DCT
2:14-cv-06697
Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc v. Alwin Mfg Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Alwin Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:14-cv-06697, C.D. Cal., 08/26/2014
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant's allegedly infringing activities were performed in whole or in part in the district and because Defendant does business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automatic towel dispensers infringe a patent related to a protective mechanism for the dispenser's activation sensor.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns touchless dispensers, such as those for paper towels, that use capacitive sensors to detect a user's hand, a common technology in public washrooms designed to improve hygiene and reduce waste.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-10-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,631,967 Priority Date |
| 2014-01-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,631,967 Issue Date |
| 2014-08-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,631,967, “Sensor Protector,” issued January 21, 2014 (’967 Patent).
U.S. Patent No. 8,631,967 - “Sensor Protector”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses an operational failure in automatic dispensers that use capacitive sensors. When a user with wet hands touches the sensor area, the collected moisture can interfere with the sensor's capacitance reading, causing it to lose its set point and enter a lengthy "recalibrate process" during which the dispenser is inoperative ('967 Patent, col. 1:52-62). This is particularly problematic in high-traffic settings ('967 Patent, col. 1:62-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "sensor protector," which is a physical barrier placed over the external sensor area. This protector features a "plurality of spaced apart projections," such as a grid or a series of small posts, that extend away from the sensor surface ('967 Patent, col. 2:45-48). This structure is designed to prevent a user's wet hand from making broad contact with the sensor area, thereby reducing the amount of liquid that can collect on the surface and trigger a recalibration cycle ('967 Patent, col. 2:7-19). The patent illustrates this concept with embodiments like a grid with open cells (as depicted in FIG. 5) and an array of conical protrusions (as depicted in FIG. 7).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanical solution to an electronic reliability problem, aiming to improve the uptime and user experience of automated dispensers without altering the core sensor technology ('967 Patent, col. 2:5-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶9). The analysis below focuses on the first independent claim, Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1:
- a housing comprising a sensor area;
- a capacitive sensor adjacent a first surface of the sensor area of the housing, wherein said sensor has a target sensing area extending through said first surface and beyond a second surface of the housing opposite the first surface in a direction away from the first surface; and
- a sensor protector, said sensor protector comprising a plurality of spaced apart projections extending from the second surface in said direction away from the first surface.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad allegation of infringing "at least one claim" preserves this option.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "at least Defendant's towel dispensers Model Nos. 234 and 235" as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as "product dispensers" that Defendant "sells and offers for sale throughout the United States" (Compl. ¶9).
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the operation of the Model 234 and 235 dispensers, their sensor mechanisms, or any surface features relevant to the infringement allegations. The infringement claim is made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products "meet all of the limitations of at least one claim of the '967 patent" but does not provide a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶9). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 as implied by the complaint's general allegations.
’967 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing comprising a sensor area | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the Accused Products, being towel dispensers, have a housing that includes a sensor area for hand detection. | ¶9 | col. 4:1-3 |
| a capacitive sensor adjacent a first surface of the sensor area... | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the Accused Products contain a capacitive sensor positioned within the housing to detect a user's hand through the sensor area. | ¶9 | col. 2:40-44 |
| a sensor protector, said sensor protector comprising a plurality of spaced apart projections extending from the second surface... | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the Accused Products include a structure meeting the description of the claimed "sensor protector" with "spaced apart projections." No specific details of this structure are provided. The patent's FIG. 5 depicts an exemplary sensor protector as a grid with walls defining multiple openings. | ¶9 | col. 7:12-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central dispute will be factual: do the Alwin Model 234 and 235 dispensers actually have a structure that qualifies as a "sensor protector" with a "plurality of spaced apart projections"? The complaint does not provide any photographs, marketing materials, or technical descriptions of the accused products to substantiate this allegation.
- Technical Question: What evidence will show that any textured surface or covering on the accused dispensers performs the specific function of "reducing an amount of liquid and/or moisture being deposited on the section of the second surface," as described in the patent and required by method claim 10? (’967 Patent, col. 8:14-18).
- Scope Question: A key issue will be whether any textured surface on the accused dispensers can be considered a "plurality of spaced apart projections," or if the term requires discrete, physically distinct structures like the grid walls or conical posts shown in the patent's embodiments ('967 Patent, FIGS. 5, 7).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sensor protector"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the court construes this term functionally (as anything that protects the sensor from moisture) or structurally (as a component with the specific features described in the patent).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" describes the protector more functionally as a "protection barrier or grid" that helps "alleviate the need for recalibration" by preventing water collection ('967 Patent, col. 2:7-12). This could support an interpretation covering any structure achieving that result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict the protector as a distinct component with specific structures, such as "grid walls" or "conical shaped" protrusions ('967 Patent, col. 4:16-19, col. 5:23-24). The claims themselves require this protector to have "a plurality of spaced apart projections," suggesting a structural rather than purely functional definition.
The Term: "plurality of spaced apart projections"
Context and Importance: This phrase provides the key structural limitation for the "sensor protector." Its construction will determine what types of surfaces can infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from a simple flat or slightly textured surface.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not set forth specific required dimensions for the "projections" or the "spaces" between them, stating they can be of "any desired shape and size" ('967 Patent, col. 4:47-48). This may support a broader reading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes embodiments such as "crossing members defining a grid" and "conical shaped" protrusions ('967 Patent, col. 7:17-21). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed structures or ones with similar discrete, elevated features, rather than covering, for example, a simple molded texture.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, the prayer for relief requests that damages be trebled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is the statutory basis for enhanced damages that may be awarded for willful or egregious infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶4). The complaint does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of factual proof: given the complaint's lack of specific evidence, can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Alwin dispensers actually incorporate a physical structure that meets the "sensor protector" and "plurality of spaced apart projections" limitations of the asserted claims?
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: will the term "sensor protector" be construed narrowly to require a distinct component with discrete, elevated structures like the grids and posts shown in the patent's figures, or can it be read more broadly to cover any integrally molded surface texture that serves to disperse moisture on a sensor area?
- An early procedural question may be the sufficiency of the pleadings: the complaint, filed under pre-2015 rules, makes conclusory allegations of infringement "on information and belief" without providing supporting factual detail. This raises the question of whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard established by Twombly and Iqbal.