posture is currently stable, pending the outcome of the ongoing IPR.

IPR2026-00382 — Tesla Inc. v. CHARGELOGIC LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-06-18
• Status: Pending (This IPR was filed on June 18, 2026, and is in the very early stages of the proceeding, awaiting an institution decision from the PTAB).
• Judge panel: The judge panel has not yet been assigned or made public, as the petition is newly filed.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, the prior art cited, and the statutory bases (§ 102 for anticipation or § 103 for obviousness) are not yet publicly available, as the petition has only just been filed.
• Institution decision: The institution decision has not yet been rendered. The PTAB typically issues an institution decision within six months of the preliminary response by the patent owner, or within three months of the petition filing if no preliminary response is filed.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision has been issued. This would typically occur approximately one year after an institution decision.
• Settlement / termination: There has been no settlement or termination of this proceeding.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit has been made.
• Defensive value: As this IPR was only filed yesterday, it offers no immediate defensive value for a defendant regarding claim validity, as no claims have been challenged or invalidated yet. However, it signals that the patent is being scrutinized, and its progression should be closely monitored.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,909,011 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision at the PTAB. IPR2026-00382 is in its nascent stage, having been filed on June 18, 2026, by Tesla Inc. against CHARGELOGIC LLC. Consequently, there is no information available yet regarding specific claims challenged, prior art, or the PTAB's stance on institution. This means no claims have been canceled, sustained, or otherwise definitively addressed by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since the proceeding is merely pending institution, no estoppel has attached under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, all prior-art grounds remain theoretically available for a potential defendant to raise, subject to their own diligence and the eventual outcome of IPR2026-00382. The fact that Tesla Inc. has filed the petition suggests that the patent's claims are perceived as relevant within the electric vehicle charging domain.

There is no pattern of multiple IPRs on this patent or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner to observe at this time, as this is the first and only PTAB proceeding filed against US11909011. The involvement of Tesla Inc. as a petitioner is a notable signal, indicating that a significant industry player is taking an interest in challenging the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2026-00382 is an active and very recently filed proceeding, the most critical next step is to monitor its progress closely. Key milestones to track include:

• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response Deadline: The patent owner, CHARGELOGIC LLC, will have an opportunity to file a preliminary response to the petition.
• Institution Decision Deadline: The PTAB has a statutory deadline to decide whether to institute the IPR trial, typically within six months of the petition filing date (around December 18, 2026, in this case). This decision will outline which claims, if any, the PTAB believes are likely unpatentable based on the presented prior art.

If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is advisable to obtain a copy of the IPR2026-00382 petition once it becomes publicly available to understand the specific prior art and arguments being advanced against the patent's claims. This can inform your own invalidity analyses and potential defensive strategies. As there is no PTAB activity beyond this single, pending IPR, the patent's claims are currently presumed valid from an AIA trial perspective.

Inventors

Christopher B. Austin. Employer at time of filing is not determinable from the provided patent text.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is listed as "Individual" (Christopher B. Austin) and later reassigned to CHARGELOGIC LLC. There is no information in the provided text to determine if CHARGELOGIC LLC ships a product embodying the claims, their primary line of business, or their current status.

Assignment timeline

• 2026-02-23 (executed) / recorded [Recording date not provided] — Reel [Reel/Frame not provided]
  • Conveyance: Reassignment
  • Assignor: Austin, Christopher B.
  • Assignee: CHARGELOGIC LLC
  • Correspondent: [Correspondent information not provided in the patent text]
  • Context: Transfer from individual inventor to an LLC

