DCT
5:23-cv-02040
Advanced Flow Engineering Inc v. Injen Technology Corp Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Advanced Flow Engineering, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Injen Technology Corporation, Ltd. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-02040, C.D. Cal., 10/05/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the judicial district and because the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket cold air intake systems and their components infringe a patent related to a vent insert designed to improve pressure sensing in turbocharged engines.
- Technical Context: The technology operates within the high-performance automotive aftermarket, where components are designed to enhance engine power and efficiency, specifically by modifying the air intake system for turbocharged vehicles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior 2017 lawsuit between the parties concerning trade dress infringement on a different product, which resulted in a settlement. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit was requested. A reexamination certificate was issued that confirmed the patentability of the asserted claim and added two new dependent claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-02-27 | Prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant (AFE v. Injen) |
| 2017-03-20 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,603,792 |
| 2017-11-14 | Prior AFE v. Injen lawsuit settled |
| 2022-11-01 | Scheduled Release for Accused Injen EVO System (approximate) |
| 2023-03-14 | U.S. Patent No. 11,603,792 Issued |
| 2023-10-05 | Complaint Filed |
| 2023-12-28 | Ex Parte Reexamination of '792 Patent Requested |
| 2024-10-07 | Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for '792 Patent Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,603,792 - "Vent Insert"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,603,792, "Vent Insert," issued March 14, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In turbocharged engines, it can be difficult to precisely monitor and respond to small, rapid fluctuations in exhaust gas and crankcase pressure, which is necessary for optimal engine performance and efficiency regulation (’792 Patent, col. 1:49-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a small, cylindrical hollow tube ("vent insert") that is placed into the air inlet tube of a turbocharger system. One end of the insert has an angled opening that is oriented to face away from the direction of airflow. This specific design utilizes aerodynamic principles to create and amplify a low-pressure signal that can be more easily detected by a standard engine pressure sensor, allowing for more sensitive and responsive control of the turbocharger (’792 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5; col. 4:18-22).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanical means to enhance the sensitivity of existing electronic sensor systems in an automotive context, purportedly allowing for more precise engine management without requiring more complex or expensive sensors (’792 Patent, col. 4:18-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as representative of the invention (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A cylindrically shaped hollow tube with a first end, a second end, an inner surface, and an outer surface.
- The first end has an opening.
- The second end has an angled surface forming an angled opening, which when contacted by moving gas results in a low pressure region.
- The tube is adapted to cooperate with a gas inlet tube of a turbocharger system.
- The outer surface has a circumferentially disposed rim adapted to seat the tube in place.
- During operation, the second end extends into the gas inlet tube with the angled opening facing away from the gas flow direction.
- The low pressure region can be registered by a pressure sensor in communication with an electronic control unit which can in turn regulate the turbocharger.
- The complaint expressly reserves the right to amend its allegations to include other systems and claims (Compl. ¶36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is a component referred to by Defendant as a "Crank Case Vent Tube" or "Injen air intake Vent tube," which Plaintiff labels the "Infringing Component" (Compl. ¶20-21). This component is allegedly included in various Injen cold air intake systems, such as the "PowerFlow ('PF') System" and the "Evolution ('EVO') System" (Compl. ¶25, ¶35-36).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Infringing Component is a vent tube used within aftermarket cold air intake systems for turbocharged vehicles (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that the component is necessary for the proper functioning of the vehicle's engine management system after the intake is installed, stating that improper installation may trigger the "check engine light," which suggests it directly interacts with the vehicle's pressure sensing system (Compl. ¶13-14, ¶29). The complaint presents the Infringing Component as a direct copy of Plaintiff's patented technology, sold to the same market of automotive enthusiasts (Compl. ¶11, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'792 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cylindrically shaped hollow tube having a first end, a second end, an inner surface and an outer surface | The Infringing Component is alleged to be a cylindrically shaped hollow tube. A visual comparison shows the component alongside a patent figure. (Compl. ¶27). | ¶28(a) | col. 2:60-61 |
| the first end of the cylindrically shaped hollow tube having an opening | The component is alleged to have an open first end. A photograph shows a close-up of the opening on one end of the accused tube. (Compl. ¶28b). | ¶28(b) | col. 2:61-62 |
| the second end of the cylindrically shaped hollow tube having an angled surface that forms an angled opening, wherein moving gas contacts the angled surface, resulting in a low pressure region | The component is alleged to have an angled surface at its other end. A photograph highlights the angled cut on the accused tube. (Compl. ¶28c). | ¶28(c) | col. 4:42-46 |
| the cylindrically shaped hollow tube adapted to cooperate with a gas inlet tube of a turbocharger system | The component is sold as part of cold air intake systems for turbocharged vehicles and is installed into the system's tubing. | ¶25, ¶28(d) | col. 2:45-50 |
