DCT
2:18-cv-02936
National Products Inc v. Arkon Resources Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: National Products Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: Arkon Resources Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fenwick & West LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-02936, C.D. Cal., 09/11/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant sells and offers to sell the accused products throughout the United States, including within the Central District of California, through its own website, Amazon.com, and other retailers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s universal mounting systems for electronic devices infringe a patent related to a quick-release platform with spring-loaded frames and specialized clamping jaws.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adjustable mounts designed to securely hold portable electronics like phones, tablets, and GPS units in vehicles, a market where accommodating various device sizes and resisting vibration are critical.
- Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint follows a prior complaint filed on December 17, 2015, and a subsequent disclosure of infringement contentions on May 18, 2016. Plaintiff alleges these events provided Defendant with notice of infringement, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement. The patent was assigned to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2015, with a later amendment clarifying the right to sue for past damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994-06-28 | Earliest Priority Date (from related application on patent face) |
| 2003-07-01 | '212 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-12-15 | '212 Patent assigned to Plaintiff National Products Inc. |
| 2015-12-17 | Date of prior complaint notifying Defendant of infringement allegations |
| 2016-05-18 | Date of Plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions |
| 2018-06-14 | Assignment amended to include right to sue for past infringement |
| 2018-09-11 | Second Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,585,212 - Quick Release Electronics Platform
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,585,212, "Quick Release Electronics Platform", issued July 1, 2003.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that mounting platforms for electronic devices in vehicles must handle vibration and shock, but existing platforms "tend to permit the accessory device to slip" during motion (ʼ212 Patent, col. 2:30-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mounting platform with first and second frame members that slide relative to one another and are pulled together by a biasing member, such as a spring ('212 Patent, Abstract). Coupled to these frames are clamping members with jaw portions that extend at a "predetermined obtuse angle" ('212 Patent, col. 10:8-10). These jaws feature a "resilient compressible pad" on their interior surface. When a device is inserted, the spring-loaded frames grip the device, while the angled jaws press downward and inward, compressing the device against the platform's mounting surfaces to securely hold it in place ('212 Patent, col. 3:9-16; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a universal, quick-release mounting solution that can accommodate devices of various sizes and shapes while actively counteracting slippage caused by vehicle movement ('212 Patent, col. 2:19-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 27 (Compl. ¶16).
- Essential elements of claim 27 include:
- A clamping mechanism with a rigid base portion and a rigid jaw portion extending at a "predetermined obtuse angle."
- A "resilient compressible pad" fixed to the interior surface of the jaw portion.
- A mounting platform with "first and second frame members being slidably interconnected" and a "biasing member" (e.g., a spring) that pulls the frame members together.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses multiple product lines, including the "RoadVise Products," "Mobile Grip 2 Products," "Slim-Grip Products," and "Universal Tablet Holder Products" (collectively, "the Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described and depicted as universal holders for smartphones and tablets (Compl. ¶¶ 16-20). Visual evidence in the complaint shows holders with spring-loaded, adjustable side-gripping arms designed to secure a range of device sizes (Compl. pp. 6-8). The complaint alleges these products are used as mounts for holding an accessory device such as a cellular phone, phablet, or tablet (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides an image of the RoadVise Premium Universal Smartphone Holder with Ring (RV001WR), which features two opposing, padded arms on a central base (Compl. p. 6, Fig. RV001WR). A similar design is shown for the Mobile Grip 2 Universal Smartphone Holder (MG002) (Compl. p. 6, Fig. MG002).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’212 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substantially rigid, elongated base portion including structure for mounting on an external member; | The Accused Products are alleged to be mounting platforms, such as the holder body of the RV001WR, which serves as a base portion for the gripping arms and is designed to mount to an external structure (e.g., a vehicle dashboard mount). The complaint provides an image of the Slim-Grip Ultra Universal Holder (SM060-2), depicting a holder with adjustable arms attached to a base (Compl. p. 7). | ¶¶17-20 | col. 10:2-4 |
