DCT
3:18-cv-06769
Therma Hexx Corp v. Ahhm LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Therma-HEXX Corp. (New Hampshire)
- Defendant: Ahhm, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buchman Provine Brothers Smith LLP; Workman Nydegger
- Case Identification: 3:18-cv-06769, N.D. Cal., 11/08/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of California on the basis that Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business located within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radiant heating and cooling panel systems infringe a patent related to modular thermal transfer devices.
- Technical Context: The technology involves modular panels used for radiant heating and cooling, which serve as an alternative to conventional embedded-tube or forced-air HVAC systems in architectural applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on the same day the lawsuit was filed, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant identifying the patent-in-suit and alleging infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-05-26 | '756 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-06-20 | '756 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-11-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,683,756 - "Modular, Fluid Thermal Transfer Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,683,756, "Modular, Fluid Thermal Transfer Device," issued June 20, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional radiant heating systems, such as tubing embedded in concrete, as being monolithic, difficult to repair, and prone to issues like connector leaks and inefficient linear fluid flow (’756 Patent, col. 1:36-col. 2:54). These systems are also described as generally incompatible with pre-formed paver or slab units, particularly those elevated on pedestals (’756 Patent, col. 2:44-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular thermal panel designed to overcome these limitations. It consists of a heat exchanger, typically formed from two connected plates (e.g., roll-bonded aluminum), that contains internal channels for a heat exchange fluid (’756 Patent, Abstract). Key design features include positioning the fluid inlet and outlet near the center of the panel to promote even heat distribution and using external tubes to connect panels, which provides flexibility for creating larger arrays (’756 Patent, col. 3:15-30; Fig. 3A).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a modular, repairable, and potentially more efficient alternative to traditional embedded-tube radiant systems, making radiant technology more suitable for applications like pedestal-mounted paver patios (’756 Patent, col. 2:44-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (’756 Patent, col. 14:12-47; Compl. ¶7).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A heat exchanger with two separate panels connected together, with channels formed therein.
- A plurality of channels for fluid to pass through, with the shape of the channels being formed to increase fluid flow rate and lessen pressure drop.
- An inlet and an outlet for the channels, positioned near the center of a surface of the heat exchanger.
- The inlet and outlet attach to the panel without extending inside the plurality of channels.
- A tube connected to the inlet or outlet that extends along the surface of the heat exchanger toward an outside edge.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Ahhm KLIMABOND Radiant Heating and Cooling System," which utilizes "Ahhm Panels," also referred to as "Radiant Panels" or "KLIMABOND panels" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a radiant panel system for heating and cooling buildings (Compl., Ex. C, p. 36). The panels are described as being constructed using "Roll-Bond technology" where two layers of aluminum sheeting are overlaid to form internal channels for a heat exchange fluid (Compl., Ex. C, p. 56). Marketing materials present the system as a high-efficiency alternative to forced-air HVAC, suitable for installation behind ceilings, walls, or floors (Compl., Ex. C, p. 62). The complaint alleges that the accused product is sold in direct competition with Plaintiff's ThermaPANELs (Compl. ¶19). An exploded-view diagram in the complaint shows the two-layer construction of the accused panel (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Product infringes at least claim 1 of the ’756 Patent (Compl. ¶12). A diagram provided in the complaint illustrates the channel layout of the accused panel, showing a central inlet and outlet (Compl. p. 5). Another diagram from the product's technical data sheet provides a more detailed view of this configuration (Compl., Ex. C, p. 57).
