Aleksandr L Yufa v. TSI Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aleksandr L. Yufa (California)
  • Defendant: TSI Incorporated (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plaintiff acting Pro-Se
• Case Identification: 8:12-cv-01614, C.D. Cal., 09/25/2012
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business and sales in the judicial district, including at specific business addresses in Huntington Beach and Anaheim, California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s particle counting and measuring instruments infringe four U.S. patents related to methods and devices for analyzing particulates in air and other media.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves optical and electronic systems for detecting, counting, and sizing microscopic particles, a critical function for maintaining air and liquid quality in sensitive environments like semiconductor cleanrooms, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and for general environmental analysis.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that one of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,034,769, was the subject of three separate Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings, resulting in the issuance of Reexamination Certificates C1, C2, and C3. These proceedings amended and/or confirmed the patentability of the asserted claims, a history that may be relevant to questions of claim scope and validity.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1997-01-02	U.S. Patent No. 5,767,967 Priority Date
1997-04-10	U.S. Patent No. 5,946,091 Priority Date
1997-06-27	U.S. Patent No. 6,034,769 Priority Date
1998-06-16	U.S. Patent No. 5,767,967 Issues
1999-08-31	U.S. Patent No. 5,946,091 Issues
2000-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 6,034,769 Issues
2005-05-13	U.S. Patent No. 7,439,855 Priority Date
2008-10-21	U.S. Patent No. 7,439,855 Issues
2010-02-23	'769 Patent Reexamination Certificate C1 Issued
2011-04-05	'769 Patent Reexamination Certificate C2 Issued
2012-06-19	'769 Patent Reexamination Certificate C3 Issued
2012-08-23	Date of printout for Defendant's press-release
2012-09-25	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,767,967 - “Method and device for precise counting and measuring the particulates and small bodies,” Issued June 16, 1998 (’967 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art particle counters as inefficient and inaccurate because they fail to capture all scattered light from a particle, with an estimated efficiency not exceeding ~16.67% (’967 Patent, col. 2:29-37). This uncollected light also creates background noise, further limiting the sensitivity and accuracy of the measurements (’967 Patent, col. 3:15-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an optical system using two concentric ellipsoidal mirrors of different sizes (’967 Patent, Abstract). A light beam and a particle flow intersect at a point that is simultaneously the first focus of the smaller mirror and the second focus of the larger mirror. A light detector is placed at the other shared focal point. This geometric arrangement is designed to collect the entirety of the scattered light—both that reflected by the first mirror and that reflected by the second—and focus it onto the detector, thereby eliminating noise from uncollected light and increasing measurement precision (’967 Patent, col. 6:15-39). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates this concentric focal point geometry.
• Technical Importance: This approach claimed to provide a more authentic and complete measurement of particle quantity and size, a critical need for industries like semiconductor manufacturing that depend on ultra-clean environments (’967 Patent, col. 1:50-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-16 (Compl. ¶10).
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for counting and measuring particles illuminated by a light beam.
  • Detecting scattered light using an ellipsoidal mirror system with a first (smaller) and second (bigger) ellipsoidal mirror connected at their lateral areas.
  • The mirror system is placed along a device axis, with shared focal points between the two mirrors.
  • Detecting scattered light that occurs inside the first mirror at a shared focal point.
  • Detecting the scattered light with a light detector placed inside the second mirror at the other shared focal point.

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,091 - “Method and device for precise counting and measuring the particles,” Issued August 31, 1999 (’091 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background criticizes prior art devices where turbulence in the particle flow can cause "air-eddying movements," leading to particles being counted multiple times and yielding incorrect results (’091 Patent, col. 2:15-22). Additionally, non-focused scattered light creates background noise that limits measurement accuracy.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "capillary particle flow system" that comprises a plurality of distinct channels, where each channel has an inside diameter specifically sized for a predetermined particle size (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-17). A system of filters and controllable valves directs the sample flow through the appropriate channel to intersect a light beam at a detection point. This structure provides a more controlled, non-turbulent flow for more accurate counting and allows a single device to precisely measure particles of various specific sizes by switching between channels (’091 Patent, col. 7:1-13).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a mechanism for sorting particles by size and measuring them in discrete, controlled channels within a single apparatus, which could improve the accuracy and versatility of particle analysis in environments with diverse contaminants.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for counting and measuring particles illuminated by a light beam.
  • Providing a particle detecting system that includes a capillary particle flow system.
  • The capillary particle flow system comprises a plurality of capillary particle flow channels.
  • Each channel has an appropriate cross-sectional inside dimension for passage of a predetermined particle size.
  • An axis of each channel intersects a light beam at a point within a monitoring region.
  • Sensing a light created by the intersection of the light beam with particles flowing through at least one of the channels and providing an output indicative of particle size.

