DCT
2:25-cv-05371
Peter McCarthy v. Aqualung Group
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Peter McCarthy (California)
- Defendant: Aqualung Group, a.k.a. Aqualung Corporate SAS (France)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plaintiff in Pro Per
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05371, C.D. Cal., 06/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's distribution and sale of accused products in the Central District of California through an established distribution channel.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Dry Snorkels," including the IMPULSE DRY model, infringe a patent related to mechanisms for preventing water entry into a snorkel when submerged.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "dry top" snorkels, a segment of the recreational and professional diving equipment market focused on user safety and convenience by automatically sealing the air tube underwater.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a significant pre-suit history, including a "Disclosure Meeting" in approximately 2008 where Plaintiff presented his then-pending patent application to Defendant. It further alleges that a detailed notice of infringement letter, including claim comparisons and diagrams, was sent to a Vice President at Defendant's U.S. distributor on February 19, 2020, to which Defendant’s representative allegedly promised a response from legal counsel that was never provided.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-07-20 | ’276 Patent Priority Date |
| c. 2008 | Alleged "Disclosure Meeting" between Plaintiff and Aqualung |
| 2012-10-30 | ’276 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-02-19 | Plaintiff sends detailed infringement notice letter to Aqualung |
| 2025-06-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,297,276 - “Dry Snorkels and Methods”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,297,276, “Dry Snorkels and Methods,” issued October 30, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a vulnerability in prior art dry snorkels where the sealing mechanism can become unsealed underwater and fail to automatically reseal, particularly if the user exhales or the snorkel is oriented non-vertically, leading to flooding (Compl. Ex. 1, ’276 Patent, col. 1:22-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses various methods and designs for a snorkel’s dry top that automatically achieves, maintains, or reestablishes a closed position when submerged. This is accomplished through mechanisms involving components like pivoting arms, floats, spring members, and weighted members that work to seal the air inlet, even at depth or in various orientations, without relying solely on the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the snorkel (Compl. Ex. 1, ’276 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:31-4:67). The patent’s figures illustrate a top valve assembly with a pivoting member that moves to seal an opening (Compl. Ex. 1, ’276 Patent, Figs. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to enhance the reliability and safety of dry snorkels by actively preventing water entry under a wider range of conditions than conventional designs (Compl. Ex. 1, ’276 Patent, col. 2:37-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint focuses on independent Claims 2 and 22, and numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶16, 22).
Independent Claim 2:
- A method for providing a snorkel comprising elements including:
- A movable member pivotally connected to a snorkel top member.
- The movable member and a sealing member forming an "active portion."
- Providing a "predetermined member" that exerts a "non-floatation force" to move the active portion from an open to a closed position during submersion.
- Providing at least one "substantially independent float member" that is arranged to experience "disengagement" from the movable member.
- Arranging the active portion to have a "weighted portion" that causes it to automatically move to the open position when out of the water.
Independent Claim 22:
- A method for providing a snorkel comprising elements including:
- A movable member pivotally connected to a snorkel top member with a hinge.
- A "substantially independent float member" disposed within a cover member passageway.
- The float member is arranged to move toward the movable member when submerged in an upright orientation to "push up against said movable member" and urge it to a closed position.
- The float member is also arranged to "disengage" from the movable member to prevent it from exerting an opening force when in an inverted orientation.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names "Aqualung Dry Snorkels," specifically identifying the "IMPULSE DRY" snorkel model as an infringing product (Compl. ¶¶14, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as "Dry Snorkels," which feature an air-receiving end designed to "automatically close[] to prevent entry of water when submerged underwater and which automatically reopens when the air receiving end is raised above the surface of the water" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website describing the IMPULSE DRY model as "A dry version of the world's best selling scuba diving snorkel" (Compl. ¶89; Ex. 8, p. 13). The complaint alleges the product was redesigned after notice was provided, but that the redesign did not alter the allegedly infringing "dry top portion" (Compl. ¶90).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart exhibit, but alleges infringement based on analysis provided in a pre-suit notice letter, which is attached as an exhibit (Compl. ¶¶16, 94; Ex. 4). The following chart summarizes the narrative infringement theory for Claim 2 presented in the complaint.
