DCT
3:16-cv-02133
Wiremold Co v. Thomas & Betts Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Wiremold Company (Connecticut)
- Defendant: Thomas & Betts Corporation (Tennessee)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McCarter & English, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:16-cv-02133, D. Conn., 07/17/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the District of Connecticut and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s poke-through in-floor electrical fittings infringe two patents related to recessed designs that maintain floor flushness and fire-safety integrity.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electrical and data fittings installed in concrete floors, which are designed to provide power access while remaining flush with the floor and preserving the floor's fire-resistance rating.
- Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is an Amended Complaint, filed approximately seven months after the original action commenced, suggesting a potential refinement of the initial claims or parties. No other procedural events are detailed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-23 | U.S. Patent No. 7,183,503 Priority Date |
| 2006-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 8,063,317 Priority Date |
| 2007-02-27 | U.S. Patent No. 7,183,503 Issue Date |
| 2011-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 8,063,317 Issue Date |
| 2017-07-17 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,183,503 - “Recessed In-Floor Fitting” (Issued Feb. 27, 2007)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with many contemporary in-floor electrical fittings, which have components that "upwardly protrude above the surface of the floor" when cables are connected, creating protrusions that "may be aesthetically unpleasant and may also pose tripping hazards" (ʼ503 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a recessed in-floor fitting with a cover assembly designed to remain "substantially flush with a surface of a floor" even when a cable is plugged in and the cover is closed (ʼ503 Patent, Abstract). This is accomplished through features like movable access doors with egress openings that allow a cable to pass through while the main cover remains closed and flush with the surrounding trim ring, as illustrated in the patent's figures (ʼ503 Patent, col. 4:8-20; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to improve the safety and aesthetics of commercial and office spaces by providing power and data access without creating persistent obstructions on the floor (ʼ503 Patent, col. 2:63-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An in-floor fitting with a cover movable between open and closed positions.
- An intumescent (fire-retardant) insert positioned below the cover.
- A receptacle positioned below the cover for connecting to a cable.
- A configuration wherein the cover is "substantially flush" with the floor surface when a cable is connected and the cover is closed.
- A configuration wherein the cover "allows the cable to extend from said receptacle and through said cover" when the cover is closed.
U.S. Patent No. 8,063,317 - “Recessed Poke-Through Fitting” (Issued Nov. 22, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a challenge with fire-rated poke-through fittings, particularly in modern concrete floors poured over convoluted "W" shape steel decks. In these floors, the concrete thickness can vary, and a tall fitting might "extend below the slab," which can "diminish the effectiveness of the intumescent material" because the material may expand downward instead of sealing the hole (ʼ317 Patent, col. 1:40-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a poke-through fitting that includes a "retention structure" designed to receive the intumescent body. This structure is configured to "retain the body within a hole in the floor and contain the expansion of the intumescent material" (ʼ317 Patent, Abstract). By containing and directing the heat-activated expansion, the fitting ensures an effective fire seal is formed within the floor opening, regardless of variations in slab thickness (ʼ317 Patent, col. 2:17-21, col. 6:6-15).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to ensure the fire-stop integrity of poke-through fittings in a wider range of modern floor constructions by actively managing the deployment of the intumescent material during a fire (ʼ317 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 38 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent claim 38 include:
- A poke-through fitting for installation in a hole in a concrete floor.
- An intumescent body at least partially disposed in the hole.
- A retention structure that receives at least a portion of the intumescent body.
