DCT

5:23-cv-02040

Advanced Flow Engineering Inc v. Injen Technology Corp Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:23-cv-02040, C.D. Cal., 12/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business, has engaged in infringing acts within the district, and has chosen the venue for its counterclaims.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket cold air intake systems incorporate a vent tube component that infringes a patent related to a vent insert for automotive turbocharger systems.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the high-performance automotive aftermarket, where components are designed to enhance the power and efficiency of internal combustion engines.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on January 30, 2024, at the request of Defendant Injen, the USPTO instituted an ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. The proceeding concluded with the USPTO affirming the patentability of the asserted independent claim and allowing two new claims, one of which is also asserted in this action. This procedural history may bear on the presumption of validity for the affirmed claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-20 ’792 Patent Priority Date
2022-11-01 Scheduled Release for Accused Injen EVO System
2023-03-14 ’792 Patent Issue Date
2024-01-30 USPTO Institutes Ex Parte Reexamination of ’792 Patent
2024-12-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,603,792 - *"Vent Insert"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to improve the detection of pressure changes in an engine’s exhaust gas or crankcase ventilation systems to allow for quicker and more precise regulation of a turbocharger (’792 Patent, col. 2:40-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a small, hollow cylindrical tube ("vent insert") designed to be placed within the air inlet tube of a turbocharger system. One end of the insert has a rim that seats it in place, while the other end features an angled opening (’792 Patent, col. 2:59-65). When high-velocity air flows past this angled opening, it creates a localized low-pressure region inside the tube based on aerodynamic principles like the Coandă effect and Bernoulli's principle (’792 Patent, col. 4:37-56). This amplified pressure differential can be more easily and accurately detected by a pressure sensor, which in turn provides a clearer signal to the engine’s electronic control unit to regulate turbocharger performance (’792 Patent, col. 4:10-22).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a mechanical means to amplify a pressure signal, potentially allowing for more sensitive and responsive control of turbocharger operation, which is critical for engine efficiency and performance (’792 Patent, col. 2:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 25-26).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A cylindrically shaped hollow tube with a first end, a second end, an inner surface, and an outer surface.
    • The first end having an opening.
    • The second end having an angled surface forming an angled opening, where moving gas contacts the surface, resulting 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 rim disposed circumferentially 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 that can regulate the turbocharger.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are vent tubes, which Defendant refers to as a "Crank Case Vent Tube" or "Injen air intake Vent tube" (Compl. ¶19). These are included as a component within Defendant's cold air intake systems, such as the "PowerFlow ('PF')" line (e.g., PF9015P) and the "Evolution ('EVO')" line (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused vent tube is a "critical component" of Defendant's intake systems that "affects how the vehicle's sensor understands pressure" and, when installed correctly, "prevents check engine alerts" (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 20). The complaint includes a side-by-side photographic comparison of Defendant's component and an exemplary figure from the ’792 Patent (Compl. ¶22). It is alleged that Defendant is a direct competitor that introduced an "imitative" product shortly after Plaintiff launched its patented product (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

U.S. Patent No. 11,603,792 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 accused component is a cylindrically shaped hollow tube. ¶23.a col. 3:41-43
the first end of the cylindrically shaped hollow tube having an opening; The accused component has a first end with an opening, identified as the "Filter Side." ¶23.b col. 3:44-45
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 "Turbo Side" of the accused component has an angled surface forming an angled opening, which allegedly creates a low-pressure region when gas contacts it. The complaint includes a photograph illustrating this angled surface (Compl. ¶23.c). ¶23.c col. 3:46-50
the cylindrically shaped hollow tube adapted to cooperate with a gas inlet tube of a turbocharger system; The accused component is designed to be installed inside the crankcase fitting of a turbocharger system. A diagram from Defendant's installation manual shows the component installed in a vehicle's intake system (Compl. ¶23.d). ¶23.d col. 3:51-53
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 accused component has a visible rim alleged to be disposed circumferentially for seating the tube. ¶23.e col. 3:54-57
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...; Defendant's installation instructions allegedly direct users to install the component with its angled opening oriented away from the direction of gas flow. ¶23.f col. 3:58-62
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 based on Defendant's installation manual, which warns, "Must install this Crank Case Vent Tube properly or you may get a check engine light" (Compl. ¶24). ¶24 col. 4:1-5

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may arise over the term "rim." The analysis may question whether the structure on the accused device performs the function of being "adapted to seat" the tube in the manner described by the patent specification.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's primary evidence for the final functional limitation—that the device creates a "low pressure region" registered by a sensor to "regulate the turbocharger"—is the "check engine light" warning in Defendant's manual (Compl. ¶24). A key technical question will be what factual evidence demonstrates that this warning is a direct result of the specific aerodynamic mechanism claimed in the patent, rather than a more general installation error.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "rim disposed circumferentially and adapted to seat the cylindrically shaped hollow tube in place"

    • Context and Importance: This structural term is central to how the insert is physically located and secured within the larger air intake assembly. Its definition is heightened in importance by Plaintiff’s assertion of dependent claim 2, which further specifies the rim's location (Compl. ¶26). The dispute may hinge on whether the physical structure on the accused product meets both the geometric ("disposed circumferentially") and functional ("adapted to seat") aspects of this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the rim's function as contacting a "connecting element thereby preventing the vent insert from entering further into the connecting element" (’792 Patent, col. 2:63-65). This functional description could support a construction where any flange-like structure that performs this stopping function qualifies as a "rim."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a distinct, well-defined flange (e.g., element 36 in Fig. 4). A party could argue that the term "rim" should be construed as limited to a structure with similar characteristics to what is explicitly shown in these embodiments.

  • The Term: "low pressure region"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the physical phenomenon that is the core of the invention's mechanism for amplifying a pressure signal. Proving infringement requires demonstrating that the accused product generates this specific aerodynamic effect.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains that this region results from known aerodynamic principles when gas flows over the angled surface, which "amplifies the change in pressure" (’792 Patent, col. 4:21-22, col. 4:37-56). This could support a reading where any measurable pressure drop caused by the claimed geometry meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the "low pressure region" to a functional outcome: it must be a region that "can be registered by a pressure sensor" to "regulate the turbocharger" (’792 Patent, col. 4:1-5). An argument could be made that this requires a pressure differential of a specific magnitude or stability sufficient to create a usable signal for an electronic control unit, not merely any incidental pressure fluctuation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint contains factual allegations that may support a claim for induced infringement. It alleges Defendant provides installation manuals and online instructional videos that direct customers on how to install and use the accused component in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, 32).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’792 Patent (Compl. ¶30). It further alleges that Defendant is a direct competitor that copied Plaintiff’s product and attempted to conceal the infringement by not including photographs of certain accused systems on its website, instead using a "PHOTO COMING SOON" placeholder (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 19, 31). The complaint includes a screenshot of Defendant's website showing such a placeholder (Compl. p. 11).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of function and proof: what technical evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused vent tube generates the specific "low pressure region" recited in the claim, and is the "check engine light" warning in Defendant's manual sufficient to establish that this region is "registered by a pressure sensor" to "regulate the turbocharger"?
  • A key strategic issue will be the impact of the concluded ex parte reexamination. The fact that the USPTO confirmed the validity of claim 1 after considering prior art submitted at Defendant's request may significantly influence the court's analysis of any invalidity defenses and could also be a factor in assessing the plausibility of willful infringement.
  • The case may also present a question of definitional scope: does the flange-like structure on the accused device constitute a "rim... adapted to seat" the tube as construed from the patent's specification and figures, or does it differ in a meaningful structural or functional way?