X-Naut Sues Bluebird Aero on Two Temperature Regulating Mount Patents.

X-Naut LLC v. Bluebird Aero LLC, No. 2:26-cv-10277 (C.D. Cal.), is a patent complaint filed September 11, 2026, in the Western Division of the Central District of California. The caption also names Does 1 through 25. The complaint says X-Naut is a California limited liability company based in Long Beach, California, that designs, manufactures, and sells portable electronic cooling cases and mounts for electronic devices, including products sold as X-30, X-90, and FlexGrip. It says Bluebird Aero LLC is a California limited liability company based in Pismo Beach, California, that provides portable electronic cooling cases for portable electronic devices. The complaint says the named inventor of both asserted patents is their record owner and exclusively licenses them to X-Naut, and that X-Naut has standing to sue for past and present infringement. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), based on Bluebird's principal place of business in San Luis Obispo County and, on information and belief, acts of infringement and a regular and established place of business in the district. The complaint demands a jury trial.

The patents and the asserted claims

Both patents are titled Temperature Regulating Mount. U.S. Patent 10,838,469 issued November 17, 2020, and U.S. Patent 11,392,185 issued July 19, 2022. The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 13 of each patent.

Claim 13 of the '185 patent covers a cooling mount for engaging a portable electronic device, with a housing that has a securing mechanism for mounting the device to the front of the mount and a recessed compartment that engages the back of the device and has at least one fan positioned to blow air on the back of the mounted device. The recessed compartment includes at least one opening positioned in angled relationship to the fan to vent the air from the fan, and the device, when positioned in the mount, sits over both the fan and the angled opening.

Claim 13 of the '469 patent recites the same housing, securing mechanism, recessed compartment, and fan, but its angled opening vents the air after it is blown on the back of the device directly out of the cooling mount. The complaint quotes that limitation as reading "directly our of the cooling mount" and says that "our" is a typographical error and should read "out."

The accused products

The complaint accuses three Bluebird cooling mounts sold through Bluebird's website: the Pilot Case Mini Five (for iPad Mini 5), the Pilot Case Mini Six (for iPad Mini 6, 7 and A17), and the Pilot Case Mini Six G2 (for iPad Mini 6, 7 and A17), along with any Bluebird products not colorably different from them. It charts claim 13 of each patent against the Pilot Case Mini Six, pointing to a snap-fit securing mechanism, a recessed compartment with a fan, and multiple openings it says are angled relative to the fan, and it quotes Bluebird's description of the product's "internal high-efficiency fan to draw in cool air and direct it across the back of your iPad." It alleges, on information and belief, that the Pilot Case Mini Five and Pilot Case Mini Six G2 include the same features as the Pilot Case Mini Six and infringe claim 13 of each patent for the same reasons.

Notice and willfulness

The complaint says that X-Naut marks its products patented and patent pending, as appropriate, and that on April 13, 2026, X-Naut's chief executive, through counsel, sent Bluebird a notice letter identifying both patents by number and including a claim chart applying claim 13 of the '469 patent to a Bluebird product. It alleges, on information and belief, that after receiving the letter Bluebird began selling the Pilot Case Mini Six G2, which on information and belief includes the same fan-cooled recessed compartment, securing mechanism, and angled vent openings as the Pilot Case Mini Six. It alleges that Bluebird has had actual knowledge of both patents since at least April 13, 2026, and that its infringement has been and continues to be willful.

The counts and the prayer

Count I alleges that Bluebird infringes the '185 patent and Count II alleges that it infringes the '469 patent, each under the patent laws, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. Each count alleges direct infringement by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the accused products, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents to the extent a limitation is not met literally, induced infringement through Bluebird's customers' use of the cases with portable electronic devices, its advertising, and the product instructions on its website, contributory infringement, and willful infringement supporting enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

The prayer asks for damages adequate to compensate X-Naut for the infringement, with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, statutory costs, and trebling for willfulness; all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284; all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285; a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the patents by Bluebird; and other relief the court or a jury deems proper and just.

What to watch next

Watch for Bluebird's answer or a Rule 12 motion, and for a scheduling order or a preliminary injunction motion.