DCT

2:20-cv-00206

Gardner v. Engenious Designs LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-02-07 ’751 Patent Priority Date
2010-08-24 ’751 Patent Issue Date
2020-01-29 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,781,751 - "Portable Wavelength Transforming Converter for UV LEDs" (Issued Aug. 24, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes existing technologies for generating UV radiation but notes that prior art did not teach methods to easily vary or transform the wavelength of radiation emitted from a portable UV LED source, nor did it describe the use of conversion plates with LEDs (ʼ751 Patent, col. 2:10-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a small, handheld apparatus, such as a flashlight, that contains a primary UV Light Emitting Diode (LED) source and one or more "wavelength transforming" (WT) materials. A user can select a WT material (e.g., a phosphor-coated filter) to place in the path of the primary UV radiation. This WT material absorbs the primary UV light and re-emits "transformed radiation" at a different wavelength, allowing the user to select between different UV bands (e.g., UV-A, UV-B, UV-C) or visible light from a single device (ʼ751 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-50). The physical separation of the WT material from the UV LED source is a described feature (ʼ751 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a portable, efficient, and user-configurable device for applications in mineralogy, forensics, and sterilization, which can require different specific wavelengths of UV radiation (ʼ751 Patent, col. 2:18-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’751 Patent are asserted, stating only that Defendants’ products "fall within the scope of the 751 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶18). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 (apparatus) and Claim 7 (method).

  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):

    • A portable LED apparatus for selectively emitting one or more of a plurality of wavelength distributions of radiation, comprising:
    • a primary UV LED radiation source, disposed in a housing, wherein said primary UV LED radiation source produces a primary wavelength distribution;
    • at least one wavelength-transforming material, deposed external to the envelope of said primary UV LED radiation source, that in response to irradiation by said primary UV LED radiation source, emits a transformed radiation; and
    • wherein said housing further comprises a battery coupled to said primary UV LED radiation source.

  • Independent Claim 7 (Method):

    • A method for providing a portable LED apparatus, comprising the steps of:
    • providing a primary UV LED radiation source, disposed in a housing;
    • providing at least one wavelength-transforming material, deposed external to the envelope of said primary UV LED radiation source, that emits a transformed radiation in response to irradiation; and
    • providing a battery disposed with said housing and coupled to said primary UV LED radiation source.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as systems "referred to as DBL BARREL, PRPLHAZE, and other names" (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as "ultraviolet flashlights and lamps" (Compl. ¶14).
  • It alleges these products are "used in connection with rock and mineral examination and collection" (Compl. ¶14).
  • The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific construction, components, or operation of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants have "infringed the 751 Patent by designing, making, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, offering for sale, and/or selling products or systems that fall within the scope of the 751 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶18). However, it does not provide a detailed mapping of any specific claim element to any feature of the accused products. The complaint does not include or reference a claim chart, and its allegations are conclusory. Therefore, a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided pleading.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint’s conclusory allegations of infringement meet the plausibility standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as interpreted by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
    • Technical Questions: A central factual question, for which the complaint provides no detail, will be whether the accused "DBL BARREL" and "PRPLHAZE" products actually contain a "wavelength-transforming material" that is "deposed external to the envelope" of the UV LED source, as required by the independent claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "wavelength-transforming material"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central technological element of the invention. The outcome of the case will likely depend on whether the components of the accused products meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates whether a simple filter or a more complex phosphor-based component is required to infringe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, stating the term may comprise "any material or system that absorbs light of one wavelength or band of wavelengths and emits light of another wavelength or band of wavelengths, thus modifying the distribution of spectral density," and explicitly includes "band pass filters, phosphors and ... quantum dots" (ʼ751 Patent, col. 3:42-48).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited by the embodiments, which primarily show distinct, user-selectable filter disks containing the WT material (ʼ751 Patent, Figs. 1A, 3A).

  • The Term: "deposed external to the envelope of said primary UV LED radiation source"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed invention from integrated LED packages where a phosphor is applied directly to the diode. The physical arrangement and degree of separation between the LED and the WT material will be a critical point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "external to the envelope" simply means not part of the LED die's primary encapsulation, allowing for a very small separation between components within the flashlight head.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures repeatedly show the WT material as part of a separate, distinct component, such as a "disk shaped WT filter" (ʼ751 Patent, col. 5:31-32) that is physically separated from the LED array, suggesting a more substantial and structurally independent arrangement is required.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement. It claims Defendants induced infringement "by inducing others to use and practice a product or system that falls within the scope of the 751 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges Defendants "created or provided a platform, network, or forum for others to post, market, offer to sell, sell, and/or distribute infringing products," which may refer to the defendants named as "FMS Mineral Group (on Facebook)" and "Fluorescent Mineral Mart (on Facebook)" (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 24).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that "Defendants have continued to infringe and/or induce infringement of the 751 Patent even after having an opportunity to learn, study, and analyze the claims of the patent" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not specify whether this opportunity arose pre- or post-suit.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A primary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features state a plausible claim for infringement, or is it subject to dismissal for failing to meet federal pleading standards?
  2. A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "wavelength-transforming material," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the specific components used in the accused flashlights, and does the physical arrangement of those components satisfy the "deposed external to the envelope" limitation?
  3. The case will ultimately turn on an evidentiary question: what is the actual technical construction of the accused "DBL BARREL" and "PRPLHAZE" products? The resolution of the dispute depends entirely on discovering whether those products contain the specific combination of a UV LED source and a physically separate, wavelength-modifying material as claimed in the patent.