DCT
2:18-cv-00715
Lubby Holdings LLC v. Henry Chung
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lubby Holdings LLC (Delaware); Vaporous Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Henry Chung (individual); Ming Chen (individual); Deepvapes, Inc. d/b/a Boom Vaporizer (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ADLI LAW GROUP, Group
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00715, C.D. Cal., 01/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the individual defendants' residence within the district and the corporate defendant's transaction of business, including offering the accused products for sale, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-cigarette products infringe a patent related to the design and function of personal vaporizers, particularly concerning a dual-function check valve mechanism.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns personal vaporizers, commonly known as e-cigarettes or vapes, a consumer electronics category involving devices that heat a liquid or wax medium to create an inhalable vapor.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or specific pre-suit licensing communications that would bear on the scope of the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,750,284 Earliest Priority Date |
| 2017-09-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,750,284 Issued |
| 2018-01-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,750,284 - "Personal Vaporizer"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,750,284, "Personal Vaporizer," issued September 5, 2017. (Compl. ¶13).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for personal vaporizers that can accommodate both liquid and wax media, resist leaking during periods of nonuse, and maximize vapor delivery without unduly increasing the device's physical size. (’284 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a personal vaporizer, often in a modular configuration, featuring a specific check valve design. This check valve serves a dual purpose: it acts as a mechanical seal to prevent vaporizing media from leaking out through air passages, particularly during nonuse, and it simultaneously functions as part of the electrical circuit, containing a conductive shell to deliver power from the battery to the heating element. (’284 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-38). The detailed description illustrates this with embodiments like a ball-and-spring mechanism within a conductive assembly (see Fig. 8-9, 12).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the reliability and versatility of personal vaporizers by integrating anti-leak and electrical-conduction functions into a single component, addressing common points of failure in prior designs. (’284 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10, along with dependent claims 2-6, 14, and 16-18. (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a personal vaporizer system comprising:
- A tank module with a fluid chamber and a vapor passage.
- An atomizer module with a bowl and a heating element.
- A check valve comprising an insulator housing, a conductive shell, and a sealing mechanism inside the conductive shell.
- A battery assembly connectable to the heating element through the check valve.
- Independent Claim 10 recites an atomizer for a personal vaporizer comprising:
- A housing made of an electrically conductive material, attachable to a battery.
- An atomizer bowl arranged within the housing.
- A heating element within the atomizer bowl with two wire end portions.
- A check valve with a valve body and a sealing structure, configured to conduct electricity and resist reverse air flow.
- An electrical connection path where the first wire end portion connects to the valve body and the second connects to the housing.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "CONSEAL A and CONSEAL B E-cigarette" products. (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the defendants "manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import" the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that the defendants operate "DEEPVAPES, INC., Boom Vaporizer, www.boomvaporizer.com" as suppliers of "Vaper products." (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of the Accused Products, instead making a general allegation that they incorporate the patented technology and referencing an external exhibit for an example. (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is based on descriptions of the patented invention, followed by a conclusory allegation that the Accused Products embody these features. The tables below summarize this asserted correspondence.
’284 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a tank module comprising a fluid chamber and a vapor passage extending through the fluid chamber, the fluid chamber configured to contain a vaporizing solution | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶16a, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 32:2-5 |
| b. an atomizer module comprising a bowl having an upper edge, a coil being arranged in or adjacent the bowl, the bowl being configured to accept a vaporizing solution received from the fluid chamber | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶16b, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 32:6-10 |
| c. a check valve comprising an insulator housing, a conductive shell inside the insulator housing, and a sealing mechanism inside the conductive shell, the sealing mechanism providing a seal inside the conductive shell | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶16c, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 32:11-15 |
| d. a battery assembly, the atomizer module connectable to the battery assembly through the check valve so that actuation of the battery delivers electrical energy to the coil, causing the coil to heat and vaporize the vaporizing solution | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶16d, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 32:19-23 |
’284 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 10)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a housing having a distal end and a proximal end, the housing comprising an electrically conductive material, the distal end configured to be attachable to a first pole of a battery so that the distal end electrically communicates with the battery | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶17a, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 32:56-62 |
| b. an atomizer bowl arranged within the housing, the atomizer bowl comprising a side wall and a bottom wall, the atomizer bowl configured to receive vaporizing media | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶17b, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 32:63-65 |
| c. a heating element disposed at least partially within the atomizer bowl, the heating element having a first wire end portion and a second wire end portion... | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶17c, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 20:1-7 |
| d. a check valve having a valve body and a sealing structure, the valve body extending from a distal end to a proximal end and configured to communicate electricity...the sealing structure configured to accommodate flow...but to resist flow...in a proximal-to-distal direction | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶17d, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 20:8-18 |
| e. wherein the first wire end portion is in electrical communication with the proximal end of the valve body and the second wire end portion is in electrical communication with the housing | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the claimed features of the ’284 Patent. | ¶17e, ¶18, ¶22 | col. 20:19-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be factual and evidentiary. The complaint does not explain how the Accused Products work or map their specific components to the claim elements. Therefore, a central issue will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the Accused Products contain a "check valve" that performs both the specific electrical conduction and directional flow-sealing functions required by the claims.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions regarding the scope of the term "check valve." The patent specification describes specific embodiments, such as a ball-and-spring mechanism. (’284 Patent, col. 2:41-42). The dispute may focus on whether the term is limited to such disclosed structures or can be interpreted more broadly to cover other valve designs that may be found in the accused devices.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "check valve" (Claim 1, Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted independent claims, which require it to possess both electrical and mechanical sealing properties. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on how this term is construed, as a narrow definition could place the accused products outside the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because of its dual-functional requirements, which are central to the patent's described novelty.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties might point to the general definition of a check valve as any device that allows fluid flow in only one direction, arguing that the term should not be unduly limited by the specific examples shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself limits the term by requiring it to comprise "an insulator housing, a conductive shell inside the insulator housing, and a sealing mechanism inside the conductive shell." (’284 Patent, col. 32:11-15). The specification further provides specific structural details, such as a "ball 292 and a compression spring 294" (col. 11:26-28), which a party could argue defines the scope of what the patentee considered to be the invention.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Defendants knowingly induced infringement by "selling or otherwise supplying the Accused Products" and through the "dissemination of documentation and technical information related to the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and will continue to be willful." (Compl. ¶26). It alleges that Defendants had notice of the ’284 Patent "since before this lawsuit was filed" but does not provide specific facts supporting this pre-suit knowledge, such as the sending of a notice letter. (Compl. ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present two central questions for resolution by the court:
An evidentiary question of infringement-in-fact: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack a detailed mapping of accused product features to claim limitations. A key question will be whether discovery yields evidence sufficient to prove that the "CONSEAL A and B" products actually incorporate the specific, multi-component "check valve" structure that simultaneously provides both electrical conductivity and a mechanical seal as recited in the asserted claims.
A legal question of claim construction: The case will likely turn on the definition of the term "check valve." A core issue will be whether this term, as limited by the language of the claims and described in the specification, is broad enough to read on the specific valve mechanisms used in the accused devices, or if it is confined to the particular ball-and-spring or other detailed embodiments disclosed in the patent.