Tools Aviation v. Digital Pavilion: Summary Judgment Win on Three Battery Patents
Tools Aviation, LLC secured a court-granted summary judgment of infringement against Digital Pavilion Electronics, East Brooklyn Labs, and Firemall across five claims spanning three battery holder patents. The Eastern District of New York resolved the dispute after 1,568 days, with the plaintiff prevailing on the merits without trial.
Battery Patent Holder Wins Summary Judgment on Five Claims in E.D.N.Y.
Tools Aviation, LLC filed suit on June 15, 2020 in the Eastern District of New York against Digital Pavilion Electronics, LLC, East Brooklyn Labs, LLC, and Firemall, LLC, asserting infringement of three U.S. patents — US7287648B2, US8267252B2, and US9022218B2 — all directed to battery holder and dispensing package technology. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ products incorporated the protected designs and mechanisms without authorisation.
The case closed on September 30, 2024 when the court granted Tools Aviation’s motion for summary judgment of infringement on Claim 12 of the ‘648 Patent, Claims 1 and 24 of the ‘252 Patent, and Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘218 Patent. The defendants’ competing motion for summary judgment of noninfringement was denied as moot, and the court simultaneously dismissed the plaintiff’s remaining infringement claims as voluntarily abandoned, narrowing the scope of the final judgment.
The 1,568-day duration suggests protracted expert and summary judgment briefing, consistent with the court’s need to resolve competing motions and a Daubert-style challenge to plaintiff’s expert testimony — which the court denied. The voluntary abandonment of certain claims may signal a tactical narrowing by the plaintiff to secure the strongest possible judgment. What the public record does not reveal is whether any damages award or injunction followed the clerk’s direction to enter judgment.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 1568 days
1,568 days — above the median for E.D.N.Y. patent cases, reflecting contested summary judgment briefing
Summary judgment granted: what the infringement ruling means for both sides
Summary judgment of infringement — no trial required
A summary judgment of infringement means the court found no genuine dispute of material fact — the defendants’ accused products meet every element of the asserted claims as a matter of law. The court also rejected defendants’ attempt to exclude plaintiff’s expert, reinforcing the evidentiary foundation. This is a plaintiff-favourable outcome short of a jury verdict but legally equivalent in establishing liability.
Liability established as matter of lawTools Aviation secures infringement finding on five patent claims
The ruling confirms that Digital Pavilion, East Brooklyn Labs, and Firemall infringed Claim 12 of the ‘648 Patent, Claims 1 and 24 of the ‘252 Patent, and Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘218 Patent. Tools Aviation has established a judicially confirmed basis for seeking damages and potentially injunctive relief. The voluntary dismissal of remaining claims does not undermine the core victory — it may reflect tactical focus on the strongest, most commercially significant claims.
Infringement confirmed across all three patentsAll three defendants face infringement liability on multiple claims
Digital Pavilion, East Brooklyn Labs, and Firemall each face a judicial finding of infringement. Their motion for summary judgment of noninfringement was denied as moot — meaning the court had already resolved the dispute against them before reaching that motion. Defendants’ Daubert challenge to plaintiff’s expert also failed. The path to overturning this outcome requires an appeal to the Second Circuit, which faces a deferential standard of review on summary judgment rulings.
Defendants liable; appeal is primary recourseBattery packaging IP enforcement risk rises for the sector
This ruling signals that the battery holder and dispensing package patent portfolio held by Tools Aviation carries real enforcement weight. Distributors and retailers sourcing battery packaging products should treat these three patents as active enforcement risks. A confirmed infringement finding without trial is comparatively rare and raises the stakes for any party whose products overlap with the claim scope of the ‘648, ‘252, or ‘218 patents.
Elevated FTO risk for battery packaging supply chainFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tools Aviation, LLC | Company | Battery packaging IP licensor — holder of US7287648B2, US8267252B2, and US9022218B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Digital Pavilion Electronics, LLC | Company | Consumer electronics distributor and co-defendants alleged to sell infringing battery holder productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | East Brooklyn Labs, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Firemall, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael G. Gabriel | Attorney | Counsel for Tools Aviation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T Erickson | Attorney | Counsel for Tools Aviation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | 72-11 Austin St. | Law Firm | Representing Tools Aviation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Erickson Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing Tools Aviation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Fink | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Pavilion Electronics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Maris Joy Liss | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Pavilion Electronics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Law Office of George P. Mann & Associates | Law Firm | Representing Digital Pavilion Electronics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Law Offices of David Fink | Law Firm | Representing Digital Pavilion Electronics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s ruling is unusually comprehensive: it resolves four competing motions in a single order, granting infringement summary judgment on five specific claims while mooting the defendants’ noninfringement motion entirely. The explicit dismissal of ‘voluntarily abandoned’ claims signals that the plaintiff made deliberate pre-judgment tactical choices. The denial of the Daubert challenge suggests the plaintiff’s expert mapping of accused products to claim elements was sufficiently rigorous to withstand scrutiny as a matter of law, not merely as a jury question.
