Sterno Home Inc v. Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sterno Home Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co. Ltd. (China), Luminara Worldwide, LLC (Delaware), L&L Candle Company, LLC (Delaware), and other named entities.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.; Stuart Kane LLP
• Case Identification: 8:20-cv-00912, C.D. Cal., 05/15/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants conduct continuous and systematic business in the district, including importing, offering for sale, and selling the accused products through physical retail outlets and online platforms directed to consumers in the district. For defendant Shenzhen Liown Electronics, an alien company, venue is alleged to be proper in any district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ flameless LED candles, sold under various brand names, infringe six U.S. patents related to electronic flame simulation technology.
• Technical Context: The technology involves creating a realistic flickering flame effect using electronic components, primarily light-emitting diodes (LEDs), as a safe alternative to traditional combustion candles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-08-14	Earliest Priority Date for ’308 Patent
2002-02-27	Earliest Priority Date for ’443, ’186, ’832, ’374, ’043 Patents
2003-09-09	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,616,308
2004-04-13	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,719,443
2013-10-22	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,562,186
2014-10-14	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,858,043
2016-11-08	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,491,832
2019-04-02	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,247,374
2020-05-15	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,719,443 - "Electrically Illuminated Flame Simulator," Issued April 13, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional decorative lighting, such as candles, as creating fire hazards. It further notes that existing electronic alternatives, like those using unstable neon bulbs, produce an unnatural "jerky" flickering pattern, are inefficient for battery operation, and that linear "chaser" light arrays fail to mimic the nuanced light movement of a real flame (’443 Patent, col. 1:53-64; col. 2:4-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using an integrated circuit to control at least two light sources, such as LEDs. The circuit intermittently illuminates the light sources independently of each other in a random, semi-random, or other pre-programmed manner to create the visual effect of a "flickering movement" that realistically simulates a flame (’443 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:38-46). The patent also discloses using a microphone to allow a user to switch the device on or off with audio cues like a clap or by blowing (’443 Patent, FIG. 7; col. 7:22-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled the creation of safer, more realistic, and potentially battery-powered flameless candles by using efficient solid-state light sources and sophisticated electronic control to simulate the complex flicker of a natural flame (’443 Patent, col. 2:1-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" but does not identify specific claims, instead referencing exhibits not included with the pleading (Compl. ¶39). Representative independent claim 1 recites:
  • An electrically powered flame simulator comprising:
  • at least two light sources;
  • an integrated circuit electrically connected to the light sources for intermittently illuminating at least one of the light sources independently of other light sources such that the light sources together provide the effect of a flickering movement;
  • a microphone connected to the integrated circuit wherein the microphone inputs preselected audio sounds which are processed by the integrated circuit to switch the flame simulator between an on position and an off position; and
  • a power source for providing power to the integrated circuit.

U.S. Patent No. 8,562,186 - "Electrically Illuminated Flame Simulator," Issued October 22, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As part of the same family as the ’443 patent, this invention addresses the same general problem of creating a realistic and safe electronic candle (’186 Patent, col. 2:19-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is directed to the physical structure of an "artificial pillar candle." It specifies a translucent, self-supporting cylindrical body with a recess in its upper surface, designed to resemble a partially melted candle. The flame simulator, including its light sources, is located "substantially within the recess," enhancing the illusion that the light originates from inside a melted wax pool (’186 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:31-48; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: This configuration advanced the realism of flameless candles by integrating the light source into a simulated melted wax pool, more closely mimicking the appearance of a real pillar candle that has been burning for some time (’186 Patent, col. 1:31-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" without specification, referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶45). Representative independent claim 1 recites:
  • An artificial pillar candle having an electrically powered flame simulator comprising:
  • a substantially cylindrical body having permanent exterior surfaces comprising an upper portion with a rim, a lower portion, and a chamber therein, where the body is self-supporting;
  • a flame simulator having at least two light sources located substantially within the recess;
  • a circuit electrically connected to the light sources for intermittently illuminating them to provide the effect of a flickering movement; and
  • a power source.

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,832 - "Electrically Illuminated Flame Simulator," Issued November 8, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent refines the flame simulation by claiming a specific spatial arrangement of light sources. The invention requires a plurality of light sources with a first subset located within the candle's top recess (below the rim) and a second subset located above the rim, a configuration intended to create a more three-dimensional and dynamic flame effect (’832 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim (Compl. ¶51). Representative independent claims are 1 and 9.
• Accused Features: Flameless candles sold under the "Matrix" brand (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 10,247,374 - "Electrically Illuminated Flame Simulator," Issued April 2, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a flameless candle that includes a "protruding component" that extends upward from the recess in the candle's body. The light from at least one light source projects onto this protruding component, suggesting an invention directed at candles with a physical, illuminated "flame" element that may be designed to move (’374 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim (Compl. ¶57). Representative independent claim is 1.
• Accused Features: Flameless candles sold under the "Moving Flame," "Wick-to-Flame," and "Push Flame" brands (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 8,858,043 - "Electrically Illuminated Flame Simulator," Issued October 14, 2014

• Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the audio control functionality for a flameless candle. It claims a candle with a microphone and a circuit specifically programmed to process audio sounds to control the flame simulator, such as turning it on or off in response to distinct sounds like a hand-clap or blowing (’043 Patent, Claim 1, 9).
• Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim (Compl. ¶63). Representative independent claims are 1 and 9.
• Accused Features: Flameless candles sold under the "Wick to Flame" and "Push Flame" brands (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 6,616,308 - "Imitation Candle," Issued September 9, 2003

