DCT

2:22-cv-07301

Ac Infinity Inc v. Sinowell Shanghai Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: AC Infinity Inc. v. Sinowell (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., 2:22-cv-07301, C.D. Cal., 10/06/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, where Plaintiff operates and received infringement allegations from Defendant. Venue is also asserted on the basis that Defendant is a foreign entity.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its clip-on fan products do not infringe Defendant's patent and/or that the patent is invalid, following receipt of a cease-and-desist letter and infringement reports filed by Defendant on Amazon.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns clip-on fans specifically designed to attach to the tubular support poles of indoor plant-growing tents, a common component for horticultural air circulation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by a cease-and-desist letter from the patent holder, as well as several patent infringement reports filed by the Defendant through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express procedure, creating an actual controversy between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-05-08 ’245 Patent Priority Date
2022-08-30 ’245 Patent Issue Date
2022-09-07 Defendant sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff
2022-10-06 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,428,245 - CLIP FAN FOR PLANT TENT (Issued August 30, 2022)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a limitation in conventional clip-style fans, which are typically designed with flat clips for tabletops and are "unable to clip to tent poles," particularly the vertical, rounded, or rectangular poles used in indoor grow tents (’245 Patent, col. 1:23-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a fan integrated with a specialized clip clasp assembly designed to solve this problem. The clip consists of two opposing plates connected by a spring-loaded rotating shaft, creating a pincer-like mechanism (’245 Patent, col. 1:49-54). One end of the plates forms a clamping opening shaped to securely grip the tubular or square structures of a grow tent frame, while the other end provides leverage for the user (’245 Patent, col. 2:55-65; Fig. 5). The fan motor assembly is mounted directly onto this specialized clip via a "fan connection hole" (’245 Patent, col. 2:47-54).
  • Technical Importance: The design addresses a specific need within the indoor horticulture market for a fan that can be securely and conveniently positioned on the vertical or horizontal support poles of a grow tent, rather than being limited to flat surfaces (’245 Patent, col. 1:34-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity for all claims of the patent, with the core technology defined in independent claim 1 (’245 Patent, Prayer for Relief ¶2).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A fan assembly and a clip clasp assembly arranged at the bottom of the fan.
    • A clip clasp assembly comprising specific components: a left clip plate, a right clip plate, a rotation shaft, a spring, a fan connection hole, and a clip clamp opening.
    • A "bilateral symmetry manner" connection between the left and right plates through the rotation shaft.
    • The fan connection hole being "formed above the clip plate rotation shaft."
    • The clip clasp opening being a "square opening" that can be clamped on the tent frame.
    • A fan assembly with a motor and support rod, where the rod is fixed to the fan connection hole in the clip clasp assembly.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "CLOUDRAY Grow Tent Clip Fan" is identified as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant has accused the CLOUDRAY Grow Tent Clip Fan of infringement (Compl. ¶10). However, the complaint does not provide any technical descriptions, diagrams, or specific details regarding the structure or operation of the Accused Product. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. It states that Defendant has alleged that the Accused Product infringes the ’245 Patent, but does not include the specific infringement contentions from the Defendant's cease-and-desist letter or Amazon reports (Compl. ¶10). Analysis of the specific points of dispute regarding infringement is therefore not possible from the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the technology and claim language, any future infringement analysis would likely focus on the following questions:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "square opening" required by claim 1 is limited to a geometrically square shape, or if it can be read more broadly to encompass openings of other shapes capable of gripping a square pole, particularly as the specification states it is "adapted to a cylindrical rod or a square rod or a plane" (’245 Patent, col. 2:66-68).
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary dispute may arise regarding the mechanical structure of the Accused Product. For example, does the CLOUDRAY fan's clip feature a "bilateral symmetry manner" connection as claimed, and is its fan assembly attached via a connection hole located "above the clip plate rotation shaft" in the manner required by the claim (’245 Patent, col. 3:17-18, col. 4:1-2)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "square opening"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and defines the shape of the clamping portion of the clip. Its construction is critical because it could either limit the claim to a specific geometry or allow it to cover a wider range of clip designs. Practitioners may focus on this term due to a potential tension between the literal claim language and broader descriptions in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "The diameter of the square opening is adapted to a cylindrical rod or a square rod or a plane" (’245 Patent, col. 2:66-68). This could support an argument that the term should be construed functionally, to mean an opening capable of gripping various pole shapes, rather than being limited to a literal square.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is precise, reciting "a square opening" (’245 Patent, col. 4:6). The embodiment shown in Figure 5 also depicts a distinctly square-shaped opening (56), which a party could argue limits the claim to that disclosed geometry.

The Term: "bilateral symmetry manner"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the structural relationship between the left and right clip plates. The interpretation of "symmetry" will determine how closely an accused device must mirror the patent's embodiment to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which may support a construction requiring only general or functional symmetry rather than a strict, geometrically identical mirror-image relationship.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly references this symmetric connection, and Figure 5 clearly illustrates the left clip plate (51) and right clip plate (52) as mirror images connected at the central rotation shaft (53) (’245 Patent, col. 2:56-60; Fig. 5). This could support an argument that the claim requires this specific arrangement.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint seeks a judgment that Plaintiff is not infringing the ’245 Patent either "directly or indirectly," but does not contain any specific factual allegations related to inducement or contributory infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1).

Willful Infringement

The complaint makes no allegations regarding willfulness. However, it does allege that Plaintiff received a cease-and-desist letter from Defendant, which establishes pre-suit knowledge of the patent and could form the basis for a future counterclaim of willful infringement by the Defendant (Compl. ¶10).

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

  1. A primary issue will be one of validity: as Plaintiff’s first count seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity, the case will likely center on whether the claimed combination of a fan assembly with a specific, bilaterally symmetric, pole-grasping clip mechanism was novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art at the time of the invention. The outcome will depend heavily on the prior art references that Plaintiff introduces.
  2. Assuming the patent survives the validity challenge, a key question will be one of claim construction. The dispute may turn on whether the term "square opening" is limited to the literal geometry shown in the patent's figures or is functionally defined by its ability to grip various pole shapes, as suggested by the specification. The resolution of this and other terms will define the scope of the patent and be dispositive for infringement.