Arko Development Ltd v. Funrise Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Arko Development Limited (British Virgin Islands)
  • Defendant: Funrise, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Venable LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-04564, C.D. Cal., 05/24/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Funrise is incorporated in California, resides within the judicial district, and has allegedly committed infringing acts and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Gazillion Bubbles" line of toy bubble machines infringes a patent related to a mechanical assembly for automatically creating a bubble film on a wand.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns automated children's toys that generate bubbles without requiring the user to manually dip a wand into a separate container of bubble solution.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the asserted patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-06-05	'861 Patent Priority Date
2008-05-06	'861 Patent Issue Date
2019-05-24	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,367,861 - "Bubble Generating Assembly" (Issued May 6, 2008)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to remedy problems with prior art bubble toys. Simpler toys require users to manually dip a wand into a dish of bubble solution, which can be messy, wasteful, and inconvenient (’861 Patent, col. 1:26-34, 52-58). More advanced automated toys were described as being mechanically "quite complex," which increases cost and the likelihood of functional defects (’861 Patent, col. 1:62-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a bubble generating assembly where the key components are inverted from some prior art designs. Pulling a trigger actuates a link assembly that causes a "bubble generating device" (e.g., a bubble ring) to move past a stationary "wiping element." (’861 Patent, col. 2:30-41). Bubble solution is simultaneously pumped from an attached container to the wiping element, so that the moving ring is coated with a film of solution, ready for bubble creation, through the simple, repeated action of pulling the trigger (’861 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a mechanically simple, and therefore potentially more reliable and cost-effective, apparatus for automatically forming a bubble film without manual dipping or spillage (’861 Patent, col. 2:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶¶15-17). Independent claim 1 is the broadest.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a housing;
  • a stationary wiping element that is attached to the housing; and
  • a bubble generating device associated with the housing, and wherein the bubble generating device moves past the wiping element.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Gazillion Bubbles Whirlwind Party Machine" and the "Gazillion Bubbles Tornado" (collectively, "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "bubble generating assemblies" that embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶6-7).
• It is alleged that Funrise designs, manufactures, imports, sells, and offers for sale the Accused Products through retailers such as Wal-Mart and Amazon.com, as well as its own website (Compl. ¶¶12-13).
• The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical operation or internal mechanics of the Accused Products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits intended to detail the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint alleges that "each element of each asserted claim is literally present in the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶19). A claim chart for the "Gazillion Bubbles Whirlwind Party Machine" is described in the complaint as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16). A claim chart for the "Gazillion Bubbles Tornado" is described in the complaint as Exhibit 3 (Compl. ¶17). As these exhibits containing the specific infringement contentions are not provided, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory is based on the general allegation that the Accused Products operate in a manner that meets all limitations of at least one claim of the ’861 patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the internal components of the Accused Products fall within the scope of the patent's claims. Specifically, the analysis will question whether the products contain a "stationary wiping element" and a "bubble generating device" that "moves past" it, as opposed to an alternative mechanism (e.g., a moving wiping element and a stationary ring, or a mechanism with no distinct wiping element).
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what the internal mechanics of the Accused Products actually are. The complaint lacks any figures or technical descriptions of the accused devices, so the infringement analysis will depend entirely on evidence of their specific construction and mode of operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"stationary wiping element" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's stated contribution over prior art, which allegedly used a moving wiper bar against a stationary ring (’861 Patent, col. 1:59-62). The infringement determination will likely depend heavily on whether a component in the Accused Products can be properly characterized as "stationary."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is simple, requiring only that the element be "stationary" and "attached to the housing" (’861 Patent, col. 8:33-34). This could be argued to cover any non-moving part that performs a wiping function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the element as being "fixedly attached to the interior of the barrel section" (’861 Patent, col. 3:49-51). A party could argue that "stationary" implies a more rigid, non-adjustable, and "fixed" state as depicted in the patent's specific embodiments (e.g., Figs. 5, 9).

"bubble generating device" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines the component that must be proven to move past the "stationary" element.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. Plaintiff may argue it should be construed broadly to encompass any part of the toy that is dipped in solution and ultimately forms the bubble film.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently illustrates this element as a "bubble ring 100" with a specific structure, including a hollow interior and "a plurality of spaced-apart fluid outlets" for distributing the bubble solution (’861 Patent, col. 3:52-64). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to a device with these disclosed characteristics.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any specific facts to support, or include a separate count for, indirect infringement (induced or contributory).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead willfulness or allege that Defendant had any pre- or post-suit knowledge of the ’861 patent.

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

• A core issue will be a mixed question of claim construction and factual infringement: How will the term "stationary wiping element" be construed, and do the accused "Gazillion Bubbles" toys, as a matter of technical fact, contain a component that meets that definition while a separate "bubble generating device" moves relative to it?
• The case will likely turn on an evidentiary comparison: As the complaint lacks technical detail, the outcome will depend on a direct comparison between the yet-to-be-seen internal mechanics of the accused toys and the specific limitations of the patent's claims, as interpreted by the court.