DCT

2:15-cv-07138

Quanex Ig Systems Inc v. Panjin CLL Insulating Glass Material Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

  • Case Identification: 2:15-cv-07138, C.D. Cal., 09/10/2015

  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are not U.S. residents and have purposefully directed activities toward California, including marketing, offering to sell, and selling the accused products to California residents.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ spacer and sealant assemblies for insulated windows infringe five U.S. patents related to flexible window spacer technology.

  • Technical Context: The technology concerns flexible spacer assemblies used to separate and seal the glass panes in energy-efficient, multi-pane insulated glass units.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the infringing activity commenced in or around August 2015, one month prior to the filing of the lawsuit. No other procedural events such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-20 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2003-06-24 U.S. Patent No. 6,581,341 Issued
2005-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 6,877,292 Issued
2009-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,493,739 Issued
2011-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,877,958 Issued
2012-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,230,661 Issued
2015-08-01 Alleged Infringing Product Launch (approx. "at least as early as August 2015")
2015-09-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,230,661 - "Continuous Flexible Spacer Assembly Having Sealant Support Member"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in prior art window spacer technology. One approach resulted in undesirable "undulations" in the spacer's sightline after installation and was prone to stretching during application. Another "open cell" design did not provide adequate support for the sealant, potentially compromising the window's seal over time (’661 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a composite spacer and sealant strip for multi-pane windows. It comprises three main components: an undulating metal or plastic "shim" for structural integrity, a "stiffener" that cooperates with the shim, and a "sealant support member" to which the shim and stiffener are attached. This combination is designed to be crush-resistant and laterally stable, yet flexible enough to be coiled and bent at corners, while providing a durable bondline for the sealant (’661 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-65).
  • Technical Importance: The invention purports to provide a spacer assembly that is both easy to manufacture and install (by being coilable) and aesthetically and functionally superior by maintaining a "smooth sightline" and a durable seal (’661 Patent, col. 2:20-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but reserves the right to do so. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A stretchable sealant support member with a planar surface and at least one pleated portion on its edges.
    • A shim with at least one undulating portion, in contact with the edges of the sealant support member, configured to facilitate bending.
    • A sealant joined to the edges of the sealant support member.

U.S. Patent No. 7,877,958 - "Continuous Flexible Spacer Assembly Having Sealant Support Member"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like the ’661 Patent, the ’958 Patent addresses the dual problems of prior art spacers that either created aesthetically poor sightlines and stretched during application or, in "open cell" designs, failed to provide adequate long-term support for the sealant that seals the window panes (’958 Patent, col. 2:1-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a composite structure that includes a sealant support member with pleated edges, an undulating shim, and a sealant. The pleated portion of the support member is described as being "oriented inward into the at least one undulating portion of said shim," a specific geometric arrangement intended to facilitate bending for corner formation without compromising the structure (’958 Patent, col. 8:1-12; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve the manufacturability and long-term performance of insulated glass units by creating a flexible yet stable spacer that ensures a consistent, durable seal.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A sealant support member with a planar surface and at least one pleated portion.
    • A shim with an undulating portion in contact with the sealant support member.
    • A specific orientation where the pleated portion of the support member is "oriented inward into the at least one undulating portion of said shim."
    • A sealant joined to the edges of the sealant support member.

U.S. Patent No. 7,493,739 - "Continuous Flexible Spacer Assembly Having Sealant Support Member"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the lead patents, discloses a flexible, crush-resistant spacer for insulated windows. It addresses the need for a spacer that can be coiled for storage and bent at corners while maintaining a flat sightline and providing robust support for the window sealant, using a combination of an undulating shim, a stiffener, and a sealant support member (’739 Patent, col. 2:31-50).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶27-31).
  • Accused Features: The "TruSpacer" product is accused of infringing the ’739 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 6,877,292 - "Continuous Flexible Spacer Assembly Having Sealant Support Member"

  • Technology Synopsis: An earlier patent in the asserted family, the ’292 Patent describes an improved flexible spacer assembly designed to solve the sightline and sealant-support problems of prior art. The invention centers on a composite structure including a "plastic shim" with an undulating portion, a stiffener, and a stretchable sealant support member to create a laterally stable but longitudinally flexible spacer (’292 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶27-31).
  • Accused Features: The "TruSpacer" product is accused of infringing the ’292 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 6,581,341 - "Continuous Flexible Spacer Assembly Having Sealant Support Member"