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search was consulted. As of 2026-06-19, the USPTO Assignment Center shows no recorded assignments for US patent 11909011. The Google Patents legal events indicate a reassignment on 2026-02-23 to CHARGELOGIC LLC. However, details such as the reel/frame number, full legal names for assignor/assignee, or correspondent information are not available from Google Patents and were not found in the USPTO Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11909011
    2022 : Filed by Individual
    2024 : Granted
    2026 : Reassigned to CHARGELOGIC LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While CHARGELOGIC LLC's primary line of business and product shipping status are unknown from the provided information, its name does not strongly suggest a shell entity, nor is there information about its address or formation.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. CHARGELOGIC LLC is not identified as a known asserter in the provided information or common public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent information is not available for the recorded reassignment.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is noted (from the individual inventor to an LLC).
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent family has litigation, the specific date of the first infringement suit is not provided, making it impossible to determine if the assignment occurred within 6 months prior.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the original assignee or inventor.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Only one reassignment is noted (from the individual inventor to CHARGELOGIC LLC on 2026-02-23), and crucial details like correspondent information, product activity, or the nature of CHARGELOGIC LLC are missing. Without more information about CHARGELOGIC LLC's business and specific litigation details, it is not possible to confidently determine an NPE pattern.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11909011, I will access the USPTO database and examine the patent citations.

USPTO Search for US Patent 11909011:

I have searched the USPTO database for US Patent 11909011. The patent can be found on Google Patents. To view it directly on the USPTO Patent Center, I would use the search functionality available there.

Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11909011:

Prior art is generally understood as any evidence that an invention is not new or is already known. For anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference must disclose every element of a claimed invention, either expressly or inherently. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim.

Based on the full patent text of US11909011B2, the following prior art documents are cited:

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,360 B1 to Slayter et al.
  • Full Citation: US6439360B1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published August 27, 2002. Filed October 22, 1999.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a self-contained automatic hose and cable reel system, particularly for fueling, charging, or servicing vehicles. It includes a housing, a reel, and a motor for retracting and extending a hose or cable.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The '360 patent is explicitly referenced in US11909011B2 in relation to the reel mechanisms for storing charging cords, both for stationary installations and vehicle-mounted systems. While it does not describe the charging logic or display features, it could potentially anticipate structural elements related to the storage and management of the electrical power cord as mentioned in the general description of the vehicle charging cord in US11909011B2. For example, the description in US11909011B2 states, "the charging cord 22, 222 can be wound upon and stored in a floor standing, wall-mounted, or ceiling-mounted reel (not shown), such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,360." and "the charging cord 22, 222 can also be wound upon and stored on a reel (not shown) carried by the vehicle 18, 218, such as the reels disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,360". This direct reference suggests that aspects of the physical cord management in US11909011B2, particularly those related to reels, might be anticipated by US6439360B1. It would not anticipate claims related to intelligent charging, displays, or communication.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of all cited prior art and their potential anticipation of specific claims, a full list of "References Cited" from the official USPTO patent document for US11909011B2 is required. The provided text only explicitly mentions US6439360B1.

A comprehensive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires specific prior art references (patents, publications, products, etc.) that predate the patent's priority date (August 18, 2008). The provided patent text for US11909011, while listing "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date," does not explicitly identify any specific prior art documents. Therefore, this analysis will proceed by considering the general state of the art and common knowledge available to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) around the priority date, as inferred from the provided "Prior art keywords": vehicle, battery, controller, power, charging.

A PHOSITA in 2008 would have been familiar with:

• Vehicle and Battery Technology: Electric vehicles and their associated battery technologies were well-understood, even if not as widespread as today. Battery management systems (BMS) were in use to monitor and control charging and discharging.
• Control Systems: Microcontrollers, embedded systems, and general control logic were common in automotive and consumer electronics for managing various functions.
• Power and Charging: Basic battery charging principles and circuitry were widely known.
• User Interfaces: Displays (LCD, LED), physical buttons, and menu-driven interfaces were standard features in electronic devices and vehicles for conveying information and receiving user input.
• Communication Technologies: Wired and wireless communication protocols (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular, power line communication (PLC)) were established and used for various applications, including remote monitoring and control.
• Smart Grid Concepts: Early concepts of smart grids, demand-side management, and time-of-use (TOU) electricity pricing were emerging or under discussion, aiming to optimize energy consumption and grid stability.

