2:17-cv-04552
Glo Cone Intl LLC v. LaRose Industries LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Glo Cone International, LLC (Nevada)
- Defendant: Larose Industries, LLC; Cra-Z-Art Corp.; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (New Jersey; New Jersey; Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozsa Law Group LC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-04552, C.D. Cal., 06/20/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ transaction of substantial business in the district, including the sale of the accused products in brick-and-mortar stores and online to customers within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Light Up Cotton Candy Wand," sold as part of "The Real Cotton Candy Maker" product, infringes a patent related to a handheld, illuminated apparatus for holding and illuminating food items.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns novelty consumer products, specifically food-safe wands or sticks that use internal lighting, such as LEDs, to illuminate a food item (e.g., cotton candy) from within for an enhanced aesthetic effect.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff marked its own products with "Patent Pending" during prosecution and with the patent number after issuance, which may be relevant to the calculation of potential damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-02-27 | U.S. Patent No. 7,476,000 Priority Date |
| 2008-02-XX | Plaintiff begins selling "Glo Cone" product |
| 2009-01-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,476,000 issues |
| 2017-06-20 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,476,000 - "Handheld Illuminated Apparatus for Retaining a Food Item in an Edible Condition with the Illumination Directly Passing Through the Food Item"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,476,000, issued January 13, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon prior art lighted food holders. It identifies a drawback in existing devices where the light source is located in a handle and reflected into the food-retaining portion, rather than being positioned to shine directly into and through the food itself, which limits the visual effect. (’000 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld wand with a light source, such as LEDs, located within the same translucent "illumination cover" that holds the food item. (’000 Patent, col. 4:1-4). This configuration allows light to be "directly projected through the edible food item," such as an ice cream bar or cotton candy, creating a more vivid and "beautiful aesthetic visual effect." (’000 Patent, col. 4:35-43, 61-64; Fig. 8). A handle contains the power source and an activation switch, which allows a user to control the illumination. (’000 Patent, col. 4:6-14).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a method for directly illuminating translucent food items from within, which the patent asserts creates a "substantially enhanced" visual effect compared to prior art methods of indirect or reflected illumination. (’000 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, but pleads infringement of the patent generally (Compl. ¶27). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 5 as a representative claim.
- Independent Claim 5 requires:
- An "illumination cover having an interior chamber" connected to a "handle member."
- A "source of electrical power" within the handle member.
- An "activation means" connected to the power source.
- A "circuit board" within the illumination cover's interior chamber, which is electrically connected to the power source and has a "multiplicity of LEDs."
- Activation of the LEDs emits illumination through the illumination cover.
- An "edible food item" is retained on the cover so illumination from the LEDs "directly projects through the illumination cover and directly projects into and through the edible food item." (’000 Patent, col. 6:51-68, col. 7:1-5).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Light Up Cotton Candy Wand" (referred to in the complaint as the "Knockoff Cone"), which is sold as part of "The Real Cotton Candy Maker" product, item no. r18065 (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused "Knockoff Cones" are imported, marketed, and sold by Defendants Cra-Z-Art and Wal-Mart through online and brick-and-mortar retail stores (Compl. ¶¶17-18). The complaint includes, as Exhibit 4, photographs of the accused product's packaging, which prominently feature the "Knockoff Cones" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges these wands are used to hold and illuminate cotton candy, thereby infringing the ’000 Patent (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations against the elements of representative independent claim 5.
