Fountain Inc v. Afaith

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fountain, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Washington) and 58 named "Amazon Seller Defendants"
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Michael J. Sullivan
• Case Identification: 5:15-cv-05589, N.D. Cal., 12/07/2015
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants having committed acts of infringement in the district and doing business in California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous diving masks with integrated camera mounts, sold by third-party sellers on Amazon's website, infringe a patent for active headwear designed to detachably mount an imaging device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for hands-free underwater photography and videography by providing a system to securely attach action cameras to diving masks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Amazon with notice of infringement via an online form on July 28, 2015, and a follow-up letter on September 23, 2015, but received no response. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis of the willfulness allegations against Amazon.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 9,077,877 Priority Date
2015-07-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,077,877 Issue Date
2015-07-28	Plaintiff allegedly notified Amazon of infringement
2015-09-23	Plaintiff allegedly sent follow-up letter to Amazon
2015-12-07	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,077,877 - "Active Headwear for Detachably Mounting an Imaging Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,077,877, "Active Headwear for Detachably Mounting an Imaging Device," issued July 7, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that commercially available headwear, such as diving masks, typically lack any built-in features for attaching accessories like cameras, and prior attempts to do so have had "limited success" or involved "substantial design tradeoffs" (’877 Patent, col. 1:19-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a dedicated mounting system for securing an imaging device to headwear. One embodiment describes a two-part system: a headwear frame with specific mounting rims, and a separate "attachment base" that clamps onto those rims and includes tabs to mate with a camera mount (’877 Patent, col. 1:50-60). A second embodiment describes an "integrated" version where the attachment base features are molded directly into the headwear frame itself (’877 Patent, col. 1:61-66; Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide a reliable and purpose-built method for hands-free camera operation during activities like diving, addressing a specific need for users of popular action cameras (’877 Patent, col. 1:41-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶13). The patent contains three independent claims.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a mounting assembly comprising:
  • A headwear frame with a first mounting rim and a second mounting rim
  • An attachment base with at least two engagement tabs (to mate with a camera mount)
  • The attachment base includes a first clamp to mate with the first mounting rim and a second clamp to mate with the second mounting rim
• Independent Claim 3 recites a mounting assembly where the attachment base comprises:
  • A lateral beam
  • A first clamp at a first end and a second clamp at a second end of the beam
  • At least two engagement tabs and a retainer engagement tab disposed on the lateral beam between the clamps
• Independent Claim 6 recites a mounting assembly comprising:
  • An integrated headwear frame and attachment base
  • The attachment base includes at least two engagement tabs configured to mate with a camera mount
  • The attachment base includes a retainer engagement tab

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "one or more diving masks designed to be attached to a camera" (Compl. ¶11). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Devices" and are listed by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) alongside the names of the "Amazon Seller Defendants" alleged to be selling them (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Devices are sold on Amazon's website and are designed for use with a camera (Compl. ¶¶6, 8, 11). It further alleges that Amazon manages and controls the product listings on its website and uses "a variety of incentives and methods to encourage third parties to sell products on its Website" (Compl. ¶¶14, 16). The complaint posits that most of the Accused Devices are imported into the United States (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient technical detail to map specific features of any Accused Device to the elements of the asserted patent claims. The infringement allegations are pleaded in a conclusory manner, stating that each Accused Device "is described by one or more claims of the ‘877 patent" and "falls within the scope of one or more claims" (Compl. ¶¶13, 21, 27). The general theory of infringement is that the Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import diving masks with camera mounting features that practice the inventions claimed in the ’877 Patent. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence that the various Accused Devices, sold by dozens of different sellers, actually contain the specific structures recited in the patent's independent claims. For example, what evidence will show that the products possess a "clamp configured to mate with" a "mounting rim" as required by Claim 1, or are constructed as an "integrated headwear frame and attachment base" as required by Claim 6?
• Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the proper construction of the claim terms. For instance, can the term "mounting rim", as described and depicted in the patent (’877 Patent, Fig. 2, item 32), be interpreted to read on the generic edge of a standard goggle frame, or does it require a more specific, dedicated structure?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mounting rim"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claims 1 and 3. The infringement analysis for these claims will depend on whether the accused masks possess a structure that meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could distinguish the invention from a generic mask to which a third-party mount is simply affixed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A party might argue that any structural edge of the headwear frame intended for mounting could qualify as a "rim."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the "mounting rim" as a purpose-built feature with a specific structure, including a "through hole" (e.g., 32, 34) for receiving a fastener (’877 Patent, col. 2:62-64; Fig. 2). This suggests the term may be limited to such an engineered feature, not just any part of the frame.

• The Term: "integrated headwear frame and attachment base"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of independent claim 6. The determination of whether an accused product is a single, "integrated" unit or a multi-part assembly will be dispositive for infringement of this claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any single-piece, molded mask that includes camera mounting features meets the "integrated" limitation, regardless of the specific manufacturing process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent distinguishes between an embodiment with a separate "attachment base" (Figs. 3-4) and the "integrated" embodiment (Figs. 10-11) (’877 Patent, col. 4:12-16). This distinction suggests "integrated" requires the attachment features (e.g., tabs 110, 112) to be formed as a single, inseparable piece with the headwear frame (102), not merely attached in a semi-permanent way.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Amazon induces infringement by "aiding and abetting" the sellers, encouraging them to sell the Accused Devices, and providing the mechanism for sale (Compl. ¶¶16, 27-28).
• It alleges the Amazon Seller Defendants induce and contributorily infringe, but provides no specific factual basis beyond their acts of making, offering, and selling the devices (Compl. ¶22).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged against Amazon based on its alleged receipt of, and failure to act upon, Plaintiff's pre-suit notice letters dated July 28 and September 23, 2015 (Compl. ¶¶18, 29).
• Willfulness is alleged against the Amazon Seller Defendants based on the conclusory statement that they "presumptively knew or should have known" about Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶23).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of specific technical allegations, can the plaintiff develop and present evidence demonstrating that the multitude of accused products, sourced from numerous distinct sellers, actually practice the specific structural limitations of the patent's claims, such as the "clamp" and "mounting rim" elements?
• A key legal question will concern secondary liability: Can the plaintiff's allegations that Amazon operated its marketplace, provided incentives to sellers, and failed to act on pre-suit notice letters satisfy the legal standard for active inducement of infringement, or will Amazon’s role be considered too passive to establish liability?
• A central dispute will be one of claim scope: The viability of the infringement case will likely depend on whether key terms like "mounting rim" are construed narrowly to cover only the specific, purpose-built structures shown in the patent's embodiments, or broadly enough to read on more generic features of the accused diving masks.