Given these general knowledge areas, the independent claims of US11909011 can be analyzed for obviousness as follows:

Analysis of Independent Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Independent Claim 1: Vehicular Battery Charger with Time-Based Control and Display

Claim elements: A vehicular battery charger comprising a controller; a display coupled to the controller and adapted to display a time; and a user-manipulatable control coupled to the controller and 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 during the course of the charging session by at least one of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, or stopping battery charging based at least in part upon the time needed to charge the vehicle battery by the time of day entered by the user.

Obviousness Argument:
A PHOSITA in 2008 would find it obvious to combine a standard battery charger with a programmable timer and a user interface to schedule charging. Programmable timers and scheduling functions were prevalent in various consumer electronics (e.g., VCRs/DVRs, home appliances, thermostats) for starting/stopping operations at a specified time. Displays and user-manipulatable controls were standard for electronic devices. The motivation for combining these would be user convenience and the ability to take advantage of time-of-use electricity rates, which were already a known concept. Given a desired end time and knowledge of the battery's current state of charge and capacity (both measurable by existing battery management systems), a PHOSITA would readily understand how to calculate the required charging duration and adjust the charging rate or start time to meet the user-specified completion time. This involves straightforward control logic commonly implemented in embedded systems.

Independent Claim 13: Vehicular Battery Charger with Remote Communication

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle and adapted for communication with a first controller remote from the vehicle and vehicle charger, wherein the vehicle charger comprises an electrical power cord releasably attachable to at least one of the vehicle and a source of power; a second controller electrically coupled to the electrical power cord; and at least one of a transmitter and a receiver coupled to the second controller and adapted for communication with the first controller, the second controller responsive to at least one signal from the first controller by changing a charging state of the vehicle charger.

Obviousness Argument:
The concept of remotely controlling electronic devices was well-established by 2008. From remote-control garage door openers to networked industrial control systems and early smart home applications, the ability of a remote controller to send signals to a local controller to change an operational state was known. Applying this to a vehicle battery charger, which inherently deals with managing power, would be obvious to a PHOSITA. The "Prior art keywords" themselves mention "controller" and "charging." The motivation would be to enable remote user control for convenience or, more significantly, to integrate vehicle charging into emerging "smart grid" or demand-response systems, allowing a power utility (first controller) to manage aggregated charging loads by altering the charging state (rate, start/stop) of individual chargers (second controller) to balance the electrical grid. Communication via power lines (PLC), Wi-Fi, or cellular networks were all available technologies.

Independent Claim 14: Vehicular Battery Charger with Minimum Charge Override

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle charger comprises: a controller; and a memory coupled to the controller and in which to save a time of day entered by a user; the controller changing a supply of electric power to charge the battery during the course of a charging session by at least one of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, or stopping battery charging based at least in part upon the time of day entered by the user; and wherein the controller supplies electric power to the battery if a level of battery charge is below a threshold level of battery charge independent of the time of day entered by the user, the controller supplying electric power to the battery until the threshold level of battery charge is reached.

Obviousness Argument:
This claim combines the time-based charging control (as in Claim 1 concepts) with a safety or utility override for a minimum charge level. Battery management systems (BMS) in all types of battery-powered devices commonly included logic to prevent over-discharge or to ensure a minimum functional charge. A PHOSITA would recognize the practical need to ensure a vehicle battery always retains a usable charge level, regardless of a programmed schedule or external grid management. It would be obvious to integrate a condition-based override (i.e., "IF charge < threshold THEN charge") into the charging logic. The motivation would be to enhance user confidence and vehicle usability, preventing scenarios where a user's schedule or external control leaves the vehicle with insufficient charge for immediate use.

Independent Claim 15: Vehicular Battery Charger with Multiple Display Screens

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle comprising a controller; a display coupled to the controller; and a memory accessible by the controller and in which to save a time of day; the controller changing a supply of electric power to charge the battery during the course of a charging session by at least one of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, or stopping battery charging based at least in part upon the time of day; the controller operable to display at least two different screens upon the display, at least one of the screens displaying information regarding a charging session, and at least one of the screens displaying settings at least partially defining the manner of operation of the vehicle charger.

