Aquastar Pool Products Inc v. Color Match Pool Fittings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aquastar Pool Products, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Color Match Pool Fittings, Inc. (Arizona)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lauson & Tarver LLP
• Case Identification: 5:18-cv-00094, C.D. Cal., 01/16/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a distribution center, and therefore a regular and established place of business, within the Central District of California, and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s specialty pool drain covers infringe a patent related to a low-profile, circular swimming pool drain designed for safety and aesthetic integration.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of swimming pool safety equipment, where regulations like the Virginia Graeme-Baker (VGB) Act mandate designs that prevent suction entrapment, creating a market for novel drain configurations.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on January 16, 2018, the same day the complaint was filed. The complaint notes that its filing precedes a major industry trade show by one week, an event both parties were scheduled to attend. Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent from the inventor, who is also Plaintiff's president.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-06-15	’103 Patent Priority Date
2018-01-16	’103 Patent Issued
2018-01-16	Complaint Filing Date
2018-01-23	Start of Pool & Spa Show referenced in complaint

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,869,103 - "Low Profile Circular Drain With Water Stop For Swimming Pools"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,869,103, "Low Profile Circular Drain With Water Stop For Swimming Pools," issued January 16, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional pool drains, particularly those designed to comply with the VGB Act. Such drains can be large and aesthetically unappealing. Furthermore, the patent notes that plaster used to embed large drains is prone to cracking, which can allow water to seep into the pool's underlying structure and cause damage (’103 Patent, col. 2:4-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a circular sump drain with an annular (ring-shaped) chamber and a central hub. During installation, the space between the chamber and the hub is filled with plaster, allowing the drain to blend in with the pool floor. The design also incorporates "water stop" features, described as channels or gutters, intended to catch any water that seeps into cracks between the drain and the surrounding plaster, thereby protecting the pool's shotcrete structure (’103 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:23-40).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a pool drain that is not only large enough to be "unblockable" and thus compliant with safety regulations, but is also aesthetically pleasing and incorporates features to improve the long-term structural integrity of the installation (’103 Patent, col. 4:56-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 14, along with dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, and 20 (Compl. ¶16).
• Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
  • A sump drain comprising an annular chamber for embedding in the surface of a pool or spa.
  • The chamber has a contiguous annular top opening with an outer sidewall portion.
  • A central hub is disposed radially inward from, and in open communication with, the annular chamber.
  • The annular chamber is centered around the hub and is "formed with a gutter on the outer sidewall portion for embedded anchoring in the surface of the swimming pool or spa."
  • A removable cap is located above the central hub.
  • The top opening extends fully about the central hub and remains "substantially flush with the surface" when installed.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "360 Pebble Top Drain," which includes the "SuperFlow 360" and "OpenFlow 360" models (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a "highly similar drain" to Plaintiff's patented product (Compl. ¶10). It is described as a specialty drain cover manufactured and sold by the Defendant. The complaint further alleges that the Defendant "even compares its drain to the patented one being sold by Plaintiff," suggesting direct competition in the marketplace (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of multiple claims of the ’103 Patent by Defendant's "360 Pebble Top Drain" (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The pleading states that a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of the infringement allegations is contained in an attached "Exhibit F Claim Chart" (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible from the complaint's text alone. The core of the infringement allegation rests on the assertion that Defendant's product is "highly similar" and incorporates the features covered by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶10).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may revolve around whether the accused drain includes a "gutter on the outer sidewall portion for embedded anchoring" as required by claim 1. The definition and function of this "gutter" will be a key point of contention.
  • Technical Questions: The primary technical question is whether the physical structure of the "360 Pebble Top Drain" maps onto the specific limitations of the asserted claims. For example, does the accused product have a structure that functions as a "water stop" in the manner described in the ’103 Patent specification? The complaint itself does not provide the evidence needed to answer this, pointing instead to its unprovided exhibits (Compl. ¶¶15-16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "gutter on the outer sidewall portion" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's novelty, as it relates to both anchoring the device and preventing water damage. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the accused product, which is alleged to be merely "highly similar," falls within the scope of the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary broadly describes "channels both outboard and inboard from the chamber top opening" that "help prevent water from passing through the plaster" (’103 Patent, col. 2:38-41). A party might argue that any channel-like feature on the outer part of the drain that assists in anchoring meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 11 show a specific structure for the "water stop," comprising a "horizontal shelf 54 and a vertical wall 56" which form a "tray-shaped like a gutter or channel 52, 62" (’103 Patent, col. 4:25-36). A party could argue the term "gutter" is limited to a structure with this specific configuration and water-collecting function.

• The Term: "substantially flush" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is key to the aesthetic and functional claims of the invention, such as allowing cleaning equipment to pass over smoothly. The degree of deviation allowed by "substantially" will likely be disputed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the drain "attractively blends in with the pool or spa floor" and the top opening is "preferably substantially flush" (’103 Patent, col. 2:35-36). This language may support an interpretation that allows for minor, visually acceptable variations from being perfectly co-planar.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as the cross-section in Figure 7, depict a precise, co-planar alignment between the top of the drain and the plaster surface 42. A party could argue these embodiments define the required meaning of "substantially flush."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads contributory infringement as "Count II" and separately alleges that Defendant "knowingly caused, supported, controlled, directed, coordinated and/or induced customers... to infringe" (Compl. p. 5; ¶20). The factual basis appears to be that Defendant sells the drain covers to customers who then install them in pools in an infringing manner.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two potential grounds. First, the complaint was filed and served to provide pre-suit notice, specifically in advance of a trade show, to give "an opportunity for Defendant to avoid willfully infringing" (Compl. ¶11). This suggests any subsequent sales would be post-notice and therefore willful. Second, the complaint alleges Defendant "even compares its drain to the patented one being sold by Plaintiff," which may be used to argue pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's product and potentially the associated patent rights (Compl. ¶10).

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

• A central issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "gutter," which the patent describes as a water-collecting and anchoring feature, be construed to read on the specific structure of the accused "360 Pebble Top Drain"? The court's interpretation of this term may be dispositive.
• The case presents a key evidentiary question: what evidence, presumably contained in the unprovided exhibits, will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused product meets every limitation of the asserted claims? As the patent and complaint were filed on the same day, a critical factual question for willfulness will be what Defendant knew about the patent rights, and when.
• A third question concerns timing and intent: was the defendant's alleged pre-suit comparison to Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶10) sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent required for willful and induced infringement, particularly given that the patent had not yet issued at the time of those alleged comparisons?