U.S. Patent No. 7,439,855 - “Method and wireless communicating apparatus for analysis of environment,” Issued October 21, 2008 (’855 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the limitations of using long cables to connect remote environmental sensors to central data processing units, noting that such cables introduce signal noise and restrict mobility (’855 Patent, col. 1:60-65). The patented solution is a system and method for wireless communication between one or more remote environment monitoring systems (sensors) and one or more remote control and data processing systems (’855 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶26). Independent claims are 1, 5, and 8.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "R-Series" remote models, "AEROTRAK" remote and portable particle counters, and its "Facility Monitoring System" infringe by providing for "wireless exchange (communications)" of data (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 6,034,769 - “Method and device for counting and measuring particles,” Issued March 7, 2000 (amended ’769 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method of determining particle size by processing the signal from a light detector. An analog signal, whose duration corresponds to the particle size, is converted into a digital pulse. The invention then "strobes" this digital pulse with a high-frequency strobe pulse sequence and counts the number of strobe pulses that fit within the duration of the digital pulse; this count directly corresponds to the particle's size (’769 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts amended claims 1 and 4-6 (Compl. ¶35). Amended claim 1 is independent.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused products' use of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), which "encod[es] an analogue value as a digital pulse where the on time is proportional to the value," constitutes infringement of the patented method (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses a broad range of Defendant's particle counting and analysis products, including but not limited to: Series 3800 Aerosol Mass Spectrometers; BioTrak Real-Time Viable Particle Counter 9510-BD; various models of AEROTRAK Portable, Handheld, Remote, and Nanoparticle Particle Counters; DustTrak Aerosol Monitors; Optical Particle Sizers; Nanoparticle Sizer 3910; and the associated Facility Monitoring System (FMS) software (Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶30, ¶39).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are instruments used for environmental monitoring, cleanroom certification, and aerosol research (Compl. Ex. I, K, L). They function by drawing in air or another medium and using optical methods to count and size the particulates within it (Compl. Ex. V). The complaint alleges that certain products operate as part of a networked "Facility Monitoring System," which aggregates data from multiple remote sensors wirelessly or via a network (Compl. ¶30; Compl. Ex. S). Exhibit S, a "Facility Monitoring System Design Recommendations" document, illustrates a "Simple system schematic" for networking various sensors (Compl. Ex. S, p. 6). The breadth of accused products suggests they represent a significant portion of Defendant’s offerings in the particle analysis market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’967 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
detecting a scattered light by an ellipsoidal mirror system, comprising a first ellipsoidal mirror and a second ellipsoidal mirror, which is bigger than said first ellipsoidal mirror...	The complaint alleges that the Series 3800 Aerosol Mass Spectrometers perform the claimed method. A marketing document for the product is provided as Exhibit I. The complaint does not provide specific detail on the optical configuration of this product or explicitly map it to the two-mirror system claimed in the patent.	¶14	col. 12:40-48
wherein said ellipsoidal mirror system is placed along a device axis, which concurs with the major axes of said first ellipsoidal mirror and said second ellipsoidal mirror...	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.	¶14	col. 12:49-52
detecting said scattered light which is occurred inside said first ellipsoidal mirror on said device axis by intersection of said light beam with a particulates and small bodies flow at a point of said second focus...	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. A product brochure shows an image of the accused Series 3800 Aerosol Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer (Compl. Ex. I, p. 1).	¶14	col. 12:53-59
detecting said scattered light by a light detector...which is placed inside said second ellipsoidal mirror on said device axis at a point of said first focus of said second ellipsoidal mirror, which belongs also to said second focus of said first ellipsoidal mirror.	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.	¶14	col. 12:60-67

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary question is what evidence the complaint provides to support the allegation that the "Series 3800" spectrometer practices the specific two-concentric-mirror optical system required by claim 1. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation without providing technical diagrams or operational descriptions of the accused product's internal components.