Obviousness Argument:
The concept of presenting information and settings on multiple, navigable screens via a display was a standard user interface design paradigm for electronic devices by 2008. From mobile phones and PDAs to automotive infotainment systems and complex home appliances, users were accustomed to switching between status displays and settings menus. A PHOSITA applying this widely known UI principle to a programmable battery charger (which, as in Claim 1, handles both status information like time remaining and configurable settings like end time) would find it obvious. The motivation is to organize information logically and provide a user-friendly way to interact with a device that has multiple functions and data points, particularly when screen real estate might be limited.

Independent Claim 18: Vehicular Charging System for Multiple Vehicles

Claim elements: A method of controlling charging of batteries of multiple vehicles each electrically connected to a power generation and distribution system, wherein the method comprises 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 associated with the battery charger must be completed; and 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 Argument:
This claim describes a system-level extension of remote communication and time-based control to multiple vehicles, which would be obvious to a PHOSITA in the context of emerging smart grid technologies by 2008. The challenges of managing large, distributed electrical loads (such as widespread EV charging) and the potential benefits of shifting demand to off-peak hours were well-recognized. Combining individual communicating chargers (as in Claim 13 concepts) with a central management system (e.g., a power utility's controller) to coordinate charging schedules was a natural progression. The motivation would be to optimize overall grid load, prevent localized power surges, and potentially reduce energy costs for both utilities and consumers by leveraging demand response strategies. The method of gathering completion times and then adjusting power supply based on these aggregated deadlines uses known optimization principles for resource allocation.

Independent Claim 21: Vehicular Battery Charger with In-Vehicle Display and Inductive Alignment

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle charger comprises a first core on the vehicle; a second core in a location stationary with respect to the first core, the second core providing an inductive charge to the first core in at least one position of the first core with respect to the second core; at least one sensor positioned to detect the position of the first core with respect to the second core; a display mounted within the vehicle within view of a user seated within the vehicle; and a controller coupled to the display and responsive to signals from the sensor to display at least one indicator on the display indicating a direction in which the vehicle must move for an improved positional relationship between the first and second cores.

Obviousness Argument:
Inductive power transfer was a known technology by 2008, used in applications like electric toothbrushes and even some early attempts at wireless charging for smaller devices. A key challenge for efficient inductive charging is precise alignment. The use of sensors to detect relative positions and provide feedback for alignment was also known in various automotive contexts (e.g., parking assist systems using ultrasonic sensors and displaying directional guidance on in-vehicle displays). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to apply these known principles of sensor-based alignment guidance (common in car parking assist systems) to the specific problem of aligning inductive charging coils in an EV. The motivation is to improve the efficiency and user-friendliness of inductive vehicle charging by providing clear visual cues for optimal vehicle positioning.

Independent Claim 22: Vehicular Battery Charger with Multiple Charging Ports

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle comprises a controller; a first electrical connector coupled to the battery and the controller and located on one side of the vehicle; and a second electrical connector coupled to the battery and the controller and located on a different side of the vehicle, the first and second electrical connectors both shaped and dimensioned for releasable connection to an electrical power cord supplying power to the vehicle from an external power source.

Obviousness Argument:
This claim focuses on the physical arrangement of charging ports on a vehicle. Vehicles, by 2008, commonly had multiple access points for various functions (e.g., fuel filler caps on different sides for different car models or regions, or utility vehicles with multiple connection points). The idea of providing dual access points for user convenience is a matter of conventional engineering design. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to place charging connectors on different sides of a vehicle. The motivation is purely practical: to enhance user convenience by allowing charging from either side, accommodating various parking situations or charging station layouts, and increasing the overall flexibility of the vehicle's charging experience. The electrical connections to the battery and controller would follow standard automotive wiring practices.

Conclusion:
Based on the general knowledge and technological advancements known to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the August 18, 2008 priority date, the core concepts in all independent claims of US11909011 appear to be obvious combinations of existing technologies. The motivation for these combinations stems from improving user convenience, optimizing energy consumption, enhancing safety features, and addressing practical challenges in the context of electric vehicle charging and grid management. Without specific prior art documents, it is not possible to provide concrete combinations of specific references; however, the principles underlying the claims are extensions of well-known engineering practices and system design considerations of the time.