DCT
2:18-cv-05656
American Latex Corp v. DOC Johnson Enterprises
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: American Latex Corp. (California)
- Defendant: "Doc" Johnson Enterprises (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-05656, C.D. Cal., 06/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is incorporated in California and is headquartered within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "iRipple Vibrator" infringes a patent related to personal massage devices with multiple, independently controllable vibrator assemblies.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic personal massagers, specifically those designed to provide varied stimulation patterns through the use of multiple internal motors.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff American Latex Corp. on August 4, 2017. The complaint states that on March 14, 2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant identifying the patent and alleging infringement, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-10-06 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,915,835 |
| 2014-12-23 | U.S. Patent No. 8,915,835 Issued |
| 2017-08-04 | '835 Patent assigned to Plaintiff American Latex Corp. |
| 2018-03-14 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant regarding '835 Patent |
| 2018-06-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,915,835 - "Massage Device Having Serial Vibrators"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,915,835, "Massage Device Having Serial Vibrators", issued December 23, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for sexual stimulation devices that offer "an improved form of stimulation and enhanced versatility as compared with existing devices" (’835 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "mechanized dildo" containing a series of distinct vibrator assemblies arranged within a body (’835 Patent, col. 2:32-34, col. 3:1-3). A central processor is configured to control these vibrator assemblies separately, allowing them to be operated in various "combination modes" selected by the user via a control switch (’835 Patent, col. 5:1-5). This architecture, depicted in Figures 1 and 3, aims to create more complex and varied vibration patterns than a device with a single motor (’835 Patent, col. 4:24-26, Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The design allows for programmable, sequential, or coordinated vibration patterns along the length of the device, offering a more dynamic user experience than traditional, single-mode vibrators.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- a body having a plurality of vibrator assemblies, each with a motor and a housing
- a processor electrically coupled to each vibrator assembly
- a power source (battery) coupled to the processor
- at least one mode control switch coupled to the processor
- a phallic sleeve of elastic material covering the vibrator assemblies
- a housing containing the processor, battery, and control switch
- wherein the processor is configured to operate separate vibrator assemblies in different combination modes, selected via the control switch
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief requests an injunction against infringement of "the specified claims," which is ambiguous (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "iRipple Vibrator," a product allegedly manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant under the "Doc Johnson" and "iVibe" brands (Compl. ¶¶10, 12-13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product only as a "vibrator" (Compl. ¶13). No specific technical details regarding its internal components, operational modes, or control mechanisms are provided. The complaint alleges Defendant manufactures and sells a "variety of adult toys" (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product to the claim limitations. The following chart summarizes the allegations based on the general assertion of infringement.
'835 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body having a plurality of vibrator assemblies, each vibrator assembly comprising a motor and a housing | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this feature. | ¶18 | col. 4:56-59 |
| a processor electrically coupled to each of the plurality of vibrator assemblies | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this feature. | ¶18 | col. 4:60-62 |
| a power source comprising a battery, the battery electrically coupled to the processor | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this feature. | ¶18 | col. 4:63-64 |
| at least one mode control switch electrically coupled to the processor | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this feature. | ¶18 | col. 4:65-66 |
| a phallic sleeve comprising an elastic material covers the plurality of vibrator assemblies | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this feature. | ¶18 | col. 4:67-col. 5:1 |
| a housing containing the processor, the battery and the at least one control switch | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this feature. | ¶18 | col. 5:2-3 |
| wherein the processor is configured to operate separate ones of the plurality of vibrator assemblies in different combination modes, such modes being selected... | The complaint alleges the iRipple Vibrator is a device that infringes Claim 1, which requires this functional capability. | ¶18 | col. 5:4-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the iRipple Vibrator actually contains the architecture recited in Claim 1. Specifically, discovery will be needed to determine if it has (1) a "plurality" of distinct vibrator assemblies, (2) a "processor," and (3) if that processor is "configured to operate separate ones" of the assemblies in "different combination modes." The complaint provides no direct evidence on these points.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "processor." If the accused device uses simple logic gates rather than a microprocessor or microcontroller to cycle through patterns, it raises the question of whether such circuitry meets the claimed "processor" limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim term disputes. However, based on the technology, the following term is likely to be central to the case.
- The Term: "processor... configured to operate separate ones of the plurality of vibrator assemblies in different combination modes"
- Context and Importance: This functional "wherein" clause is the core of the invention, distinguishing it from simpler devices. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the iRipple Vibrator’s control system, once revealed, falls within the scope of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it dictates whether merely having multiple motors is sufficient, or if a specific type of independent, mode-based control is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may argue that the term "processor" should be given a broad meaning, encompassing any electronic controller capable of executing a sequence of operations, not just a formal CPU. The specification describes the controller generally as being housed in the base with a "circuit board" (’835 Patent, col. 3:45-48).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a detailed chart with ten distinct "modes," each a complex sequence of activating and deactivating five separate vibrator assemblies (e.g., "10000-01000-00100-00010-00001 and then circulation") (’835 Patent, col. 4, Table). A party could argue this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "different combination modes" to similarly complex, individually addressable control schemes, rather than simple, pre-set patterns.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful since at least March 14, 2018, the date Plaintiff sent a letter providing "full knowledge of the '835 Patent and of their infringement" (Compl. ¶23). It is alleged that Defendant never responded to this letter (Compl. ¶16).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical architecture: Does the accused iRipple Vibrator, as a matter of fact, contain a plurality of distinct vibrator assemblies and a processor-based control system, or does it operate on a simpler mechanical or electrical principle? The complaint’s lack of technical detail makes this a primary issue for discovery.
- The case will likely involve a critical issue of claim scope: What is the proper construction of the functional limitation "processor... configured to operate separate ones of the plurality of vibrator assemblies in different combination modes"? The resolution will determine whether the claim requires a sophisticated, programmable controller capable of individually addressing each vibrator, or if it can read on devices with simpler, pre-set pattern generators.