’756 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a heat exchanger having two separate panels including a first panel connected to a second panel, the top surface of the first panel being configured to abut the architectural tile...the first and second panels each having corresponding channels formed therein; | The accused product is alleged to be a heat exchanger with two separate panels, with the top surface configured to abut an architectural tile like gypsum board, and with corresponding channels in each panel (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 8:57-61 |
| a plurality of channels defined by the shape of the channels...the shape of the channels being formed to increase a fluid flow rate through the heat exchanger and to lessen a pressure drop across inlets and outlets; | The complaint alleges the accused product has channels whose shape is formed to increase fluid flow rate and lessen pressure drop (Compl. ¶15). | ¶15 | col. 14:27-30 |
| an inlet of the plurality of channels of the heat exchanger; and an outlet of the plurality of channels; | The accused product is alleged to include an inlet and an outlet for the heat exchanger channels (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:45-46 |
| wherein: the inlet and the outlet are positioned near the center of a surface of the heat exchanger to provide even heat distribution and to provide increased flexibility in connecting multiple heat exchangers together; | The complaint alleges the inlet and outlet of the accused product are positioned near the center of the panel's surface to provide even heat distribution and flexibility (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:49-56 |
| the inlet and outlet attach to the modular thermal panel without extending inside the plurality of channels; and | The accused product's inlet and outlet are alleged to attach to the panel without extending inside the main channel network (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 3:24-26 |
| a tube is connected to the inlet or the outlet on one side, and extends along the surface of the heat exchanger toward an outside edge thereof, the tube further extending within a plane that is parallel to the surface of the heat exchanger. | The complaint alleges a tube connects to the inlet/outlet and extends along the panel surface toward an edge, parallel to the panel's surface (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 3:24-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "a tube" connected to the inlet/outlet that "extends along the surface...toward an outside edge." The nature and extent of this "tube" and its "extension" may become a point of contention. The court may need to determine if this requires a separately attached component or if an integrally formed port satisfies the limitation, and what constitutes a sufficient extension "toward an outside edge."
- Technical Questions: The claim includes the functional limitation that the channels' shape is "formed to increase a fluid flow rate...and to lessen a pressure drop." The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product's channel geometry, a product of its "Roll-Bond" manufacturing, actually performs these claimed functions. Proving this will likely require evidence beyond simple observation, such as expert testimony and technical analysis comparing the accused design to a baseline.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "near the center of a surface"
- Context and Importance: This term dictates the required location of the fluid inlet and outlet on the panel. Its construction is critical because if the accused product's ports are found not to be "near the center," this element of Claim 1 would not be met. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence suggests the accused product has centrally located ports, making the precise meaning of "near" a potential battleground.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not provide a precise mathematical or geometric definition for "near the center," which may support an interpretation that the term encompasses a general central region of the panel, not necessarily the exact geometric center.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in Figure 3A depicts the inlet (32) and outlet (34) located at what appears to be the geometric center of the panel. The specification links this location to the function of helping "ensure even distribution of heat" (’756 Patent, col. 8:50-53), which could be used to argue for a narrower, function-driven definition.
The Term: "the shape of the channels being formed to increase a fluid flow rate... and to lessen a pressure drop"
- Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation describing the purpose and effect of the channel geometry. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product was designed for this purpose and achieves this result.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes complex channel patterns, such as "fractal channels" and "sub-channels," designed to manage fluid flow efficiently (’756 Patent, col. 8:60-col. 9:4). A party could argue that any non-linear, branching channel design that can be shown to improve flow characteristics over a simple tube would meet this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that this limitation requires the shape to be specifically optimized for these hydraulic purposes, rather than merely having some incidental effect on flow or pressure. A defendant might contend its channel shape is dictated by the constraints of its "Roll-Bond" manufacturing process, not for the claimed functional purpose.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. While the prayer for relief requests an injunction against indirect infringement (Compl. p. 7), the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus exclusively on direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful based on its continued infringing activities despite having knowledge of the ’756 Patent (Compl. ¶26). This knowledge is alleged to stem from a notice letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on November 8, 2018—the same day the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional performance: Does the accused "KLIMABOND" panel's channel geometry, which results from its "Roll-Bond" manufacturing process, actually perform the claimed functions of increasing fluid flow rate and lessening pressure drop as required by Claim 1, or is this a functional attribute of the patented invention not present in the accused device?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: While diagrams of the accused product appear visually similar to patent figures, the case may turn on whether the physical construction of the accused panel—particularly the configuration of the inlet/outlet and the connected "tube"—maps precisely onto every limitation of Claim 1 as construed by the court.
- A final question will concern claim scope: How will the court construe the term "near the center"? A broad interpretation covering any generally non-peripheral location would favor the patentee, while a narrower construction tied to the specific embodiment in the patent's figures could create a path for the defendant to argue non-infringement.