DCT
8:23-cv-01544
Solar Sun Rings Inc v. P & P Imports LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Solar Sun Rings, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: P&P Imports, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Orbit IP, LLP
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-01544, C.D. Cal., 08/18/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a California company that resides in the Central District of California, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has conducted business activities there, including the alleged acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "GoFloats" brand of inflatable solar pool heaters infringes a patent related to the structural design of soft, flexible, floating solar heaters.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns passive solar heating devices designed to float on the surface of swimming pools to absorb sunlight, transfer heat to the water, and provide insulation.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of prior applications dating back to 2004, which relate to an earlier generation of floating solar pool heaters. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-06-24 | '167 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-01-01 | '167 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,342,167, "FLOATING SOLAR HEATER WITH STABILIZING BAND", issued January 1, 2013. (Compl. ¶8).
U.S. Patent No. 8,342,167 - "FLOATING SOLAR HEATER WITH STABILIZING BAND"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes an issue with prior art floating solar heaters composed of an inflatable central portion and an inflatable outer ring. Inflation of the central portion could cause it to radially shrink, which in turn would exert an inward stress on the outer ring, causing the ring to buckle upwards. (’167 Patent, col. 1:35-48). This buckling action lifts parts of the heater off the water, impairing heat transfer and making the device more susceptible to being blown away by wind. (’167 Patent, col. 1:48-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve the buckling problem by incorporating a "vertical band" into the structure of the inflatable outer ring. This band is designed to reinforce the ring against the inward contraction forces from the inflated central portion. (’167 Patent, col. 2:1-4, Abstract). By resisting these forces, the vertical band helps ensure the entire solar heater remains flat and in contact with the water, thereby improving its stability and heating efficiency. (’167 Patent, col. 5:14-16).
- Technical Importance: This structural modification represented an attempt to enhance the operational reliability and performance of inflatable solar heaters by directly addressing a known failure mode (buckling) in previous designs. (’167 Patent, col. 1:52-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8. (Compl. ¶16).
- For independent claim 1, the essential elements include:
- A soft, flexible, floating solar heater.
- An inner portion with an upper and lower film, forming an inflatable central portion.
- An inflatable outer ring enclosing a chamber.
- The outer ring includes a "radially inward side" comprising a "vertical band of film" connected to the inner peripheral bond.
- The outer ring also includes a "radially outward side of film" enclosing the chamber.
- For independent claim 8, the essential elements include:
- A soft, flexible, floating solar heater with a lower film and an upper film.
- The upper film is bonded to the lower film at inner and outer peripheral bonds, forming an inflatable central portion.
- The upper film is "cut at or outwardly adjacent said inner peripheral bond" to create an inner and outer cut edge.
- A "band of film" is positioned in the "cut in said upper film" and bonded to the inner and outer cut edges to form an inflatable outer ring.
- A "valve means" for controlling inflation and deflation.
- The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13. (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "GoFloats Inflatable Solar Pool Heaters" sold under Defendant’s GoFloats® brand. (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are inflatable rings designed to float on a pool surface to heat the water. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges they are constructed with a transparent upper film and an opaque blue lower film, featuring a central inflatable portion and an outer inflatable ring, each with its own inflation valve. (Compl. ¶16, p.4). The complaint includes an annotated photograph of the accused product, mapping its components to letters such as "A" for the inner portion and "G" for the vertical band. (Compl. ¶16, p. 4). The products are alleged to be sold directly from Defendant's website and through third-party retailers like Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’167 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an inner portion comprising: an upper film disposed on top of said lower film and bonded thereto at an inner peripheral bond to form an inner portion...said inner portion including an inflatable central portion... | The component labelled A, which has a transparent upper film, a blue opaque lower film, an inner peripheral bond (B), and is inflatable via a valve (C). | ¶16, p.4 | col. 5:61-65 |
| an inflatable outer ring enclosing a chamber including: | The component labelled D, which is inflatable via a valve (E). | ¶16, p.4 | col. 6:58-65 |
| a radially inward side comprising: a vertical band of film having a length equal to the length of said inner peripheral bond and having a lower edge connected to said inner peripheral bond; and an upper edge; and | The opaque blue material labelled "G," which is alleged to be a vertical band of film with a length equal to the inner peripheral bond (B) and a lower edge (H) connected to it. | ¶16, p.5 | col. 6:60-63 |
| a radially outward side of film enclosing said chamber between said upper edge of said vertical band and said lower edge of said band. | The film labelled "K," which is alleged to enclose the chamber between the upper edge (I) and lower edge (H) of the vertical band. | ¶16, p.5 | col. 6:64-65 |
