DCT

8:24-cv-01035

Distributing Co LLC v. Gurunanda LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:24-cv-01035, C.D. Cal., 05/13/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant's headquarters and principal place of business are located in the district, and it engages in substantial sales and other business transactions there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of lighted aromatherapy diffusers infringes patents related to methods and systems for illuminating household products with processor-controlled, color-changing light.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of dynamic, multi-color LED lighting into common household consumer goods, a field that blends aesthetic design with consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-09-27 Earliest Priority Date for ’300 and ’436 Patents
2007-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,303,300 Issues
2010-01-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,652,436 Issues
2024-05-13 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,303,300: Methods and Systems for Illuminating Household Products (Issued Dec. 4, 2007)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that prior illuminated consumer products were typically limited to fixed illumination or a single color, lacking the ability to produce a wide range of dynamically changing colored light. (’300 Patent, col. 1:37-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes embedding a processor-controlled lighting system, preferably using high-brightness LEDs, into various household products. This system can generate a plurality of colors and color-changing effects, for example, to illuminate a fluid within a transparent container or a spray emanating from it. (’300 Patent, col. 1:54-68; Fig. 2). The goal is to create improved aesthetic or informational displays on otherwise conventional items. (’300 Patent, col. 7:9-12).
  • Technical Importance: The patent describes combining low-cost, versatile LED technology with microprocessor control to add novel visual features and functionality to a broad category of mass-market consumer goods. (’300 Patent, col. 1:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 17. (Compl. ¶15).
  • The essential elements of claim 17, a system claim, include:
    • A system for providing illumination for a household fluid product not intended for human consumption and/or a container that contains the household fluid product.
    • The system comprises at least one light system.
    • The light system comprises at least one light source controllable by a processor for generating a variable color radiation.
    • The light system is disposed proximate to the container.
    • The light system is configured to generate a selected color of the variable color radiation in response to a signal from the processor to illuminate the container and/or fluid.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶22).

U.S. Patent No. 7,652,436: Methods and Systems for Illuminating Household Products (Issued Jan. 26, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Building on the '300 patent, this invention addresses the opportunity to create a more immersive sensory experience by coordinating automated lighting with other product functions, specifically scent generation. (’436 Patent, col. 7:54-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an apparatus that combines a scent-producing facility (e.g., a plug-in air freshener) with a processor-controlled, color-changing light source. The system is designed to allow for the simultaneous or coordinated production of light and scent, where the light's characteristics (color, pattern) can be correlated with the scent being emitted. (’436 Patent, col. 9:26-39; Fig. 19).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to create products with coordinated multi-sensory outputs (sight and smell), enhancing the user experience for items like air fresheners or aromatherapy devices. (’436 Patent, col. 9:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6. (Compl. ¶31).
  • The essential elements of claim 6, an apparatus claim, include:
    • A scent-producing facility that includes a scent-producing product.
    • At least one light system comprising at least one light source controllable by a processor for generating radiation of one or more colors and/or brightness levels.
    • The light system is disposed proximate to the scent-producing facility.
    • The light system is configured to generate at least one selected color of the radiation in response to a signal from the processor.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are the "Modern Diffuser," "Saltair Lamp & Essential Oil Diffuser," and "The Woodsy Diffuser," sold under the GuruNanda brand (collectively, "Diffusers"). (Compl. ¶13, ¶29).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges the Diffusers are ultrasonic diffusers that function by creating a mist from water and essential oils added by the user to a water tank. (Compl. ¶16, ¶17).
    • The Diffusers are alleged to include a light system that is "controlled by a processor for generating variable color radiation." (Compl. ¶20, ¶36). Visual evidence provided in the complaint describes a "LIGHT BUTTON" that allows users to turn on "revolving colors" or cycle through specific colors. (Compl. ¶20, ¶36; p. 5, 9). This visual, sourced from product materials, depicts a button that controls "MULTI COLOR CHANGE." (Compl. p. 5, 9).
    • The complaint alleges the Diffusers are marketed for aromatherapy and sold on the Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’300 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system for providing illumination for a household fluid product not intended for human consumption and/or a container that contains the household fluid product... The Diffusers are alleged to be systems that illuminate a mixture of water and essential oil, which the user adds to a container or "water tank." A provided image shows instructions to add essential oil to the water tank. (Compl. p. 4). ¶13, ¶17, ¶19 col. 11:34-49
...at least one light system, comprising at least one light source controllable by a processor for generating a variable color radiation... The Diffusers are alleged to "each include a light system" that is "controlled by a processor for generating variable color radiation," as evidenced by product features for "revolving colors" and "MULTI COLOR CHANGE." ¶20 col. 5:16-24
...the light system disposed proximate to the container... The light system is alleged to be disposed "proximate the container." An accompanying image shows the Diffuser's base, which contains the lighting element, illuminating the upper container holding the fluid. (Compl. p. 5). ¶20 col. 5:35-43
...and configured to generate a selected color of the variable color radiation in response to a signal from the processor to illuminate the container and/or the household fluid product with the selected color of the variable color radiation. The complaint alleges the light system is controlled by a processor to generate variable color radiation, as shown by images of the product operating and by instructions for cycling through colors via button presses. ¶20 col. 6:5-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the mixture of water and essential oils for aromatherapy qualifies as a "household fluid product not intended for human consumption" as contemplated by the patent. The patent provides a broad list of exemplary fluids, including "room scent." (’300 Patent, col. 11:46).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges control by a "processor" but provides no specific details on the circuitry. A technical question will be whether the accused devices contain a "processor" capable of the claimed functions or a simpler, non-programmable circuit that may not meet the claim's requirements.

