DCT
2:19-cv-09011
Funrise Inc v. Albertson's LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Funrise, Inc. (California) and Honor Metro Limited (Marshall Islands)
- Defendant: Albertson’s LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-01225, S.D. Cal., 07/01/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant operates physical retail stores in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s sale of certain automated bubble-making toys infringes a patent related to the mechanical apparatus for generating bubbles.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for children's toys, specifically automated, high-volume bubble machines that operate without manual pumping.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-03-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,757,661 Priority Date (via CN App.) |
| 2017-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,757,661 Issues |
| 2019-07-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,757,661, Apparatus and Method for Generating Bubbles, issued September 12, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art automated bubble machines, noting they can be "messy, difficult and expensive to manufacture, and difficult to use" and may require a period of time to run before bubbles are created (’661 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical apparatus that automates the dipping of bubble wands into a solution and then moving them into an airstream. The core mechanism involves a rotating "bubble generating assembly" that includes a plurality of "follower members" (arms with bubble wands at the end). These follower members ride along a stationary, annular "cam surface" that has raised portions and recessed "valley" portions. As the assembly rotates, the follower members are guided into the valley portions, where the wands dip into a trough of bubble solution, and are then guided up to the raised portions, where the wands are aligned with an upward airflow from a fan to produce bubbles ('661 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 14).
- Technical Importance: This design provides for a continuous, high-volume generation of bubbles using a gravity-fed solution trough and a cam-based mechanical action, seeking to eliminate the need for pumps and reduce operational delay ('661 Patent, col. 1:32-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges infringement by at least three accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A housing, a motor, and a fan device creating an upward air stream.
- A rotatable "bubble generating assembly" comprising a body and a plurality of "follower members."
- Each follower member has an arm pivotably coupled to the body and a "bubble generating device" (wand) at its end.
- A "basin member" comprising a trough for bubble solution and a "cam wall having a raised portion and a recess that forms a valley portion."
- Upon rotation, the follower members "ride along the cam wall" and transition between a "lowered position" (in the valley, where the wand is loaded with solution) and a "raised position" (on the raised portion, where the wand is aligned with the air stream).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but states infringement of "one or more claims" ('661 Patent, col. 21:19-22:34; Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies three accused products: the "Amazing Bubbles Volcano Bubble Machine" ("Volcano"), the "Extreme Bubble Fountain," and the "Light Up! Bubble Fountain" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are automated, battery-powered bubble-making toys sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 24). Based on photographs included in the complaint, the products appear to operate by rotating a series of bubble wands, which dip into a solution reservoir at the bottom of the device and then rise to intersect with an airstream generated by a fan, producing bubbles (Compl. Exs. D-F).
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Products compete directly with Plaintiffs' "Gazillion Bubbles" products and are offered at "significantly lower prices," causing price erosion and loss of market share (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides detailed claim charts with photographic evidence for each of the three Accused Products in Exhibits D, E, and F (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 37). The following table summarizes the core allegations for claim 1, which are consistent across all three accused devices.
'661 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a fan device positioned in the housing, the fan device operably coupled to the motor to generate an upward air stream; | The products contain a fan, positioned in the housing and coupled to a motor, that generates an upward air stream. A photograph in the complaint shows the fan blades and motor within the housing of the Volcano product (Compl. Ex. D, p. 77). | ¶¶ 21-23, 37 | col. 7:15-25 |
| a bubble generating assembly... comprising: a body... and a plurality of follower members extending through... slots of the body... | The products contain a rotating assembly with multiple arms ("follower members") extending through slots. A photograph of the Extreme Bubble Fountain shows these follower members extending through openings in the assembly body (Compl. Ex. E, p. 100). | ¶¶ 21-23, 37 | col. 21:30-41 |
| an arm having a first end in the cavity and pivotably coupled to the ring structure... | Each arm is pivotably coupled at one end to a central ring structure inside the rotating assembly. A close-up photograph of the Light Up! Bubble Fountain's arm shows its coupling to the central ring (Compl. Ex. F, p. 120). | ¶¶ 21-23, 37 | col. 21:42-49 |
| a cam wall having a raised portion and a recess that forms a valley portion; | The products feature a stationary, molded surface within the solution trough that has higher and lower sections, which the complaint alleges constitutes the claimed "cam wall." A photograph of the Volcano product's basin shows this structure (Compl. Ex. D, p. 88). | ¶¶ 21-23, 37 | col. 22:1-3 |
| each of the follower members ride along the cam wall and repetitively transition between: (1) a lowered position... and (2) a raised position... | As the assembly rotates, the arms are alleged to ride along this molded surface, causing them to dip into the solution in the lower "valley" section and then rise into the airstream at the "raised" section. A visual in the complaint depicts the follower member in the lowered, solution-loading position (Compl. Ex. D, p. 89). | ¶¶ 21-23, 37 | col. 22:4-16 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the molded plastic guide surfaces in the Accused Products' troughs meet the definition of a "cam wall having a raised portion and a recess that forms a valley portion." The defense may argue that this claim language requires a more distinct structure than the integrated, sloped basin floor shown in the complaint's photographs.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on the specific mechanical interaction claimed. A question for the court will be whether the arms of the Accused Products "ride along the cam wall" in the manner required by the claim. The evidence will need to show not just a general up-and-down motion, but that this motion is specifically caused by the claimed interaction with the "cam wall" structure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cam wall having a raised portion and a recess that forms a valley portion"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core stationary structure that dictates the entire bubble-making cycle. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on how broadly or narrowly this structural limitation is construed, as it is the primary element controlling the movement of the bubble wands.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs may point to the specification's description of the cam surface's function, which is to cause the follower member to "repetitively transition" between a lowered and raised position ('661 Patent, col. 2:15-19). They might argue any structure performing this function should be covered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue the term is limited to the specific embodiments shown, which depict a distinct annular wall with sharply defined upper and lower surfaces and ramped transitions ('661 Patent, Figs. 11, 14). The patent's detailed discussion of the geometry, including specific angles for the walls of the valley portion, could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to structures with those features ('661 Patent, col. 9:40-54).
The Term: "follower members ride along the cam wall"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific interaction between the moving wands and the stationary guide. Whether the accused devices infringe will depend on whether their mechanism operates via this claimed "riding along" action. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a specific type of guided, physical contact.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs could argue that any contact between the arm and the guide surface that results in the claimed up-and-down motion constitutes "riding along."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may point to language describing a "notch" (227) on the follower arm that is "positioned in direct surface contact with the cam surface" to argue for a more specific, continuous, and load-bearing contact than what may occur in the accused devices ('661 Patent, col. 15:15-19).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful "at least at all times after the filing of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶42). The basis for this allegation is Defendant's constructive and actual knowledge of the patent and its infringement from the date the lawsuit was filed (Compl. ¶39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s determination of two key issues:
- A core issue will be one of structural definition: Does the integrated, molded basin floor of the Accused Products constitute a "cam wall having a raised portion and a recess that forms a valley portion" as that term is used in the patent, or does the claim require a more distinct and separate mechanical component?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of mechanical operation: What is the precise nature of the contact and force transmission between the moving arms and the stationary guide in the Accused Products, and does this interaction meet the claim requirement that the "follower members ride along the cam wall" to cause the necessary motion?