’167 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 8)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an upper film being cut at or outwardly adjacent said inner peripheral bond so as to have an inner cut edge and an outer cut edge | The upper film is alleged to be cut at or adjacent to the inner peripheral bond, creating an inner and outer cut edge. | ¶16, p.8 | col. 7:42-46 |
| a band of film ... positioned in the cut in said upper film wherein said lower edge is bonded to said inner cut edge or to said inner peripheral bond and said upper edge is bonded to said outer cut edge to form an inflatable outer ring... | The band of film labelled "G" is alleged to be positioned in the cut, with its lower edge bonded to the inner peripheral bond (B) and its upper edge bonded to the outer cut edge, forming the inflatable outer ring (D). | ¶16, p.8 | col. 7:47-58 |
| valve means for selectively controlling ingress and egress of gas with said inflatable central portion and said inflatable outer ring... | The valves labelled C and E are alleged to be the valve means for inflation. | ¶16, p.8 | col. 7:59-8:5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the structure identified as "G" in the accused product's annotated photograph constitutes a "vertical band of film" as recited in Claim 1. The complaint's visual evidence suggests a structural component, but its precise orientation and construction relative to the term "vertical" will likely be a point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: For Claim 8, the allegation that the "upper film being cut" will require factual evidence of the accused product's manufacturing process. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product is made by physically cutting a sheet of film and inserting a separate band, as the claim language suggests, or whether it is assembled from different, pre-formed components in a manner that does not involve a "cut" as described in the patent. The complaint provides a close-up image of the accused product's central portion, highlighting features alleged to be "spot welds J" that connect the upper and lower films, relevant to dependent claims. (Compl. ¶16, p. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vertical band of film" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core stabilizing feature of the invention. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will depend entirely on whether the accused product's structure (labelled "G") falls within the proper construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether functional or strictly structural—will determine the claim's breadth.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the band "resists the inward pull due to the inflation of inner portion 50 and prevents buckling of ring 20N" and "provides a vertical webbing to prevent buckling." (’167 Patent, col. 5:14-17). A party may argue that any film structure oriented to perform this anti-buckling function meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in Figure 8 and described in the specification depicts a discrete "band 100" with a specific "width 101" inserted into a "cut in upper film 14R." (’167 Patent, col. 5:4-13). A party may argue the term is limited to this specific arrangement of a separate piece of film forming a vertical wall.
The Term: "upper film being cut" (Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: This term describes a specific manufacturing step that distinguishes the structure in Claim 8. Infringement of this claim hinges on whether the accused product is made using a process that can be described as "cutting" the upper film.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "cut" should be interpreted broadly to mean any configuration where there is a separation in the upper film material where the stabilizing band is located, regardless of the specific manufacturing technique.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process of making the invention by starting with a different configuration and modifying it: "...upper film 14R of outer ring 20 is cut at or outwardly adjacent inner peripheral bond 82." (’167 Patent, col. 5:1-3). This may support an argument that "cut" refers to the specific act of incising a continuous piece of film, as opposed to assembling an outer ring from multiple, separate pieces of film that were never joined.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement by "encouraging and facilitating others to directly infringe" and contributory infringement by selling a component "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement." (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support these allegations beyond the sale of the accused product itself.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "knew of SSR's patent portfolio including the '167 Patent" and that its infringement "was/is willful." (Compl. ¶20). No specific factual basis for pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notification letter, is provided in the complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural identity: does the accused product's stabilizing component (labeled "G" in the complaint's photographs) possess the specific structural attributes of the "vertical band of film" required by Claim 1? This will depend on factual evidence regarding the product’s precise geometry and construction.
- The case may also hinge on a question of manufacturing process: does the assembly of the accused product meet the "upper film being cut" limitation of Claim 8? The resolution will likely depend on whether that claim term is construed to require a specific act of cutting a larger film sheet, or if it can read on an assembly of separate, pre-formed components.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: what evidence, if any, can Plaintiff produce to support its allegations that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '167 Patent to substantiate its claim for willful infringement?