DCT

2:18-cv-04119

American Latex Corp v. Svakom Investment USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-04119, C.D. Cal., 05/16/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Svakom Investment (USA) Inc. being a California corporation headquartered in the district, and other domestic and foreign defendants having allegedly committed acts of infringement and maintaining places of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ SVAKOM-branded "touch activated" personal massagers infringe a patent related to interactive vibratory devices that automatically adjust intensity based on sensor activation.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns personal massaging devices, or "sex toys," that incorporate electronic sensors to create an interactive experience, altering vibration without requiring manual user adjustment during operation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the original patent owner, Wing Pow International Corp., sent a letter to Defendants on July 20, 2017, providing notice of the patent-in-suit and alleging infringement. The patent was subsequently assigned to the current Plaintiff, American Latex Corp., on August 4, 2017. This pre-suit notice is the foundation for the complaint's willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-03-12 ’337 Patent Priority Date
2014-06-10 ’337 Patent Issue Date
Mid-2017 Plaintiff alleges learning of Defendants' accused product launch
2017-07-20 Original patent owner sent notice letter to Defendants
2017-08-04 ’337 Patent assigned to Plaintiff American Latex Corp.
2018-05-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,747,337 - Interactive Massaging Device

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,747,337, Interactive Massaging Device, issued June 10, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a drawback in prior art sexual stimulation devices where the user must manually manipulate controls to change vibration modes or intensity. This process "tends to detract from desired effects to be obtained from the device" (’337 Patent, col. 1:25-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a massaging device that automates changes in vibration intensity. It incorporates a "spaced plurality of proximity sensors" along its body and a control circuit (’337 Patent, col. 1:37-40). As the device comes into "proximity and/or contact" with a user's body, different sensors are activated, causing the control circuit to automatically drive a vibrator at different predetermined intensity levels, often increasing intensity with deeper insertion or greater surface contact (’337 Patent, col. 1:35-43, col. 2:10-25). This is designed to create a more seamless and interactive experience without requiring manual adjustments during use (’337 Patent, col. 1:28-30).
  • Technical Importance: The invention represents a shift from static or manually-adjusted devices to dynamic, responsive ones that react to user interaction, aiming to enhance the user experience by making the device's operation automatic.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-15, 17, and 18 (’337 Patent, col. 6:10). The independent claims are 1, 8, and 18.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Device):
    • A sex toy device comprising a housing, a motor, and a control circuit;
    • A first proximity sensor in an insertable portion that produces signals for the control circuit;
    • Wherein the motor's speed varies in response to the signals; and
    • Wherein the sensor automatically produces signals in response to "coming into close proximity with a user's body part."
  • Independent Claim 8 (Method): A method of automatically activating a sensor on an insertable portion of a sex toy by "coming into close proximity with a user's body part," signaling a control circuit, and altering a motor's speed in response.
  • Independent Claim 18 (Device): A device similar to claim 1, but explicitly requiring at least a first and a second proximity sensor, where activation of the second sensor produces a vibration speed that is "higher than the first speed."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which would include dependent claims that add further limitations, such as the sensor being a "capacitive touch sensor" (Claim 5) or the device having a third sensor for a third, higher speed (Claim 19, which depends from 18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies SVAKOM-branded products, specifically the "SUV-01 Lisa" (the "Lisa Vibrator") and the "Lorna" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Lisa Vibrator as a "touch activated vibrator" (Compl. ¶17). No further technical details regarding the operation of the accused products are provided. The complaint alleges that Defendants "manufacture, import, offer to sell, sell and distribute a variety of adult toys" under the "SVAKOM" brand (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' market positioning beyond this general statement.
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’337 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A sex toy device comprising: a housing; a motor; a control circuit; The complaint alleges infringement by the "Lisa Vibrator" and "Lorna" devices, which are physical products implicitly containing these basic components. ¶¶ 17, 19, 23 col. 6:53-55
a first proximity sensor located in an insertable portion of the device that produces signals to the control circuit; The accused products are described as "touch activated" vibrators, which allegedly constitutes the claimed sensor functionality. ¶17 col. 6:56-58
wherein the speed of the motor varies in response to the signals, and The complaint does not explicitly detail how the motor speed varies but alleges infringement of the patent, which is centrally concerned with this function. ¶23 col. 6:59-60
wherein the device is arranged such that the first proximity sensor automatically produces the signals in response to the first proximity sensor coming into close proximity with a user's body part. The "touch activated" nature of the accused products is alleged to meet the requirement for automatic signal generation upon contact or proximity with a user. ¶17 col. 6:61-64

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "proximity sensor," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the "touch activated" feature alleged in the complaint. The dispute may focus on whether the claim requires a sensor that detects presence before physical contact, or if a capacitive touch sensor that reacts to direct contact falls within the term's scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused "touch activated" feature causes the vibrator's speed to vary automatically in response to the location or extent of touch, as required by claims like 1 and 18. An evidentiary question will be whether the accused devices perform this specific graduated-response function or if "touch activated" merely refers to a simple on/off function upon contact. Infringement of claim 18 specifically requires a "second proximity sensor" that produces a "higher" speed, for which no specific factual allegations are supplied.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "proximity sensor"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the central allegation against the accused products is that they are "touch activated" (Compl. ¶17). Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the case could depend on whether a "touch" sensor is legally equivalent to a "proximity" sensor.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states the invention operates in response to "proximity and/or contact," which may support an interpretation that includes direct touch sensors (’337 Patent, col. 1:36-37). Dependent claim 5 explicitly claims a "capacitive touch sensor," suggesting that a touch sensor is a species of the genus "proximity sensor" in claim 1.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "proximity" suggests nearness without touching. The specification describes the circuit operation in terms of "capacitive coupling" that "alters (increases) loading" when a sensor "comes into close proximity," which could be interpreted as not requiring direct physical contact (’337 Patent, col. 4:27-32).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement, nor does it allege specific facts to support inducement, such as referencing user manuals that instruct on an infringing use. The sole cause of action is for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 281 (Compl. ¶¶ 22-28).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful "at least since July 20, 2017," the date of a notice letter sent by the patent's original owner (Compl. ¶28). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the specific infringement contentions forms the basis for the request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding of an "exceptional case" under § 285 (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19, 28; Prayer for Relief ¶¶ B, C).

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

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the answers to two central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "proximity sensor" be construed to cover the "touch activated" functionality of the accused devices? The patent's own text provides arguments for both a broader (including touch) and a narrower (non-contact only) interpretation, making this a likely focus of claim construction.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the "touch activated" feature is a "proximity sensor," does it actually perform the automatic, multi-level intensity-varying function required by the patent's claims? The complaint provides no specific facts on this point, and Plaintiff will need to produce evidence that the accused devices do more than simply turn on or off with touch to prove infringement.