DCT
2:23-cv-00925
Airlite Plastics Co v. Innori
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Airlite Plastics Co. (Nebraska)
- Defendant: Innori d/b/a Orealgard and Extremrock4X4, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00925, C.D. Cal., 02/07/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants residing in, regularly conducting business in, and committing acts of patent infringement within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ permeable paver products infringe a patent related to one-piece, interlocking permeable pavers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular, permeable ground paving systems used for applications like parking lots and driveways to manage stormwater, prevent erosion, and stabilize surfaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants intentionally copied Plaintiff's product design, used Plaintiff's registered trademarks in keyword advertising to promote the accused products, and falsely advertised an installation of Plaintiff's product as their own project. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 8,734,049 Priority Date |
| 2014-05-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,734,049 Issued |
| 2023-02-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,734,049 (“the ’049 Patent”), "One Piece Water Permeable Paver," issued May 27, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need for a traffic-bearing surface that is water-permeable, allowing for grass growth or containing aggregate, and which can be manufactured from recycled materials as an alternative to impervious surfaces like concrete and asphalt (’049 Patent, col. 1:15-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, molded paver unit composed of a grid of interconnected cylindrical "cells" designed to be filled with soil or aggregate (’049 Patent, col. 1:4-11). The paver features specifically defined types of connecting cells and "flex joints" that provide structural integrity (’049 Patent, Fig. 1A). To create larger surfaces, each paver includes "locking tabs" on two edges and corresponding "fastening slots" on the other two, allowing adjacent pavers to be securely interlocked (’049 Patent, col. 4:50-55, 4:65-5:2).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a modular, durable, and permeable ground stabilization system that can help manage stormwater runoff, reduce the heat island effect, and utilize post-consumer recycled plastics (’049 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶¶99-100).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a plurality of flex joints;
- a plurality of outer flex joint connection cells;
- a plurality of outer three connection cells;
- a plurality of outer two connection cells;
- a plurality of inner single flex joint connection cells;
- a plurality of inner dual flex joint connection cells;
- a plurality of inner four connection cells;
- a plurality of fastening slots formed partially through the outer surfaces of cells on two sides of the paver; and
- a plurality of locking tabs extending from the outer surfaces of cells on the other two sides, which are designed to engage the fastening slots of an adjacent paver.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as "Orealgard Pavers" and the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶¶50, 55).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Orealgard Pavers are permeable paver products marketed as an "alternative pavement solution to concrete, asphalt, and other traditional paving methods" (Compl. ¶53). The complaint includes a side-by-side image comparison suggesting the accused product has a grid-like structure of interconnected rings visually similar to Plaintiff's paver (Compl. ¶54, p. 15). The complaint further alleges that Defendants market the products through online advertisements as being made from "recycled Hdpe" for "stormwater solution[s]" and sell to the same types of consumers as Airlite (Compl. ¶¶33, 66).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’049 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) - | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a plurality of flex joints; b. a plurality of outer flex joint connection cells... c. a plurality of outer three connection cells... d. a plurality of outer two connection cells... e. a plurality of inner single flex joint connection cells... f. a plurality of inner dual flex joint connection cells... g. a plurality of inner four connection cells... | The accused product is alleged to have "many details similar" to Plaintiff's paver, including a 6x6 grid of 36 "cells" broken into 3x3 quadrants, which the complaint contends exhibits an "intentional effort... to copy Airlite's patented design." - | ¶¶58-59 | col. 3:41-4:10 |
| h. a plurality of fastening slots formed partially through outer surfaces of cells that form the second side and the fourth side; - | The mechanisms used to interlock pavers are alleged to be "nearly identical" to those of Airlite's product. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the two products. - | ¶¶54, 58 | col. 5:5-13 |
| i. a plurality of locking tabs extending from outer surfaces of cells that form the first side and the third side, wherein the locking tabs... engage fastening slots of an second one piece water permeable paver. | The mechanisms for interlocking are alleged to be "nearly identical." An image from the accused product's installation guide depicts pavers with protruding tabs designed to "snap together with interlocking tabs." - | ¶¶58, 79 | col. 4:50-55 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the general visual similarity alleged in the complaint is sufficient to meet every specific structural limitation of claim 1. The claim recites a precise combination of seven different types of joints and connection cells, and the litigation may focus on whether the accused product contains each distinct type as arranged in the patent, or merely has a superficially similar appearance.
- Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused paver's structure maps to each specific cell type recited in claim 1 (e.g., an "inner dual flex joint connection cell" vs. an "outer three connection cell")? The side-by-side image provided in the complaint suggests a strong resemblance, but does not provide the detail necessary to verify that each of the seven distinct claimed structural elements is present in the accused product (Compl. ¶54, p. 15).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "flex joint"
Context and Importance: Flex joints are a fundamental structural component recited in claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the connectors used in the accused product fall within the scope of the claims. The complaint alleges the interlocking mechanisms are "nearly identical," making the specific structure of these joints a likely point of dispute (Compl. ¶58).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally throughout the claims to denote a connection between various cells, suggesting any flexible connector could suffice ('049 Patent, col. 8:3-31).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a very specific geometry for the flex joint, which the specification describes as potentially being "U shaped" ('049 Patent, col. 5:35-37, Fig. 4). A defendant might argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed U-shaped or S-curved structure.
The Term: "one piece water permeable paver"
Context and Importance: This term in the preamble defines the article being claimed. Its construction is important because it establishes the baseline requirement for the accused product. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product is, in fact, a single, integrated unit as the claim term suggests.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background describes the invention as "a one piece molded unit created from recycled plastics," which could encompass any paver formed as a single, integral piece, regardless of the specific manufacturing process ('049 Patent, col. 1:20-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term implies specific material or structural integrity inherent in being a "one piece" unit, potentially excluding products assembled from sub-components or those lacking the robustness described in the specification.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges facts that may support a claim for induced infringement. It states that Defendants' "Installation Guide" instructs users on how to "snap together" the accused pavers, which would constitute an infringing assembly (Compl. ¶79). It further alleges the products were "knowingly designed to be, especially adapted to be, and fully intended to be used in the exact same manner as Airlite's patented inventions" and have no other commercial use (Compl. ¶¶60-61).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’049 Patent and intentional copying (Compl. ¶102). The factual basis for this allegation includes Defendants’ purported use of Plaintiff's trademarks ("Truegrid" and "Truegrid Pro Plus") in online search advertising and the alleged use of a photograph of a parking lot made with Plaintiff's pavers to falsely advertise a "Recent Project" on Defendants' own website (Compl. ¶¶65, 73). An image in the complaint shows Defendants' sponsored search ad appearing directly above Plaintiff's organic search result for the same trademarked term (Compl. ¶65, p. 18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural identity: does the accused Orealgard paver contain the specific combination and arrangement of all seven distinct types of cells and joints (e.g., "outer flex joint connection cells", "inner four connection cells") as explicitly recited in Claim 1, or do the visual similarities alleged in the complaint mask material structural differences?
- A key evidentiary question will concern intent: does the evidence of Defendants' alleged use of Plaintiff's trademarks in advertising and alleged misrepresentation of Plaintiff's installation projects as their own establish pre-suit knowledge of the ’049 patent and conduct sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement?
- The case may also present a question of claim construction: can the term "flex joint," which is depicted with a specific U-shaped geometry in the patent’s figures, be construed broadly enough to read on the connecting structures used in the accused product?