’000 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an illumination cover having an interior chamber and connected to a handle member having an interior chamber; | The "Knockoff Cone" is alleged to be an apparatus with a cone-shaped portion for holding food and a handle portion. | ¶17 | col. 6:51-54 |
| a source of electrical power retained within the interior chamber of the handle member and an activation means connected to the source of power; | The complaint alleges the "Knockoff Cone" is a "Light Up" wand, which implies the presence of a power source (e.g., batteries) and a switch for activation. | ¶17, ¶19 | col. 6:55-58 |
| a circuit board retained within the interior chamber of the illumination cover and electrically connected to the source of power...and a multiplicity of LEDs electrically connected to the circuit board; | The complaint alleges the wand lights up, implying the existence of internal light sources like LEDs and associated circuitry to power them. | ¶17 | col. 6:59-64 |
| when activated by the activation means, the LEDs emit illumination through the illumination cover; | The "Knockoff Cone" is alleged to function as a "Light Up Cotton Candy Wand," which necessarily involves emitting light through the cone. Photographs of the product packaging allegedly show the cone illuminating. | ¶17, ¶19 | col. 6:65-66 |
| an edible food item retained on the illumination cover so that the illumination from the LEDs directly projects through the illumination cover and directly projects into and through the edible food item. | The product is marketed as a "Cotton Candy Wand," and cotton candy is a translucent food item that would be retained on the cone and illuminated from within. | ¶17 | col. 7:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused product contains the specific internal architecture required by the claims, such as a "circuit board retained within the interior chamber of the illumination cover." Evidence regarding the internal construction of the "Knockoff Cone" will be necessary to determine if it meets this limitation. The complaint, through Exhibit 4, provides a photograph of the accused product's packaging, which allegedly shows the Knockoff Cones (Compl. ¶19).
- Scope Questions: The functional language "directly projects into and through the edible food item" was a key distinction over prior art cited in the patent. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product's illumination operates in this specific manner, as opposed to a more general or reflective illumination.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "illumination cover"
Context and Importance: This term defines the portion of the device that both holds the food and contains the light source. Its construction is central because the patent’s novelty hinges on the light source being located within the food-retaining part. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific structure with a fully enclosed "interior chamber" for the circuit board, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any translucent member that holds food and has embedded lights.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the cover as being made of "transparent or translucent" material that "enables light to shine through it," suggesting a focus on function over a specific form (’000 Patent, col. 5:1-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 5 explicitly requires the "illumination cover" to have an "interior chamber" where a "circuit board" is "retained" (’000 Patent, col. 6:51-52, 59-60). Embodiments show a two-part shell (upper cover 1 and bottom cover 2) that fits together to form this chamber, which could suggest a more limited structural requirement (’000 Patent, col. 3:31-41).
The Term: "directly projects into and through the edible food item"
Context and Importance: This functional language is the core of the asserted invention and the patent's stated point of distinction over prior art. The case may depend on whether the light from the accused product is found to project "directly" through the food.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to provide an "enhanced visual effect" by having the illumination "shine directly into and through the food item" (’000 Patent, col. 2:30-34). This purpose-driven language could support a construction that covers any configuration achieving this direct illumination effect.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background section contrasts the invention with prior art where light is "retained within the handle section and is caused to be reflected into the portion which retains the food item" (’000 Patent, col. 2:47-50). A defendant may argue this creates a sharp distinction, limiting the claim to systems where the light source is physically located within the food-retaining portion and excludes any designs that rely on reflection or light piping from a handle.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by "supplying infringing products to others to use" and contributed to infringement by selling the "Knockoff Cones" (Compl. ¶27). It further alleges that the controlling parties of the Defendants "personally decided, directed, contributed to and induced the infringing activities" with knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants had "notice of Plaintiff's rights in the Glo Cone Patent" and that their acts were in "conscious and willful disregard" of those rights (Compl. ¶¶26, 30). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge was pre-suit or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of technical proof: What is the actual internal construction of the accused "Light Up Cotton Candy Wand"? Specifically, does it contain a "circuit board" physically "retained within the interior chamber of the illumination cover" as required by the patent's claims, or is its lighting mechanism constructed differently?
A second key issue will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the functional limitation "directly projects into and through the edible food item"? The case may turn on whether this phrase is interpreted broadly to mean any illumination from within the food, or more narrowly to exclude any designs that could be characterized as using reflection or light-guiding principles, based on the patent's own distinction from the prior art.