’276 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a movable member... said movable member being pivotally connected to at least one portion of said snorkel top member... | The accused snorkel's valve mechanism is connected with "hinging pins fitting into hinging holes in the cover." | ¶94 | col. 3:20-28 |
| said movable member and said sealing member forming an active portion... | The complaint alleges infringement of this claim generally, and the cited notice letter diagram identifies the valve assembly as the infringing component. | ¶94 | col. 6:1-4 |
| providing at least one substantially independent float member that is arranged to experience disengagement from said movable member... | The complaint alleges that the function of the accused product is encompassed by the claim, supported by a diagram in the notice letter. | ¶94; Ex. 4, p. 5, Fig. 1 | col. 15:21-29 |
| arranging said active portion to have a weighted portion that permits said active portion to have sufficient weight out of water to cause said active portion to automatically move from said closed position to said open position... | The complaint's general allegations of infringement and reference to detailed comparisons suggest this element is met. | ¶16; ¶93 | col. 15:41-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s infringement theory for Claim 2 hinges on the interpretation of "substantially independent float member" and its ability to "experience disengagement." A central question will be whether the mechanism in the accused IMPULSE DRY snorkel, which the complaint’s evidence describes as a pivotal connection (Compl. ¶94; Ex. 4, p. 5, Fig. 1), can be considered "independent" and capable of "disengagement" as those terms are used in the patent. The complaint's reference to the doctrine of equivalents suggests there may be a dispute over literal infringement (Compl. ¶93).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the accused product’s valve mechanism actually operates. The complaint provides a diagram from a notice letter showing the "connection point" of the accused product (Compl. ¶94; Ex. 4, p. 5, Fig. 1). The court will need to determine if that diagram accurately represents the accused product and if its function maps onto the specific limitations of the asserted claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "substantially independent float member" (Claim 2).
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for Claim 2. The definition will determine whether a float that is at all times physically linked to the movable member, but which may cease to exert an opening force in certain orientations, meets the limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether "independent" and the related "disengagement" requirement imply a complete physical separation or merely a functional one.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "disengagement" to describe the float moving "away from said active portion" so that it does not "exert an opening force" (’276 Patent, col. 45:33-41). This language could be argued to support a functional, rather than strictly physical, definition of disengagement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification, when describing an embodiment, states that in an inverted orientation, the "float 44 is seen to have moved upward and away from weighted member 94 from active position 102... to inactive position 104 that is not an active part of active portion 72" (’276 Patent, col. 15:21-27). This description of moving to an "inactive position" could support a narrower reading requiring a more distinct separation of function or physical state.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe (Compl. ¶93).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint extensively details allegations supporting willfulness. It alleges pre-suit knowledge based on a 2008 meeting where Plaintiff presented his pending application and working prototypes to Defendant’s employees (Compl. ¶¶11, 15). It further alleges post-notice knowledge based on a detailed 20-page infringement notice sent in 2020, which included diagrams and claim comparisons, and Defendant's subsequent alleged failure to respond despite a promise from its representative to do so (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 19, 96). The complaint also alleges that Defendant continued to sell the accused products and undertook a redesign of the snorkel that did not alter the allegedly infringing features, which it contends is further evidence of willfulness (Compl. ¶¶90-91).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Claim Construction: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "substantially independent float member" that must "experience disengagement," as required by Claim 2, be construed to cover a float mechanism that is pivotally connected at all times, or does it require a greater degree of physical or functional separation?
- Factual Infringement: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused IMPULSE DRY snorkel’s valve mechanism, as it actually functions, meet each and every limitation of the asserted independent claims, particularly the specific requirements for how the float member interacts with the movable member?
- Willfulness: The case will likely feature a significant focus on pre-suit conduct: did the alleged 2008 "Disclosure Meeting" and the detailed 2020 notice letter provide Defendant with knowledge of an objectively high risk of infringement, and was its subsequent conduct, including the alleged refusal to respond and continued sales, egregious enough to warrant enhanced damages?