DCT

2:23-cv-00831

Smarttray Intl LLC v. Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00831, D. Ariz., 05/18/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, its former exclusive licensee, breached a patent license agreement by failing to make royalty payments and subsequently committed patent infringement by continuing to manufacture, use, sell, and sublicense products covered by Plaintiff's patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated holders for personal electronic devices (PEDs) within passenger tray tables for use in transportation sectors like aviation and rail.
  • Key Procedural History: The dispute is rooted in a 2015 exclusive license agreement under which Defendant was to commercialize Plaintiff's patented technology. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to make required minimum royalty payments beginning in 2017 but continued to represent itself as the exclusive licensee and sublicense the technology to third parties. The patent infringement claim is predicated on this alleged post-breach, unauthorized use of the licensed patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-10-13 Priority Date for ’904 and ’830 Patents
2013-03-23 Filing Date for D’213 Patent
2014-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,667,904 Issues
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. D701,213 Issues
2014-09-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,826,830 Issues
2015-04-06 SmartTray and AES enter into Licensing Agreement
2015-07-16 AES sublicenses Zodiac Aerospace
2016-11-17 "November Meeting" to amend Licensing Agreement
2017-01-01 AES allegedly fails to make monthly fee payment
2018-01-01 AES allegedly fails to pay lump sum royalty balance
2018-06-01 AES enters into sublicensing agreement with Zodiac Aerospace
2018-09-01 AES enters into sublicensing agreement with HAECO
2023-05-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

The complaint does not identify specific patents or claims in its patent infringement count, referring only to "various patents" and "SmartTray's patents" (Compl. ¶¶94, 98). The analysis below focuses on the utility patents explicitly identified in the "Licensed IP" schedule of the License Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the complaint. For analytical purposes, representative independent claims are examined.

U.S. Patent No. 8,667,904 - "Aircraft Tray Table with Electronic Device Support," issued March 11, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional airplane tray tables have been “largely unchanged for decades” and are limited in their functionality beyond supporting items like food and drink (U.S. Patent No. 8,667,904, col. 1:19-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a tray table that includes a built-in “thin elongated cavity” designed to receive and hold the edge of a planar electronic device, such as a tablet ('904 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-13). This cavity allows a passenger to support the device at an upright, viewable angle without needing a separate stand, freeing up the main surface of the tray table ('904 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The solution provides a dedicated, integrated, and hands-free method for using PEDs in a space-constrained environment where tabletop space is at a premium ('904 Patent, col. 1:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. For analytical purposes, representative independent Claim 1 is examined.
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A tray table for an aircraft passenger seat comprising: a tablet device;
    • a planar body having a top surface for supporting one or more items;
    • a thin elongated cavity in the planar body for receiving only an edge of the tablet device;
    • wherein the cavity comprises a front wall, a back wall, two side walls, and a bottom;
    • wherein the distance between the front and back wall is substantially the same as the tablet device's thickness;
    • and wherein at least the back wall is angled toward a back end of the tray table.

U.S. Patent No. 8,826,830 - "Tray Table with Rotatable Inner Tray for Electronic Device Docking," issued September 9, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for an improved tray table that provides in-flight entertainment and interactivity in a lightweight and low-maintenance design, while also accommodating passengers' personal electronic devices ('830 Patent, col. 1:13-25).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention describes a tray table with an "inner tray" that is rotatably mounted within an opening in the main tray table body ('830 Patent, Abstract). This inner tray is configured to hold a PED and can be rotated between a closed position, where it sits flush with the tray table surface, and an open position, where it holds the PED at a viewable angle ('830 Patent, col. 2:10-24; Fig. 1C).
  • Technical Importance: The rotatable design allows the PED holder to be stowed away, creating a continuous flat surface for traditional uses, while being easily deployable for media viewing, offering greater versatility than a fixed slot ('830 Patent, col. 5:44-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. For analytical purposes, representative independent Claim 8 is examined.
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 8 include:
    • A tray table assembly for a passenger seat comprising: a body having an opening therein;
    • one or more mounts configured to rotatably attach the body to a back portion of the passenger seat;
    • an inner tray rotatably mounted in the opening;
    • the inner tray comprising one or more channels at a peripheral portion to hold a portable electronic device;
    • wherein the inner tray is rotatable between an open position and a closed position;
    • and a port within at least one of the channels to provide electrical power.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses the "Products" that Defendant was authorized to manufacture and sell under the 2015 License Agreement (Compl. ¶¶8, 98). These products are identified in the agreement as the "X1 Tray," "X1 Kit," "X2 Tray," "X4 Tray," and "X4 Kit" (Compl., Ex. A, Sch. 5B, p. 29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products through the license agreement as integrated PED holder solutions for passenger seats in the aerospace market (Compl. ¶¶4, 8). Schedule 5B of the license agreement provides descriptions and images of these products (Compl., Ex. A, p. 29). For example, the "X1 Tray" is described as an aircraft tray table that facilitates hands-free use of PEDs via a "fixed position or expandable position mechanism that expands and retracts automatically to the thickness of a portable electronic device" (Compl., Ex. A, p. 29). The "X2 Tray" is described as a similar device that also allows a PED to be stowed and viewed when the main tray table is in a locked, upright position (Compl., Ex. A, p. 29). The complaint alleges Defendant sublicensed this technology to aerospace companies Zodiac Aerospace and HAECO (Compl. ¶¶24, 27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the features of any accused product to the limitations of any specific patent claim. The infringement claim is based on the allegation that Defendant's continued use and sale of the licensed "Products" after allegedly breaching the license agreement constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶98). The following summary table uses the descriptions of the licensed "Products" from the complaint's Exhibit A as the basis for the "Alleged Infringing Functionality."

