DCT
5:19-cv-00948
Snap Lock Industries Inc v. Swisstrax Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Snap Lock Industries, Inc. (Utah)
- Defendant: Swisstrax Corporation (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
- Case Identification: 5:19-cv-00948, C.D. Cal., 05/21/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's principal place of business being located within the Central District of California, as well as the alleged commission of infringing acts within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Parking Guide" product, an accessory for modular flooring, infringes a patent related to a modular flooring locator apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the market for modular flooring systems, commonly used in garages and showrooms, where accessories for vehicle positioning provide both aesthetic and functional value.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of intellectual property disputes between the parties. Plaintiff also alleges it sent an express notice letter to Defendant regarding the patent-in-suit prior to filing the complaint, which may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-12-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,634,876 Priority Date |
| 2009-01-01 | Plaintiff's AccuPark® Parking Guide product launch (approx.) |
| 2009-12-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,634,876 Issued |
| 2018-01-01 | Defendant's Parking Guide product launch (approx.) |
| 2019-04-25 | Plaintiff sent infringement notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-05-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,634,876 - "Modular Flooring Locator Apparatus"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,634,876, "Modular Flooring Locator Apparatus", issued December 22, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a reliable and aesthetically pleasing method for positioning a vehicle on a modular floor, such as in a garage or showroom display, without resorting to imprecise or "tacky" solutions like a tennis ball hanging from the ceiling or markings on a wall (Compl., Ex. A, '876 Patent, col. 1:18-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "modular-floor-locator section" designed to integrate with a system of modular floor tiles. This locator section features at least one "locator raised surface area" (e.g., a wedge or bump) that provides tactile feedback to a driver as a vehicle's tire rolls over it, indicating the desired stopping point ('876 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-27). Embodiments describe the locator section as a plate positioned over one or more underlying modular tiles to form a multi-layer apparatus ('876 Patent, col. 1:46-58).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a purpose-built, integrated solution for vehicle positioning that is compatible with the structure and appearance of modular flooring systems ('876 Patent, col. 1:5-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 ('876 Patent, col. 9:1-35; Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A modular-floor apparatus comprising a modular-floor-locator section to be combined with a plurality of modular-floor tiles.
- The locator section comprises a top surface with a first locator raised surface area.
- The locator section comprises a first tile.
- The top surface is a plate positioned above the first tile.
- The locator section also comprises a second tile attached to the first tile, with the second tile positioned under the plate.
- The plate has a second locator raised surface area formed on it.
- The first locator is positioned over the first tile, and the second locator is positioned over the second tile.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the Swisstrax "Parking Guide" product (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Swisstrax Parking Guide is an accessory for modular garage flooring systems, marketed as an "all-new industry design for the easiest and safest tire guide product" (Compl. ¶¶19-20). It is designed to be attached to existing modular floor tiles, allegedly spanning at least two tiles, to create a locator for a vehicle's tire (Compl. ¶¶23, 25). The complaint alleges the guide is attached to the top of modular tiles using an adhesive pad. An image provided in the complaint shows the underside of the accused product with a rectangular area for an adhesive pad (Compl. ¶32, p. 10). The product is marketed as a "finishing touch" for customers' flooring applications (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'876 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A modular-floor apparatus comprising: a modular-floor-locator section to be combined with a plurality of modular-floor tiles... | The Swisstrax Parking Guide is alleged to be a modular-floor apparatus designed to be combined with modular floor tiles. | ¶25 | col. 1:33-37 |
| a top surface; | The Swisstrax Parking Guide is alleged to have a top surface. An annotated image highlights this surface in red. | ¶26 | col. 2:18-19 |
| a first locator raised surface area formed in the top surface...dimensioned to guide positioning of an object... | The top surface of the Parking Guide is alleged to have a first raised locator area to guide vehicle positioning. An annotated image highlights this feature with a blue dotted outline. | ¶27 | col. 2:20-27 |
| wherein the modular-floor-locator section comprises a first tile; | The Parking Guide is alleged to be attached to a first modular tile. An annotated image highlights this underlying tile in orange. | ¶28 | col. 1:46-47 |
| the top surface comprises a plate, the plate being positioned above the first tile; | The body of the Parking Guide is identified as a "plate" that is positioned above the first tile. | ¶28 | col. 1:47-48 |
| wherein the modular-floor-locator section comprises a second tile attached to the first tile, the second tile being positioned under the plate; | The Parking Guide is alleged to be attached to a second modular tile, which is itself attached to the first tile and positioned under the plate. An annotated image highlights the second tile in green. | ¶29 | col. 1:49-51 |
| wherein the modular-floor-locator section comprises a second locator raised surface area formed in the plate; | The Parking Guide plate is alleged to have a second locator raised surface area. | ¶30 | col. 1:52-54 |
| the second locator raised surface area is positioned over the second tile; | The second locator is alleged to be positioned over the second (green) tile. An annotated image highlights this locator with a yellow dotted outline. | ¶30 | col. 1:54-56 |
| the first locator raised surface area is positioned over the first tile. | The first locator is alleged to be positioned over the first (orange) tile. | ¶31 | col. 1:56-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product is a single "plate" that is attached on top of two existing, interlocked floor tiles. A central question may be whether this configuration meets the claim's recitation of an apparatus that comprises a first tile, a second tile, and a separate plate. The defense may argue that the accused product is merely an accessory to tiles, not an apparatus that includes the tiles as components.
