DCT
2:15-cv-05493
Tzu Tech LLC v. Winzz LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TZU Technologies, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Winzz LLC, d/b/a Lovepalz.com (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cotman IP Law Group, PLC
- Case Identification: 2:15-cv-05493, C.D. Cal., 07/20/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's business activities in the district, including making, selling, and distributing products and services over the internet, with sales specifically targeted at California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "LovePalz" family of internet-connected adult stimulation devices infringes a patent related to the remote control of sexual aids over a computer network.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for remotely controlling physical devices between two or more users via the internet, a field often referred to as teledildonics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant was aware of the patent-in-suit due to a previous lawsuit filed by the patent's former owner, Hassex, Inc., against the "RealTouch" devices, as well as from industry trade fairs and marketing activities. This prior litigation history may be central to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268 Priority Date |
| 2002-04-09 | U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268 Issued |
| 2015-07-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268 - Method and device for interactive virtual control of sexual aids using digital computer networks, issued April 9, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in prior art stimulation devices, which required the operator to be in "close proximity to the recipient" (’268 Patent, col. 1:41-43). Existing remote communication systems, such as those for medical monitoring, were described as "not readily suitable for use for sexual stimulation aids" (’268 Patent, col. 1:50-52). The core problem was the absence of a system enabling an operator to control a stimulation device for a remote recipient over a network like the internet.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that connects two or more "user interfaces" (e.g., personal computers) over a network (’268 Patent, Fig. 1). A person at a first user interface uses an input device (like a joystick or mouse) to generate control signals (’268 Patent, col. 3:9-15). These signals are transmitted across the network to a second, remote user interface, which then commands a physical stimulation device to act upon a second user (’268 Patent, col. 2:7-12). The system can also be used to interact with pre-recorded media (’268 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a technical framework for interactive, remote control of physical stimulation devices over wide-area computer networks, moving beyond localized or self-contained control systems (’268 Patent, col. 1:55-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 8 is representative of the core interactive, two-user system described in the complaint.
- Independent Claim 8:
- A hand-operable input device for generating a command signal from a first user.
- A first user interface connected to the input device, generating a control signal based on the command signal.
- A second user interface, remotely located from the first, that receives the control signal.
- A stimulation device that receives the control signal from the second user interface and imparts stimulation to a second user.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "LovePalz Product Family," which includes the "Twist for women," "Twist for men," "Zeus," and "Hera" products, as well as the "Lovepalz Club" online service (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the LovePalz products are "stimulation systems" that allow a first user to operate an input device, generating a command signal that is sent to a remote, second user interface (Compl. ¶9). This second interface receives the signal and directs a "stimulation device" to impart stimulation to a second user (Compl. ¶9). These products are described as "adult oriented toys" and services distributed over the internet (Compl. ¶3). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'268 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a hand-operable input device for generating a command signal in response to an input received from a first user | Each system "has a hand-operable input device for generating a command signal in response to an input from a first user." | ¶9 | col. 10:29-32 |
| a first user interface connected to said input device, said first user interface generating a control signal based upon the command signal | "A first user interface is connected to the said input device, for generating a control signal based upon the command signal." | ¶9 | col. 10:33-36 |
| a second user interface remotely located from said first user interface, said second user interface receiving the control signal | "A second user interface is remotely located from first user interface and a second user interface receives the control signal." | ¶9 | col. 10:1-3 |
| a stimulation device receiving the control signal from said second user interface, said stimulation device imparting stimulation to a second user... | "A stimulation device receives a control signal from the second user interface. The stimulation signal imparts stimulation to a user..." | ¶9 | col. 10:4-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The allegations in the complaint closely track the language of claim 8. A central issue will be whether discovery produces evidence demonstrating that the accused products actually contain each of these components and that they operate in the manner recited by the claim. The complaint itself offers no technical specifics, schematics, or source code analysis.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of key terms. For example, does the accused system's "user interface" (e.g., a mobile application) fall within the scope of the term as used in the patent, which primarily illustrates personal computers? The meaning of "remotely located" could also be a point of debate, although network-based separation is strongly implied.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "user interface"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed system architecture. Its construction will determine whether the claims read on modern implementations (e.g., smartphone apps) or are limited to the PC-based systems shown in the patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products likely rely on mobile device software, which differs from the 1998-era computer hardware depicted in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that each user interface "preferably comprise[s] a personal computer" (’268 Patent, col. 2:58-59). The use of "preferably" suggests that a personal computer is just one example and that other forms of interfaces could be covered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict the "user interface" (10, 30) as a system comprising a personal computer (11, 31), display, and keyboard (’268 Patent, Fig. 1). An argument could be made that the invention is limited to these disclosed embodiments.
The Term: "hand-operable input device"
- Context and Importance: This term defines how a user initiates control over the remote device. Its scope is critical for determining whether the claims cover control initiated by various means, such as touchscreens, motion sensors, or other modern inputs not explicitly listed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including "a joystick, mouse and/or microphone," and further allows for a "custom designed input mechanism" (’268 Patent, col. 3:13-15). This language suggests the term is not limited to the specific examples given.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 36 specifies that the "hand-operable input device comprises either a mouse or a joystick" (’268 Patent, col. 11:4-6). The doctrine of claim differentiation may suggest that the broader term in claim 8 is not limited to just these two, but a defendant might argue the explicit examples in the specification define the term's practical scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Count II of the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶¶23-29). The plaintiff alleges that Defendant's sale of the products and operation of its website and the "LovePalz Club" service actively encourages and instructs its users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶¶13, 20, 27). The basis for this allegation is Defendant's purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’268 Patent, allegedly gained from "participation in trade fairs," news articles about a "previous lawsuit by former owner, Hassex, Inc., ... against the RealTouch devices," and "marking provided on competing licensed products" (Compl. ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope versus modern technology: can the term "user interface," which is described in the context of 1990s-era personal computers, be construed to cover the smartphone applications and mobile hardware likely used by the accused LovePalz system? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of operation: the complaint's infringement theory mirrors the patent's claim language with little independent technical detail. The case will depend heavily on whether discovery reveals that the accused products actually practice each element of the asserted claims as alleged.
- The claim of willful infringement will likely be a significant point of contention. A core question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant's alleged knowledge of a prior lawsuit involving the patent against a different company's product was sufficient to establish a risk of infringement that was "either known or so obvious that it should have been known" to Defendant.