  • Technology Synopsis: As the earliest issued patent in the family, the ’341 Patent establishes the core inventive concept. It addresses limitations of the "Greenlee" patent (poor sightline, stretching) and "open cell" designs (inadequate sealant support) by disclosing a composite spacer comprising an undulating shim, a stiffener, and a stretchable, pleated sealant support member (’341 Patent, col. 1:48 - col. 2:32).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶27-31).
  • Accused Features: The "TruSpacer" product is accused of infringing the ’341 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are spacer and sealant assemblies marketed by Defendants under the name "TruSpacer" (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the TruSpacer is a "knock-off" of Plaintiff's own DURASEAL® spacer and sealant assemblies (Compl. ¶21). These products function as the structural and sealing component between glass panes in multi-pane windows (Compl. ¶1). Plaintiff alleges it obtained and evaluated a sample of the TruSpacer and determined that it infringes the Asserted Quanex Patents (Compl. ¶21). Defendants are alleged to have begun importing, offering for sale, and selling the TruSpacer to customers in California and elsewhere "[b]eginning at least as early as August 2015" (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "TruSpacer" product directly infringes the Asserted Quanex Patents (Compl. ¶28). The infringement theory is based on Plaintiff having "obtained a sample of Defendants' TruSpacer, evaluated it, and determined that it infringes upon the claims" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not, however, provide specific, element-by-element mappings of the accused product's features to the limitations of any asserted patent claim. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. Since the complaint lacks detailed infringement contentions, a central question is what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that the physical construction of the "TruSpacer" product embodies each element of the asserted claims. For instance, what is the structure of the TruSpacer's internal shim, and does it meet the "undulating" limitation?
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key claim terms. For example, does the accused TruSpacer contain a distinct component that meets the definition of a "stretchable sealant support member" with a "pleated portion" as required by claims in the ’661 and ’958 patents, or is it constructed in a fundamentally different manner?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "stretchable sealant support member"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it describes the component that provides the foundation for the spacer assembly and directly interacts with the sealant and the glass panes. Its properties—being "stretchable" to facilitate cornering without tearing or bunching, while also serving as a "support"—are central to the invention's purported advantages over the prior art (’292 Patent, col. 5:35-52). The dispute will hinge on whether the corresponding part of the accused product performs these specific functions.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the member as being fabricated from a range of materials, including "aluminum foil, plastic, paper, plastic paper, metallicized plastic, metal or laminates," which may support a broader construction not limited to a specific material (’292 Patent, col. 5:35-39).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that the member must be "stretchable so that it does not tear or bunch when the spacer assembly... is being bent to form corners" and details specific laminate structures (e.g., polyester, aluminum foil, and a copolymer) that achieve this, potentially supporting a narrower construction tied to these functional requirements (’292 Patent, col. 5:40-62).

  • The Term: "undulating portion" (of the "shim")

    • Context and Importance: This is the core structural element that provides the spacer's crush resistance and lateral stability. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific geometry, amplitude, and frequency of the "undulations" define the spacer's mechanical properties (’341 Patent, col. 3:35-44, col. 4:14-25). Infringement will depend on whether the accused product's internal support structure has a corresponding "undulating" shape.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the undulations "may include folds, ribs, creases, and sinusoidal waves," suggesting the term is not limited to a single, specific repeating shape (’341 Patent, col. 3:38-40).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents consistently depict the undulations as a repeating series of "peaks" and "valleys" forming "adjoining hollow columns" or "prismatic cells" (e.g., ’341 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:32-35). This could be used to argue for a more structured, cellular construction, rather than any merely wavy or corrugated shape.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement.
    • Contributory (35 U.S.C. § 271(c)): The complaint alleges the TruSpacer is a material part of a patented window assembly, is not a staple article of commerce, has no substantial non-infringing uses, and is known by Defendants to be especially made for infringing use (Compl. ¶29).
    • Induced (35 U.S.C. § 271(b)): The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by selling the TruSpacer to window manufacturers and advertising the product for its intended use in windows, thereby encouraging their customers to directly infringe (Compl. ¶30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement (Compl. ¶31). It does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter. The basis for willfulness may therefore depend on evidence of egregious conduct or knowledge obtained during the litigation.

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

  • Evidentiary Proof of Structure: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, a primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be one of evidentiary demonstration. What evidence will establish that the internal construction of the accused "TruSpacer" product contains the specific, multi-component structure recited in the claims, including a distinct "undulating shim," "stiffener," and "sealant support member"?
  • Claim Construction and Functional Equivalence: The case will likely turn on claim construction. A central question for the court will be how to define the functional and structural requirements of key terms like "stretchable sealant support member" and "pleated portion." The resolution of the infringement question will depend on whether the accused product's components meet the court's construction of these terms, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
  • Basis for Willfulness: A key question for damages will be the basis for willfulness. On what grounds, beyond the filing of the lawsuit itself, does Plaintiff allege that Defendants’ infringement was willful, and what evidence will be produced to show the state of mind required for such a finding?