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires a "second tile attached to the first tile." The infringement theory depends on the accused Parking Guide being installed over two modular tiles that are already interlocked. The evidence required to prove that the underlying tiles are "attached" in every infringing use may be a point of contention.
- Technical Questions: The patent describes the plate being positioned "above" the first tile and the second tile being "under" the plate. The complaint alleges the accused product uses adhesive to sit on top of the tiles (Compl. ¶32). The court may need to determine if this adhesive-based, top-mounted configuration meets the structural relationship defined in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "attached to"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because Claim 1 requires "a second tile attached to the first tile." The infringement case depends on the accused product being used with underlying modular tiles that are themselves attached (e.g., interlocked). The construction of "attached to" will determine what kind of connection Plaintiff must prove exists between the underlying tiles. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's primary embodiment shows interlocking connectors, which could be argued to limit the scope of "attached."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a method of attachment. Plaintiff may argue that any form of connection, including the standard interlocking mechanisms of modular tiles, satisfies this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly depicts and describes "connecting members 112" that "allow floor tiles 110 to snap, hook, latch, or otherwise attach to one another" ('876 Patent, col. 3:63-col. 4:2). Defendant may argue that "attached to" should be construed to require such a specific, structural interlocking connection as shown in the patent's figures.
The Term: "comprises" (in the context of the apparatus "comprising" a first tile and a second tile)
Context and Importance: The claim states the "modular-floor-locator section comprises a first tile" and "a second tile." The accused product is a separate guide that is placed on top of tiles sold by the Defendant. The dispute may turn on whether the claimed "apparatus" is the guide itself, or the combination of the guide and the underlying tiles. If the apparatus is the combination, then direct infringement would occur only when the guide is actually installed on the tiles. Practitioners may focus on this because it implicates whether the Defendant is a direct infringer for selling the guide, or an indirect infringer for inducing customers to assemble the infringing combination.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The open-ended term "comprising" suggests the apparatus can include other elements. The patent's title, "Modular Flooring Locator Apparatus", and the claim preamble's description of the locator section being "combined with a plurality of modular-floor tiles" could support the view that the claimed apparatus is the final, assembled product.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the product it sells—the Parking Guide alone—does not "comprise" any tiles. The specification also distinguishes between the "modular-floor-locator section" (e.g., element 120 in Fig. 1) and the "floor tiles" (e.g., element 110) it is combined with, potentially supporting an interpretation where the tiles are not integral components of the claimed locator section itself, but are external elements it interacts with.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Swisstrax induces infringement by providing marketing materials, brochures, and instructions that direct its customers to use the Parking Guide with modular floor tiles in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 35, 41, 49). Specifically, the complaint notes that instructions on how to "fasten" the guide "into Swisstrax flooring" allegedly cause infringement (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on several asserted facts: a prior "history of infringing on Snap Lock's intellectual property rights," Defendant's alleged awareness of Plaintiff's patented "AccuPark" product, and a pre-suit notice letter sent on April 25, 2019, which explicitly identified the '876 patent and the accused product (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 34, 36, 50). The complaint alleges that continued infringement after this date constitutes willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural definition: Does the accused product—a unitary guide adhesively attached to the top surface of two separate floor tiles—meet the claim elements of an "apparatus" that itself "comprises" a first tile, a second tile, and a plate, where the tiles are positioned "under" the plate? The outcome may depend on the construction of terms like "comprises" and the spatial relationships required by the claim.
- A second central question is one of infringing assembly: Does the claim language "a second tile attached to the first tile" require a specific type of interlocking connection that must be proven in the accused configuration? This raises an evidentiary question of whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the intended and actual use of the Swisstrax Parking Guide is on tiles that are themselves "attached" in the manner required by the patent.
- Finally, the case presents a question of direct versus indirect liability: Is the sale of the Swisstrax Parking Guide alone an act of direct infringement, or does direct infringement only occur when a customer assembles the guide with floor tiles? This will influence the analysis of damages and the focus on the inducement allegations.