US7287648B2, US8267252B2 & US9022218B2 — Battery Holder and Dispensing Package
The three asserted patents — US7287648B2 (application 11/218874), US8267252B2 (application 11/974513), and US9022218B2 (application 13/461563) — form a related family protecting battery holder and dispensing package technology. The continuity of application numbers suggests a deliberate prosecution strategy to build layered claim coverage over successive filing cycles. The technology domain covers the physical architecture and functional mechanisms by which batteries are held, packaged, and dispensed for retail or consumer use.
For the battery retail and consumer electronics supply chain, this portfolio represents meaningful IP risk. The court’s finding that five claims across all three patents are infringed — without requiring a jury — suggests the claim language is broad enough to capture commercially prevalent product configurations. Competitors and distributors sourcing battery packaging products should consider the ‘648, ‘252, and ‘218 patents as a coordinated enforcement portfolio, not isolated assets. Any design-around strategy should address the claim language of all three simultaneously.
Should you run an FTO against US7287648B2, US8267252B2, and US9022218B2?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing battery holder or dispensing package products should treat this patent family as a priority FTO target. The E.D.N.Y. court’s summary judgment finding confirms that the claims have real-world product coverage — and that Tools Aviation is willing and able to enforce them. Distributors such as East Brooklyn Labs and Firemall faced liability without being the original manufacturers, indicating that the enforcement risk extends across the supply chain.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the asserted claims of US7287648B2, US8267252B2, and US9022218B2 against current product specifications, identify design-around space, and surface related prior art that may support a post-grant validity challenge. Given that summary judgment has already been granted, any party with a product in this space should prioritise an FTO analysis before the damages phase produces a precedent-setting royalty rate.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9022218B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Battery Packaging Patent Cases in E.D.N.Y. and Related Courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving battery holder and dispensing package technology litigated in E.D.N.Y. and comparable district courts.
What this case signals for the battery packaging IP landscape
A summary judgment win across three patents in E.D.N.Y. sends a clear enforcement signal to battery product distributors and retailers.
Expert testimony is a pivotal battleground in product patent cases
The defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s expert was denied, and that denial was central to the infringement finding. In product-packaging patent disputes, where claim element mapping often turns on technical testimony, investing in credentialed, well-documented expert reports is not optional — it is the linchpin of summary judgment success.
Voluntary claim narrowing can sharpen — not weaken — a plaintiff’s position
Tools Aviation abandoned certain infringement claims rather than litigate them to judgment. This tactic focuses court attention on the strongest claims, reduces the risk of adverse rulings that could be used defensively, and may streamline any subsequent damages calculation. Patent plaintiffs should assess which claims deliver the highest enforceability return before summary judgment briefing.
Tools v Digital — key questions answered
The Eastern District of New York granted Tools Aviation’s motion for summary judgment of infringement on Claim 12 of US7287648B2, Claims 1 and 24 of US8267252B2, and Claims 1 and 13 of US9022218B2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement was denied as moot. The case closed September 30, 2024.
Three patents were asserted: US7287648B2, US8267252B2, and US9022218B2. All relate to battery holder and dispensing package technology. The patents form a related family with staggered application dates, suggesting a layered prosecution strategy covering the same product category across multiple claim generations.
The court dismissed Tools Aviation’s remaining claims as ‘voluntarily abandoned’ — meaning the plaintiff chose not to pursue them to judgment rather than having them rejected on the merits. This is a common tactical move to focus a case on its strongest claims, simplify the summary judgment record, and avoid adverse rulings on weaker theories.
The court denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s expert testimony, meaning the expert’s claim-element mapping survived scrutiny. In patent infringement cases, especially at summary judgment, a credible expert who maps accused product features to claim elements is often decisive. The denial here removed defendants’ best procedural shield against the infringement finding.
Yes. A summary judgment of infringement entered by an E.D.N.Y. district court is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. The Federal Circuit reviews summary judgment rulings de novo, meaning it applies no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions — which gives appellants a meaningful but not guaranteed path to reversal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.