DCT

2:20-cv-02522

American Latex Corp v. Health Devices Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-02522, C.D. Cal., 03/16/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the California defendants being incorporated and headquartered within the district, the individual defendant residing and having an established place of business in the district, and the foreign defendant having committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "iRipple Vibrator" infringes a patent related to a massage device constructed with multiple, independently controllable vibrator assemblies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns personal massage devices designed to provide varied and complex stimulation patterns through the use of serially-arranged, processor-controlled vibration motors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiff sent Defendants a notice letter on March 14, 2018, identifying the patent-in-suit and alleging infringement. Plaintiff subsequently filed a prior lawsuit (2:18-cv-05656) on June 28, 2018, which was dismissed without prejudice on October 10, 2019, after a settlement in principle was reportedly reached but not finalized. This history may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-10-06 '835 Patent Priority Date
2014-12-23 '835 Patent Issue Date
2017-08-04 '835 Patent assigned to Plaintiff American Latex Corp.
Early 2018 Plaintiff learns of Defendants' accused "iRipple" product
2018-03-14 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendants
2018-06-28 Plaintiff files prior infringement action (5656 Action)
2019-10-10 Prior action dismissed without prejudice
2020-03-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,915,835 - "Massage Device Having Serial Vibrators" (issued Dec. 23, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for sexual stimulation devices that offer "improved form of stimulation and enhanced versatility" compared to existing devices. ('835 Patent, col. 1:24-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "mechanized dildo" containing a "plurality of vibrator assemblies" arranged in a line within the device's body ('835 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-33). A key aspect is a processor that is configured to operate these vibrator assemblies separately and in various "combination modes," which a user can select via a control switch, allowing for complex and varied vibration patterns instead of a single, uniform vibration ('835 Patent, col. 4:1-24, Table).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for the creation of customizable and dynamic vibration patterns within a single device, moving beyond the static on/off or simple variable-speed functionality of more basic vibrators ('835 Patent, col. 4:1-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A body with a "plurality of vibrator assemblies," each having a motor and 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 for the processor, battery, and control switch.
    • The processor is configured to operate "separate ones of the plurality of vibrator assemblies in different combination modes" selected by the mode control switch. ('835 Patent, col. 4:56-col. 5:4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "iRipple Vibrator," which is identified as a "Doc Johnson and iVibe-branded vibrator" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants "manufacture, import, offer to sell, sell and distribute" the accused iRipple Vibrator (Compl. ¶¶12, 17). The complaint does not provide any specific technical details regarding the functionality, construction, or operation of the iRipple Vibrator. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the iRipple Vibrator infringes at least Claim 1 of the '835 patent (Compl. ¶26). However, it does not provide a claim chart or any specific factual allegations detailing how any feature of the accused product meets the limitations of Claim 1. The complaint makes a conclusory statement of infringement without mapping product components to claim elements.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the iRipple Vibrator possesses the architecture required by Claim 1. This includes demonstrating the presence of a "plurality of vibrator assemblies," a "processor," and a "mode control switch" that allows a user to select from "different combination modes" that operate the vibrators separately.
  • Plausibility Question: The lack of specific, non-conclusory factual allegations mapping the accused product to the claim elements raises the question of whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement established by Iqbal and Twombley.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"processor...configured to operate separate ones of the plurality of vibrator assemblies in different combination modes" ('835 Patent, col. 5:1-3)

Context and Importance

This functional limitation is central to the invention's purported novelty. The definition of "different combination modes" will be critical. The dispute may focus on whether this requires complex, pre-programmed patterns or if any user-controlled sequential operation of multiple motors would suffice.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify the complexity or nature of the "modes," potentially covering any system that can operate multiple vibrators in any non-uniform manner.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a detailed table with ten distinct, complex on/off patterns for five separate vibrators, referring to them as "Examples of the 10 different modes" ('835 Patent, col. 4:11, Table). A party could argue this disclosure limits the scope of "combination modes" to such pre-programmed, selectable patterns.

"plurality of vibrator assemblies" ('835 Patent, col. 4:57)

Context and Importance

Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement hinges on the accused device having more than one distinct "vibrator assembly." A defendant might argue its product uses a single motor with a mechanism to create vibration at multiple points, rather than distinct assemblies.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself does not mandate a specific physical separation, potentially covering any integrated design with multiple, independently controllable vibration sources.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description depict the vibrator assemblies as discrete, modular units connected in a series ('835 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 3:15-24). An opposing party could argue the term requires such physically separate and individually housed motor units.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement. The sole cause of action alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. p. 6).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants had "full knowledge of the '835 Patent and of their infringement" since at least March 14, 2018, the date of Plaintiff's notice letter (Compl. ¶31). The allegation that infringing activities continued after this date forms the basis for the willfulness claim.

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can the Plaintiff provide factual evidence to demonstrate that the accused iRipple Vibrator contains the specific multi-motor, processor-controlled architecture recited in Claim 1, given the absence of such detailed allegations in the complaint?
  • The case will likely involve a dispute over claim scope: can the functional limitation "different combination modes" be read broadly to cover any non-uniform operation of multiple vibrators, or is its meaning confined by the specification's disclosure of complex, pre-programmed patterns?
  • Assuming infringement is established, a central question for damages will be willfulness: does the allegation that Defendants continued their accused activities for nearly two years after receiving a specific notice of infringement rise to the level of egregious conduct required to justify an award of enhanced damages?