’436 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a scent-producing facility that includes a scent-producing product; and The Diffusers are alleged to be a "scent-producing facility" that instruct a user to add a "scent producing product such as essential oil." Another image shows the product packaging which references "ESSENTIAL OIL DIFFUSER." (Compl. p. 7). ¶33, ¶35 col. 9:18-24
at least one light system comprising at least one light source controllable by a processor for generating radiation of one or more colors and/or one or more brightness levels... The Diffusers are alleged to have a light system controlled by a processor that generates "variable color radiation." Visuals show controls for "revolving colors" and cycling through "specific color[s] by per press." ¶36 col. 9:11-17
...the at least one light system disposed proximate to the scent-producing facility... The light system is alleged to be "disposed proximate the scent-producing facility." Images show the light source in the base of the unit, which also contains the mechanism for diffusing the scented mist. ¶36 col. 9:11-14
...and configured to generate at least one selected color of the radiation in response to the signal from the processor. The light system is alleged to generate selected colors based on processor control, as evidenced by user-selectable color modes described in the product instructions. ¶36, ¶37 col. 9:21-25
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The construction of "scent-producing facility that includes a scent-producing product" will be critical. A question arises as to whether a device (the diffuser) that requires a user to add a consumable product (the oil) to function meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more integrated, self-contained unit.
    • Technical Questions: As with the ’300 patent, the nature and capability of the "processor" in the accused Diffusers will be a key factual question for discovery. The complaint does not allege that the scent and light are coordinated, which is a key feature described in the ’436 patent's specification, though not explicitly required by the language of independent claim 6.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’300 Patent:

  • The Term: "household fluid product not intended for human consumption"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the entire field of use for the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether the accused aromatherapy diffusers, which use a mixture of water and essential oils, fall within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive and non-limiting list of examples, including "room deodorizer, carpet deodorizer, room scent, perfume, cologne," which suggests the term is meant to be interpreted broadly to cover products used for ambient scenting. (’300 Patent, col. 11:45-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the overwhelming majority of the examples listed are cleaning, chemical, or utility products (e.g., "ammonia, bleach, window cleaner, insect repellant, paint, primer, drain cleaner"). (’300 Patent, col. 11:40-49). This could support an argument that the term’s scope is limited to such utilitarian products, potentially excluding wellness or aromatherapy devices.

For the ’436 Patent:

  • The Term: "scent-producing facility that includes a scent-producing product"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of claim 6. The infringement analysis depends on whether an ultrasonic diffuser, which is inert without the separate addition of essential oil, constitutes a "facility that includes" the product. Practitioners may focus on this term because it raises a structural question about what the claimed "apparatus" must contain.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in broad terms, such as a "scent producing apparatus" and an "air freshener," without necessarily limiting it to pre-filled, disposable units. (’436 Patent, col. 9:11, col. 9:18-20). This could support viewing the entire diffuser system, when operated as intended with oil, as the claimed facility.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed embodiment describes a "scent cartridge 1902" that is inserted into the apparatus, suggesting a system where the "scent-producing product" is contained within a discrete, included component. (’436 Patent, Fig. 19; col. 9:19-25). This could support an argument that the accused diffusers, which do not "include" the oil at the point of sale, do not meet the limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s instructions packaged with each Diffuser direct users to perform the infringing acts (e.g., adding essential oil to the tank and operating the device). (Compl. ¶25, ¶41). It also alleges contributory infringement by supplying the Diffusers, which are alleged to be a material part of the invention and intended for use with essential oils to practice the patents. (Compl. ¶25, ¶41).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of its competitor, Homedics, and of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶23, ¶39). It further alleges that Defendant continued to infringe even after becoming aware of the patents, rendering the infringement "willful, wanton, and deliberate." (Compl. ¶24, ¶40).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "household fluid product" from the ’300 patent, which is exemplified by a mix of cleaning agents and fragrances, be construed to cover water and essential oil mixtures used for aromatherapy? Similarly, does a diffuser that requires a user to add oil constitute a "scent-producing facility that includes a scent-producing product" under the ’436 patent?
  • A second central question will be evidentiary and technical: What is the specific nature of the "processor" within the accused GuruNanda diffusers? Discovery will be needed to determine if the device's circuitry rises to the level of a "processor" as understood in the art and as required by the claims, or if it is a simpler, non-programmable controller that may fall outside the claim scope.
  • Finally, a key question for willfulness and enhanced damages will be one of knowledge and intent: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The case may turn on what specific evidence, if any, Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendant was actually aware of the ’300 and ’436 patents before the lawsuit was filed.