DCT
2:17-cv-05731
Tile Tech Inc v. Appian Way Sales Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tile Tech, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Appian Way Sales, Inc. (Washington) and Puget Lite-Pavers, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cislo & Thomas LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05731, C.D. Cal., 08/02/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California based on Defendants having conducted substantial business in the district, including selling and installing the accused products at specific locations within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pedestal systems for supporting pavers infringe a patent related to the structural design of paver support components.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adjustable pedestals used in construction and landscaping to create elevated, level paver surfaces over potentially uneven or sloped subsurfaces.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with actual notice of the asserted patent and their alleged infringement via a letter dated September 19, 2016, approximately one year before filing the complaint. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-08-01 | ’296 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014 | Alleged first introduction of accused products by Puget |
| 2016-08-09 | ’296 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-09-19 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendants regarding infringement |
| 2017-08-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,410,296 - "Apparatus and Related Methods of Paving a Subsurface"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,410,296, "Apparatus and Related Methods of Paving a Subsurface," issued August 9, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the need for improved pedestal systems to create elevated and leveled paver surfaces, particularly addressing the instability of prior art slope compensation mechanisms and the challenge of securely anchoring pavers to pedestals (’296 Patent, col. 1:35-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-component apparatus for supporting pavers. A key embodiment described is a base component for a paver support system featuring a specific structural arrangement of concentric cylinders. As detailed in the specification and claimed, this base includes an inner, "femininely threaded support cylinder" and an "outer cylindrical wall" that is spaced from the inner cylinder to define a "riser socket" for receiving other components, such as a height-adjusting riser pipe (’296 Patent, col. 16:25-34; Fig. 42A). This configuration provides a stable, modular foundation for building an adjustable paver support.
- Technical Importance: This modular design, separating the threaded support function from a riser socket, allows for flexible and stable height adjustment in pedestal systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶18).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a femininely threaded support cylinder
- a riser socket around the support cylinder
- a foot
- an outer cylindrical wall projecting upwardly from the foot, concentrically arranged about and spaced from the femininely threaded support cylinder to define the riser socket
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of claims 1-22 (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendants' "Diamond Head™ Series AWS™ pedestal system" (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are modular pedestal systems used to support pavers for creating elevated surfaces (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that the base component of this system contains the structural features recited in the patent, including an inner threaded cylinder and a distinct outer wall that forms a socket (Compl. ¶¶ 24-27).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant Appian Way manufactures the products and Defendant Puget is a distributor, and that the products are sold for installation at major construction projects (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9, 34). A schematic of the accused product is provided as Exhibit 7 to the complaint, which illustrates its component parts (Compl. ¶21; Ex. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’296 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a femininely threaded support cylinder | The accused product allegedly has an "innermost cylinder having a cylindrical wall with inner threads defining a hole." | ¶24 | col. 16:27-29 |
| a riser socket around the support cylinder | The accused product allegedly has a second, outer wall, and the "gap that defines the riser socket" is located between the inner and outer walls. | ¶25 | col. 16:29-34 |
| a foot | The accused product has a "wide flat base that provides support for the femininely threaded support cylinder and the second wall." | ¶26 | col. 16:26-27 |
| an outer cylindrical wall projecting perpendicularly upwardly from the foot, the outer cylindrical wall concentrically arranged about and spaced from the femininely threaded support cylinder to define the riser socket | The accused product's "second wall" is alleged to be this outer cylindrical wall, which projects upward from the foot and is concentrically arranged around the threaded support cylinder to define the riser socket. | ¶27 | col. 16:30-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory appears to rely on the term "riser socket" reading on the "gap" between two concentric walls in the accused product (Compl. ¶25). A central question will be whether the term "riser socket," as defined and used within the patent, can be properly construed to cover the accused structure, or if the patent requires a more specific configuration not present in the accused product.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case, as pled, appears to be a structural one. The primary technical question will be whether the physical components of the accused "Diamond Head™ Series" pedestal, as depicted in schematics (Compl. Ex. 7), possess the specific concentric and spaced-apart cylindrical structures required by the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "riser socket"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's infringement theory hinges on the "gap" between two cylinders in the accused product meeting this limitation (Compl. ¶25). The definition of what constitutes a "socket" in the context of the patent—whether it is simply any annular space or requires specific structural features for receiving a "riser"—will be a key focus of the dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 defines the socket by its relationship to other elements ("around the support cylinder...defined by...the outer cylindrical wall"). This structural definition may support an argument that any concentric space meeting these geometric constraints is a "riser socket."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent uses the term "riser socket 313" in reference to specific embodiments, such as Figure 42A, which shows a distinct structural element (’296 Patent, col. 16:29-30). This may support an argument that a "riser socket" is not merely a "gap" but a structure specifically adapted to receive a riser, potentially with additional functional or structural features implied by the specification.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement: The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendants provide instructional materials, including a video on their website, that teach customers how to assemble and use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 52). A screenshot from the alleged instructional video is referenced in the complaint (Compl. ¶50; Ex. 11).
- Contributory Infringement: The contributory infringement claim is based on the allegation that Defendants sell the components of the accused system as a package and that these parts "do not have any substantial non-infringing use" and "can only be assembled to infringe the '296 patent" (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 61-62).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ continued sale of the accused products after receiving a notice of infringement letter on September 19, 2016 (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "riser socket", as described in the patent, be construed to read on the alleged "gap" between two concentric walls in the accused pedestal system, or does the patent's specification and prosecution history impart a narrower, more specific structural or functional meaning?
- A second central question will be one of indirect infringement evidence: For the contributory infringement claim, what evidence will emerge to determine whether the components of the accused pedestal system, when sold individually or as a kit, have a substantial non-infringing use, or if their only practical use is for assembly into the allegedly infringing final product?
- Finally, a key factual question for damages will be willfulness: Did the Defendants' conduct after receiving the September 19, 2016 notice letter rise to the level of objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?