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from a different inventive family, describes an imitation candle made of a translucent material that diffuses light from an internal LED to create a "warm, natural looking glow." A key feature is a "pseudo-random" flicker circuit using multiple oscillators running at slightly different frequencies to vary the light output and simulate a realistic flicker (’308 Patent, Abstract; Claim 5).
• Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim (Compl. ¶69). Representative independent claims are 1, 5, and 8.
• Accused Features: Flameless candles sold under the "Moving Flame," "Wick to Flame," "Matrix," and "Push Flame" brands (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are flameless candles sold under at least the names "Moving Flame," "Wick-to-Flame," "Matrix" (including "Matrixflame"), and "Push Flame" (Compl. ¶32).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are LED-based flameless candles that embody the Plaintiff's patented technologies for simulating a flickering flame (Compl. ¶¶2, 31). The specific brand names are mapped to different patents, suggesting varied functionality: "Moving Flame" products are accused of infringing patents on an illuminated "protruding component," while "Matrix" products are accused of infringing patents on a multi-level light source arrangement (Compl. ¶¶48, 54). The complaint alleges that the products are manufactured in China by or for Defendant Liown, imported into the U.S., and sold through major national retailers and online stores under the Luminara, LIGHTLi, Liown, and Matchless Candle brands (Compl. ¶¶26, 27, 32, 33). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts and makes only general allegations that the accused products infringe, referencing exhibits that were not filed with the pleading. The following tables reconstruct the likely infringement theory for the lead patents based on representative claims and the complaint's allegations.

’443 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an electrically powered flame simulator comprising: at least two light sources;	The accused products are flameless candles which contain light sources to simulate a flame.	¶32, 36	col. 4:8-9
an integrated circuit electrically connected to the light sources for intermittently illuminating...such that the light sources together provide the effect of a flickering movement;	The accused products are alleged to provide a flicker effect that creates the ambiance of candlelight by embodying the patented invention.	¶30, 37, 39	col. 4:38-46
a microphone connected to the integrated circuit wherein the microphone inputs preselected audio sounds which are processed by the integrated circuit to switch the flame simulator...	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.	N/A	col. 4:51-64

’186 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An artificial pillar candle having an electrically powered flame simulator	The accused products are flameless pillar candles.	¶32, 42	col. 4:15-18
a substantially cylindrical body having...an upper portion having a rim on an upper surface that circumscribes a recess	The accused products are alleged to be flameless candles, which for pillar-style products typically include a recessed top to simulate melting.	¶32, 42	col. 1:31-34
a flame simulator having at least two light sources located substantially within the recess	The accused "Matrix" products are alleged to infringe the ’186 patent, which would require the light sources to be placed within the candle's top recess.	¶42, 45	col. 1:37-39

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’443 patent will be whether the accused products practice the specific "microphone...to switch" limitation of claim 1. The complaint does not allege any audio-control functionality, and product names like "Push Flame" may suggest a different switching mechanism.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’186 patent and its relatives, a factual dispute will center on the precise location and arrangement of the light sources within the accused products. Infringement will depend on evidence showing the sources are "substantially within the recess" (’186 patent) or arranged in the specific multi-level configuration of the ’832 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "flickering movement" (’443 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core visual effect of the invention. Its scope is critical, as it will determine whether the light patterns produced by the accused products fall within the patent's claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is central to the infringement analysis for the entire patent family.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the effect broadly as that which is "the same as or similar to a burning candle, fire log or the like," suggesting the term is not limited to a single method of simulation (’443 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of a "preferred embodiment" details a specific electronic method using random or semi-random illumination from an integrated circuit, and the figures provide specific circuit diagrams. A defendant may argue the term should be limited to such electronically-controlled, non-sequential illumination (’443 Patent, col. 4:8-14; FIG. 7).

• The Term: "located substantially within the recess" (’186 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This spatial limitation is key to the structural claims of the ’186 patent. Infringement by the "Matrix" products will hinge on whether their light sources meet this locational requirement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "substantially" suggests the light sources do not need to be entirely or perfectly within the recess, potentially covering embodiments where part of the source is outside the recess's boundary.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the light sources (26) as being fully contained within a chamber (28) located below the candle’s main upper surface (18), inside the recess. This could support an interpretation requiring the light-emitting components to be fully below the top rim of the candle body (’186 Patent, FIG. 1, 3).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations for each asserted patent that Defendants contribute to and induce infringement by others, but it does not plead specific facts (e.g., providing instructional materials to end-users) to support these claims (Compl. ¶¶37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on the allegation that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringed despite knowing there was a high probability their products were infringing (Compl. ¶¶38, 75, 76).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products, identified only by brand names, actually practice the specific technical features claimed in the six different patents? This is particularly salient for functional claims, such as the microphone control of the ’443 patent and the specific multi-level light source arrangement of the ’832 patent, which are not detailed in the complaint.
• A second key question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define foundational terms like "flickering movement" and precise locational phrases such as "substantially within the recess"? The case’s outcome may turn on whether these terms are interpreted broadly to cover a range of simulation effects and physical structures, or narrowly limited to the specific embodiments shown in the patents.
• Finally, the case presents a question of patent differentiation: Given the assertion of six patents from two different families with overlapping subject matter, a central challenge will be to clearly delineate the unique, patentable contribution of each asserted patent and map it to the specific features of the various accused products, a task made difficult by the complaint’s conclusory allegations.