’091 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
providing a particle detecting system, having a particle monitoring region and including a capillary particle flow system, comprising a plurality of capillary particle flow channels...	The complaint accuses various particle counters, including the AEROTRAK Model 9110 (Compl. ¶22). Product literature for this model, attached as Exhibit L, states that it provides "Up to eight channels of simultaneous data," which the complaint appears to equate with the claimed "plurality of capillary particle flow channels" (Compl. Ex. L, p. 1).	¶22	col. 11:11-17
providing each of said plurality of capillary particle flow means with an appropriate cross-sectional inside dimensions for a passage of an appropriate predetermined size particles;	The complaint alleges that accused products like the AEROTRAK Model 9110, which measures particles across a size range and sorts them into different channels (e.g., 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0 µm), meet this limitation (Compl. Ex. L, p. 2).	¶22	col. 11:20-24
providing an intersection of an axis of each of said plurality capillary particle flow means with an axis of said light beam at a point within said monitoring region; and	The complaint alleges infringement by a range of particle counters that operate using light scattering, such as the BioTrak Real-Time Viable Particle Counter shown in Exhibit K (Compl. ¶22; Compl. Ex. K). The complaint does not, however, provide specific technical details on how the flow paths intersect the light beam in the accused devices.	¶22	col. 11:25-29
sensing a light created by said intersection of said light beam with said particles...and providing an output which is effectively indicative of the size of said particles.	The accused products are optical particle counters that function by sensing light scattered from particles to determine their size and quantity. For example, product literature for the BioTrak counter states that its "field-proven, patented Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) method... can actually deliver instantaneous viable detection" (Compl. Ex. K).	¶22	col. 11:30-34

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused products' use of multiple electronic "data channels" for categorizing particle sizes constitutes a "capillary particle flow system, comprising a plurality of capillary particle flow channels" as claimed. This raises the question of whether the claim requires distinct physical tubes for each particle size or if it can be read to cover electronic sorting of data from a single flow path.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’967 Patent:

• The Term: "ellipsoidal mirror system"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core optical architecture of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused spectrometer's optical components can be characterized as the specific two-mirror, concentric system described and claimed in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain words "ellipsoidal mirror system" might be argued to cover any system that uses one or more ellipsoidal mirrors for particle detection.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, including the abstract and figures, consistently describes the system as comprising "two different sizes ellipsoidal concentric mirrors" where the focal points are shared in a specific geometric relationship (’967 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 6:20-25). This suggests a narrower construction requiring this specific two-mirror concentric arrangement.

For the ’091 Patent:

• The Term: "capillary particle flow system"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to how the invention purports to achieve higher accuracy by controlling particle flow. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products achieve multi-channel analysis, but it is unclear from the complaint whether they do so using the physical "capillary" tube structure implied by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term covers any system that directs particle flow through a measurement area, where data is then sorted into channels, regardless of the physical structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system of distinct "particle flow channels" with specific inside diameters, coupled with a "valved means" for switching between them, implying a structure of multiple physical tubes (’091 Patent, col. 3:9-17, col. 6:29-32). Figure 9, showing tubular connections to a valved block, may support this narrower view.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes counts for induced infringement for all four patents (Compl., Claims II, IV, VI, VIII). The allegations are based on Defendant’s user manuals and design recommendations, which allegedly instruct customers on how to operate the accused products in an infringing manner, specifically referencing the use of PWM in the context of the ’769 patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge, stating that during "telephonic and in writing communication(s)," the Plaintiff "informed TSI about believed infringement" and requested technical information, which was allegedly refused (Compl. ¶11, ¶19, ¶27, ¶36).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Does the complaint, which relies heavily on marketing brochures and high-level product descriptions, provide sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege that the internal mechanics of the accused products—particularly the optical system of the Series 3800 spectrometer—practice the specific structures recited in the patent claims, as required under modern pleading standards?
2. The case will likely involve a key question of definitional scope: Can the term "capillary particle flow system" from the ’091 patent, which the specification describes as a system of distinct physical channels, be construed to cover modern particle counters that use a single sensor and flow path but sort the resulting data electronically into multiple size "channels"?
3. Another core question will be one of technical and functional equivalence: Does the accused products' use of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) for encoding analog data constitute the same method as the ’769 patent's claimed process of "forming...strobe pulse packs by strobing of the digital form pulses," or is there a fundamental operational difference between the two signal processing techniques?