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,667,904 Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a thin elongated cavity in the planar body for receiving only an edge of the tablet device The "X1 Tray" and "X2 Tray" products are described as utilizing the licensed IP for seatback applications to facilitate hands-free use of PEDs via a mechanism that holds the device. ¶98; Ex. A, p. 29 col. 2:3-13
wherein the distance between the front wall and the back wall is substantially the same as a thickness of the tablet device The "X1 Tray" mechanism is described as one that "expands and retracts automatically to the thickness of a portable electronic device." Ex. A, p. 29 col. 4:51-54
wherein at least the back wall is angled toward a back end of the tray table The image of the "X2 Tray" shows a PED held at an angle for viewing when the tray table is in a stowed and locked position, which may suggest an angled support mechanism. Ex. A, p. 29 col. 5:45-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A primary question is whether the complaint provides sufficient factual allegations to render the claim of patent infringement plausible. The infringement count is conclusory and relies entirely on the premise that the licensed "Products" practice the patents and that the license was breached.
    • Technical Question: What is the technical nature of the "mechanism" in the accused "X1 Tray" and "X2 Tray" products? Does it constitute a "thin elongated cavity" with an "angled" back wall as required by Claim 1 of the ’904 Patent, or does it operate differently?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any claim terms for construction. Based on the representative claims analyzed, the following terms may be central to the dispute.

  • For the ’904 Patent:

    • The Term: "thin elongated cavity"
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of Claim 1. The dispute may turn on whether the accused mechanism, described as an "expandable position mechanism" (Compl., Ex. A, p. 29), falls within the meaning of a "cavity."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the support in general terms as an "excavated portion of the tray table 104 configured to accept a portable electronic device" and as a "slot or groove" ('904 Patent, col. 4:35-39), which could support a range of structural configurations.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 1B, consistently depict the cavity as a simple, static, recessed slot with fixed walls, which may suggest a narrower construction that does not cover an actively expanding and retracting mechanism ('904 Patent, Fig. 1B).

  • For the ’830 Patent:

    • The Term: "rotatable inner tray"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the point of novelty. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products contain a structure that meets the definition of an "inner tray" that is "rotatable" within the main body.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes that the inner tray may be rotated to "between an open position and a closed position" ('830 Patent, Abstract), potentially covering any component that pivots or turns to reveal and stow a PED.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a specific embodiment where the inner tray pivots within a dedicated opening in the main tray table body, with a back panel that becomes coplanar with the top surface when closed ('830 Patent, col. 2:10-24; Fig. 1C). This could be used to argue for a narrower definition tied to this specific configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that AES induced infringement by "inducing other third parties to use the patents without authorization" (Compl. ¶101). This allegation appears to be based on the sublicensing agreements AES entered into with Zodiac Aerospace and HAECO after the date of the alleged breach (Compl. ¶¶25, 27).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that AES acted in "willful, deliberate disregard of SmartTray’s patent rights" (Compl. ¶102). The basis for this allegation is Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the patents, which it obtained through the 2015 License Agreement itself, and its subsequent alleged decision to continue practicing the patents after failing to meet its payment obligations.

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

  • Contract vs. Patent: A central issue will be whether this case is fundamentally a contractual dispute or a patent case. The outcome may depend on whether the license was validly terminated or merely breached, which would determine if AES's subsequent actions were unlicensed infringement or simply a breach of contract with a continued license.
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold legal question is one of plausibility: does the complaint's patent infringement count, which fails to identify any specific patents or asserted claims and rests on conclusory allegations tied to a contract breach, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard?
  • Evidentiary Mapping: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical identity: what is the precise technical structure and operation of the products AES sold after the alleged breach, and does that structure map onto the specific limitations of any asserted patent claim, or did the products deviate from the designs contemplated in the original license agreement?