- The retention structure is "configured to limit the expansion of said intumescent material."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses several of Defendant's product lines of infringement, including the RPT6, FPT3, FFPT3, FFPT4, and FFPT6 series of poke-throughs (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as "poke-throughs" used for in-floor electrical and data distribution (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12). The allegations of their functionality are presented as conclusory statements that map directly to the language of the asserted claims. For example, the complaint alleges the products include a cover that is "substantially flush with a surface of a floor" when in use and a "retention structure... configured to limit the expansion of the intumescent material" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). The complaint does not provide independent technical descriptions of how the accused products operate or any details regarding their market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'503 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an in-floor fitting for providing access to an underfloor electric distribution system | The accused products constitute in-floor fittings that provide access to an underfloor electric distribution system. | ¶11 | col. 5:62-63 |
| a cover configured to move between open and closed positions... | Each product includes a cover configured to move between open and closed positions. | ¶11(i) | col. 5:64-65 |
| an intumescent insert positioned below said cover | Each product includes an intumescent insert positioned below the cover. | ¶11(ii) | col. 6:1-2 |
| a receptacle positioned below said cover and configured to operatively connect to a cable... | Each product includes a receptacle positioned below the cover for connecting to an electrical and/or communication cable. | ¶11(iii) | col. 6:2-5 |
| wherein said cover is substantially flush with a surface of a floor when the cable is operatively connected...and the cover is in the closed position | The cover is substantially flush with a floor surface when a cable is connected and the cover is closed. | ¶11(iv) | col. 6:5-9 |
| and said cover allows the cable to extend from said receptacle and through said cover when said cover is in the closed position | The cover allows a cable to extend through the cover when it is in the closed position. | ¶11(v) | col. 6:9-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "substantially flush" is a term of degree. A central dispute may be whether the accused products, when in use with a cable, are sufficiently flush to meet this limitation as it would be understood by a person skilled in the art, especially in light of the patent's goal of mitigating "tripping hazards."
'317 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 38) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A poke-through fitting for installation in a hole that extends between upper and lower surfaces of a concrete floor... | The accused products are poke-through fittings for installation in a hole in a concrete floor. | ¶13 | col. 19:43-46 |
| an intumescent body disposed at least partially in the hole in the floor when the fitting is installed in the hole | The products comprise an intumescent body disposed at least partially in the hole in the floor. | ¶13(i) | col. 20:51-53 |
| a retention structure receiving at least a portion of said intumescent body within said retention structure | The products comprise a retention structure that receives a portion of the intumescent body. | ¶13(ii) | col. 20:54-56 |
| said retention structure being configured to limit the expansion of said intumescent material | The retention structure is configured to limit the expansion of the intumescent material. | ¶13(ii) | col. 20:57-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The key functional limitation is that the retention structure must be "configured to limit the expansion" of the intumescent material. The complaint does not explain how the accused structure achieves this. A dispute may arise over whether the accused structure performs this specific function as described in the patent (i.e., actively containing and directing expansion) or whether it merely houses the material in a way that does not meet the claimed functional requirement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from '503 Patent: "substantially flush"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the core advantage of the '503 invention over prior art that allegedly posed "tripping hazards." The entire infringement case for the '503 patent may depend on the construction of this term of degree.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the qualifier "substantially," which implies that perfect, mathematical flushness is not required (ʼ503 Patent, col. 6:6). This suggests some minor protrusion may be within the scope of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background explicitly criticizes prior art for "upwardly protrud[ing]" components that "pose tripping hazards" (ʼ503 Patent, col. 2:56-65). This purpose-driven language may support a narrower construction that requires a profile low enough to not present a material risk of tripping. The patent's figures also depict a visually flat and non-protruding surface when the fitting is closed (ʼ503 Patent, Fig. 3, 4).
Term from '317 Patent: "limit the expansion"
- Context and Importance: This functional language captures the essence of the '317 invention's solution to ineffective fire-stopping in certain floor types. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused product's "retention structure" performs this specific action.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is broad. A party could argue that any structure housing the intumescent material inherently "limits" its expansion to the confines of that housing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the structure's purpose as containing and directing the expansion to solve a specific problem ('317 Patent, col. 2:17-21, "contain the expansion"; col. 6:6-9, "directs expanding intumescent material...upward and inward"). This may support a construction requiring a structure that does more than passively hold the material, but actively channels its expansion to form an effective seal.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement of both the '503 and '317 patents "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 20). The allegations are made "on information and belief" and do not plead specific facts, such as pre-suit notification or knowledge of the patents, to support the claim of willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "substantially flush" from the '503 patent? The outcome will likely depend on whether the focus is on the literal meaning of "substantially" or on the patent's stated purpose of eliminating tripping hazards, a determination that may require extrinsic evidence.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused "retention structure" in Defendant's products perform the specific function of "limit[ing] the expansion" of intumescent material as claimed in the '317 patent? The resolution will turn on technical evidence comparing the operation of the accused devices to the function described in the patent's specification.
- A third question relates to willfulness: As the complaint provides only conclusory allegations of willfulness, a significant issue for discovery will be whether Plaintiff can uncover evidence of Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and its alleged infringement to substantiate its claim for enhanced damages.