| a substantially rigid, elongated jaw portion extending at a predetermined obtuse angle from one end of the elongated base portion; | The adjustable, side-gripping arms on the Accused Products are alleged to be the "jaw portion." The complaint does not specify the angle, but visual inspection is asserted to show infringement. The complaint provides an image of the Universal Tablet Holder (TAB001), showing two prominent gripping jaws extending from a base (Compl. p. 8). | ¶¶17-20 | col. 10:5-10 |
| a resilient compressible pad mechanically fixed to a surface of the jaw portion positioned on an interior of the obtuse angle; | The interior surfaces of the gripping arms on the Accused Products are shown with padded material, which is alleged to be the "resilient compressible pad." | ¶¶17-20 | col. 10:11-14 |
| a mounting platform, including: first and second frame members being slidably interconnected for relative motion along a first direction... and a biasing member being mechanically coupled between the first and second frame members for biasing the first and second frame members together along the first direction. | The two opposing, spring-loaded gripping arms of the Accused Products are alleged to function as the "first and second frame members." Their ability to expand and retract against a spring is alleged to be the "slidably interconnected" motion driven by a "biasing member." | ¶¶17-20 | col. 10:15-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the integrated, spring-loaded arms of the accused holders constitute the claimed "first and second frame members being slidably interconnected." The patent illustrates a distinct configuration where the clamping jaws are separate components mounted onto larger, sliding frame bodies ('212 Patent, Fig. 2). The court may need to decide if the claim language reads on the more integrated design of the accused products.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on "Visual inspection" but does not provide technical details to substantiate that the angle of the accused jaws is a "predetermined obtuse angle" as required by the claim, or that the pads on the jaws function as a "resilient compressible pad" that "operates as a spring" to maintain pressure, as described in the patent ('212 Patent, col. 7:8-12). The case may turn on evidence of the precise geometry and material properties of the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "predetermined obtuse angle"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the geometry of the jaw portion, which is central to the invention's method of compressing a device downward and inward. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the angle of the accused products' gripping arms falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating the angle "can optionally vary +or- 15 degrees or more" from the preferred embodiment ('212 Patent, col. 5:26-27). This could support a construction that covers a wide range of angles greater than 90 degrees.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly gives a specific example of "about 135 degrees" ('212 Patent, col. 5:23-24, col. 5:30-31). A defendant might argue that the invention is limited to angles in this specific range, which is demonstrably "obtuse" and performs the functions described.
The Term: "resilient compressible pad"
Context and Importance: This pad is not merely for grip; it is an active component of the clamping mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple rubber lining infringes, or if the claim requires a pad with specific spring-like properties.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the pad as being formed of an "elastomeric material, such as rubber or a synthetic substitute," which could be read broadly to include common gripping materials ('212 Patent, col. 7:5-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the pad "operates as a spring compressed between the clamping surface... and the accessory device to maintain a substantial spring pressure" ('212 Patent, col. 7:8-12). This functional language could support a narrower construction requiring proof that the pad itself is designed to provide a specific, continuous compressive force beyond simple friction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant providing product manuals and website instructions that direct customers and end users to assemble and use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products are especially made for holding electronic devices, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and that Defendant had knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the '212 patent, purportedly established by a prior complaint dated December 17, 2015, and subsequent infringement contentions, followed by continued sales of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: Can the "first and second frame members" of Claim 27, which the patent specification depicts as distinct sliding bodies, be construed to read on the integrated, opposing spring-loaded arms of the accused universal device holders?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and geometric correspondence: Does the Plaintiff have evidence to demonstrate that the gripping arms of the accused products extend at the claimed "predetermined obtuse angle" and that their pads function as a "resilient compressible pad" that actively applies spring-like pressure, as opposed to merely providing a high-friction surface?
- Finally, the case may raise a question of infringement theory: The complaint relies heavily on "visual inspection" and product images. A central challenge for the Plaintiff will be to translate these visual similarities into technical evidence that maps each specific limitation of the asserted claim onto the accused products' structure and operation.