| the outer surface of the cylindrically shaped hollow tube comprising a rim disposed circumferentially and adapted to seat the cylindrically shaped hollow tube in place | The component is alleged to have a circumferential rim. A photograph points to a flared rim at one end of the accused tube. (Compl. ¶28e). | ¶28(e) | col. 2:62-65 |
| wherein, during operation the second end extends into the gas inlet tube with the angled opening facing away from a direction of a gas flow in the gas inlet tube | Installation instructions for the accused component allegedly direct the user to install the tube with the angled cut oriented in a specific direction relative to airflow. An image from an installation manual illustrates this required orientation. (Compl. ¶28f). | ¶28(f) | col. 2:1-3 |
| and wherein the low pressure region that can be registered by a pressure sensor in communication with an electronic control unit that in turn can regulate the turbocharger | The complaint alleges this functionality on information and belief, supported by installation manual warnings that improper installation "may get a check engine light," implying interaction with the vehicle's sensor and ECU. An image from an installation manual shows the "check engine light" warning. (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 4:15-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Functional Questions: A central question will be one of proof regarding the final functional limitation. The complaint infers the creation of a "low pressure region" that "can be registered" from Defendant's installation warnings about a "check engine light" (Compl. ¶29). The litigation may focus on whether this inference is sufficient, or if Plaintiff must provide empirical evidence (e.g., fluid dynamics modeling, sensor data) demonstrating that the accused device actually performs this specific function as claimed.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "can be registered" raises a potential scope question. Does this require that the accused device actively causes regulation of the turbocharger in all compatible vehicles, or merely that it is capable of creating a signal that the pre-existing ECU and sensor system can detect? The complaint appears to advance the latter, broader interpretation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "low pressure region"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of how the device functions. Its construction will determine the level of proof required to show infringement. The dispute may turn on whether any measurable pressure drop suffices, or if the term implies a specific, amplified pressure differential that enhances sensor sensitivity.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that moving gas contact "result[s] in a low pressure region" ('792 Patent, col. 4:46), which could be argued to cover any resulting area of lower pressure relative to the surrounding flow.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the vent insert amplifies the change in pressure" (’792 Patent, col. 4:21-22). This language could support an argument that "low pressure region" should be construed to mean a region of pressure that is not merely lower, but is sufficiently amplified to increase the sensitivity of the sensor system.
The Term: "can be registered by a pressure sensor"
Context and Importance: This term defines the required capability of the invention's output. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's evidence for infringement is indirect (the "check engine light" warning). The meaning of "can be" is often litigated and will be critical to determining if Plaintiff's evidence meets the claim's requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "can be" suggests capability, not a requirement that the registration and subsequent regulation must occur in every instance or be sold as a unit. The patent refers to a generic "pressure sensor" and "electronic control unit" without adding specific limitations (’792 Patent, col. 4:62-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "can be registered" implies that the signal generated must be of a character or magnitude that is functionally distinct and useful to the ECU, tying it back to the specification's teaching that the "vent insert can increase the sensitivity" of the system (’792 Patent, col. 4:18-20).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges facts that may support a claim for induced infringement. It states that Defendant provides installation instructions and videos that allegedly direct customers and end-users on how to install and use the Infringing Component in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26, ¶35).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on several factors: the parties are direct competitors; Defendant has an alleged "habitual pattern" of copying Plaintiff's products, citing a prior lawsuit; and Defendant allegedly attempted to conceal the infringement by not displaying photographs of certain accused products on its website (Compl. ¶11, ¶15, ¶34, ¶39). The complaint alleges that Defendant is aware of the ’792 Patent and continues to infringe (Compl. ¶39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiff prove, based largely on product comparisons and inferences from installation manuals, that the accused device performs the final functional step of the asserted claim—that it creates a low-pressure region that "can be registered" by the vehicle's existing sensor system to regulate the turbocharger? The case may turn on whether direct, empirical evidence of this aerodynamic and electronic interaction is required.
- A second key question will concern willfulness and damages, particularly in light of the post-complaint ex parte reexamination. The court will have to consider how the reexamination certificate, which confirmed the validity of the asserted claim, impacts the allegation of willfulness for conduct occurring both before and after its issuance, and whether it introduces an intervening rights defense for the Defendant.
- Finally, the case raises a question of causation in the associated business tort claims: To what extent are the unfair competition claims, which are predicated on the same alleged copying as the patent claim, viable as separate causes of action versus being preempted by or merely duplicative of the patent infringement analysis?