DCT

2:22-cv-06709

SHO Products LLC v. Puff Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-06709, C.D. Cal., 02/13/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Peak atomizer" for electronic vaporizers infringes a patent related to a removable cup atomizer design.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns atomizers, the heating components in electronic vaporizers, a large and competitive consumer product market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint outlines a complex ownership and licensing history for the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff SHO Products, LLC ("SHO") was an exclusive licensee of the patent from its prior owner, New Method Group, LLC ("NMG"). SHO alleges that NMG subsequently purported to sell the patent to Defendant Puff Corp. ("Puffco") in violation of an anti-assignment clause in SHO's license agreement. SHO alleges this purported sale is void. NMG later assigned all its remaining rights in the patent to SHO, which now asserts its rights as the patent's owner. The complaint also references separate, ongoing litigation between the parties concerning a different patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-06-21 '579 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2018-01-01 Accused Peak Vaporizer Launch Date (approx.)
2019-04-30 '579 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-08 '579 Patent assigned from DC8 Distribution Inc. to NMG
2019-07-16 SHO-operated Instagram account posts image of '579 Patent
2019-08-20 SHO and NMG enter into an exclusive license agreement for the '579 Patent
2019-10-22 NMG provides written notice of infringement to Puffco
2022-03-01 NMG purports to sell the '579 Patent to Puffco
2022-05-06 SHO provides written notice of infringement to Puffco
2022-09-12 NMG assigns all rights in the '579 Patent to SHO
2023-02-13 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,271,579 - “Removable Cup Atomizer” (issued Apr. 30, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art vaporizers where material, such as oil, could leak from heating compartments with exposed coils, potentially damaging the device's battery and leading to inefficient use of the material (Compl. ¶ 7; ’579 Patent, col. 1:25-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "coil-less atomizer" featuring a removable cup that is physically separate from the heating element. This cup holds the material to be vaporized and is placed on top of a heating element (described as a "ceramic donut shaped heating element" in one embodiment) to be heated via thermal conduction ('579 Patent, col. 2:35-42, col. 2:64-66, Fig. 3). This design is intended to prevent leaks, simplify cleaning, and allow a user to swap cups made from different materials (e.g., titanium, ceramic, quartz) to achieve varied "vaping experiences" ('579 Patent, col. 3:5-14).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a more durable, user-friendly, and customizable atomizer by separating the material container from the heating electronics ('579 Patent, col. 3:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims," focusing on independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46).
  • Independent Claim 10 recites the following essential elements:
    • a cylindrical body having a hollow interior;
    • a heating element positioned in the hollow interior;
    • a connection means for connecting to electrical power to heat the element;
    • a removable cup that is "separate and independent from the heating element";
    • the removable cup is "one piece" with side walls and a bottom;
    • the removable cup is "touching the heating element"; and
    • the cup is configured to accept matter heated "via thermal conduction from the heating element."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶ 45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Peak atomizer," which is sold both as a standalone product and as a component of Defendant's "Peak vaporizer" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 45).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Peak atomizer is a removable cup atomizer used for vaporizing materials for inhalation (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 46). The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports this product, which is available on its website (Compl. ¶ 47). The parties are described as "direct competitors in the electronic vaporizer field" (Compl. ¶ 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality infringes at least Claim 10 of the ’579 Patent (Compl. ¶ 47). The complaint states that a claim chart detailing the infringement is attached as Exhibit F; however, that exhibit was not filed with the complaint provided for analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 53).

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is that the Peak atomizer "embodies each limitation of at least claim 10" (Compl. ¶ 47). The full text of claim 10 is recited in the complaint, establishing the specific limitations at issue (Compl. ¶ 46). The complaint alleges infringement occurs both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶ 47). As evidence of Defendant’s knowledge of the patent, the complaint references an Instagram post by a SHO-operated account from July 16, 2019, which showed a picture containing the abstract and patent number of the ’579 Patent (Compl. ¶ 11, Ex. B). Without the specific mappings from the referenced Exhibit F, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible from the complaint alone.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper interpretation of the phrase "separate and independent from the heating element." The degree of physical and functional separability between the cup and the heater in the accused product, compared to the requirements of the claim, will likely be a point of dispute.
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires that the removable cup be "touching the heating element" to facilitate heating "via thermal conduction." A factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's cup and heater are in physical contact and that thermal conduction, as opposed to another method of heat transfer like radiation, is the operational heating mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "separate and independent from the heating element"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art with fixed or integrated heating elements. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused atomizer's cup is considered "separate and independent" under the court's construction of the term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the core inventive concept.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes the advantage of being able to "switch out different removable cups between uses," which supports a functional definition where "separate and independent" means easily removable by a user for cleaning or swapping ('579 Patent, col. 3:5-9).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description show a cup (102) that is a distinct component simply "seated on the heating element" (108), without any described permanent or semi-permanent attachment ('579 Patent, col. 2:64-65, Fig. 3). This could support a construction requiring complete structural disunification.

  • The Term: "touching the heating element"

    • Context and Importance: This term is tied to the "thermal conduction" limitation and defines the required physical relationship for heat transfer. Whether the accused product's components are "touching" as claimed will be a critical factual determination for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a degree or quality of contact. An argument could be made that any contact sufficient to enable the claimed "thermal conduction" meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the removable cup as being "seated on the heating element" ('579 Patent, col. 2:64-65). This language might be argued to imply a stable, direct, and substantial surface contact, rather than incidental or point contact.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶ 54) but does not plead specific facts to support theories of inducement or contributory infringement, such as citing to user manuals or other instructions provided by the Defendant.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶ 11). The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the ’579 Patent no later than October 22, 2019, from a written notice sent by SHO's predecessor-in-interest, NMG (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 56). Further, the complaint alleges SHO sent its own written notice on May 6, 2022 (Compl. ¶ 19). The complaint also alleges knowledge based on Defendant's monitoring of competitor social media, citing Instagram posts about the patent and a cease-and-desist letter from a related case that included a screenshot of a post, allegedly confirming Defendant's awareness of the account (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25-26).

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of standing and title: Did the anti-assignment clause in the SHO-NMG license agreement, allegedly coupled with Defendant's notice of that license, render the subsequent purported sale of the patent from NMG to Defendant void? The resolution of this complex ownership dispute will determine whether SHO has the right to bring this suit.
  • A central infringement question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused "Peak atomizer" contain a removable cup that is "separate and independent from" and "touching" a heating element, as those terms are defined in the patent? This will require a detailed factual analysis of the accused product's design and a legal construction of the key claim terms.
  • A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant had the requisite knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement, particularly in light of the contested patent assignment from NMG to Defendant, to support a finding of willful infringement?