DCT
3:17-cv-01648
Thomas & Betts Intl LLC v. Wiremold Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Thomas & Betts International LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Wiremold Company (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barnes & Thornburg LLP; Murtha Cullina LLP
- Case Identification: 3:17-cv-01648, D. Conn., 09/29/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Connecticut because Defendant is incorporated in and resides in the State of Connecticut.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Evolution Series Poke-Thru Devices, which provide electrical and data connections through floors, infringe a patent related to concealed and recessed poke-through device assemblies.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns devices that enable routing of power and data wiring through holes drilled in the concrete floors of commercial buildings, a common method for providing utility access away from walls.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least July 6, 2005, when the patent was cited by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office during the prosecution of a patent application owned by Defendant. This allegation may be used to support the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-17 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,417,446 |
| 2002-07-09 | U.S. Patent No. 6,417,446 Issues |
| 2005-07-06 | ’446 Patent allegedly cited to Defendant during patent prosecution |
| 2017-09-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,417,446 - "Concealed Service Poke-Through Device," Issued July 9, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Prior art "poke-through" devices for running electrical wiring through floors often had outlets or connectors that were flush with or protruded above the floor level (’446 Patent, col. 2:6-9). This created tripping hazards, made the connections susceptible to damage from foot traffic or furniture, and limited the number of interfaces that could be provided within the structural constraints of the floor opening (’446 Patent, col. 1:49-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "concealed" or "recessed" poke-through device where the electrical interfaces (e.g., power outlets, data jacks) are mounted a distance below the floor surface (’446 Patent, col. 2:40-44). A cover assembly with access doors sits flush with the floor, protecting the recessed connections from foot traffic and applied forces, while still allowing user access when needed (’446 Patent, col. 2:55-65). The design also proposes specific arrangements, such as a quadrant-based layout, to increase the density of available connections (’446 Patent, col. 2:31-38).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for installing in-floor power and data connections that was safer and more durable than previous designs by physically isolating the connection points from the active floor surface.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 15, 33, and 35 (Compl. ¶97).
- Independent Claim 1: A "concealed poke-through device" comprising:
- a body having upper and lower ends and sized for insertion within a hole in a floor structure
- the upper end including a generally circular receptacle-mounting region
- the mounting region defining four substantially equal-sized locating quadrants
- at least one of the quadrants including two electrical outlets
- the lower end communicating with a junction box to supply electrical power
- Independent Claim 15: A "recessed poke-through device" comprising:
- a tubular body sized for insertion within a hole
- an intumescent sleeve surrounding the body
- an electrical interface mounted in an interface mounting region, with its upper surface spaced a distance below the floor
- a cover assembly with a floor plate and at least one movable access door
- the door having an inner surface defining a plane parallel to the interface's upper surface when closed
- the interface being recessed a distance below the plane of the door, whereby forces applied to the closed door are not transferred to the interface
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶97).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant’s "Evolution Series Poke-Thru Devices" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint also names associated "Accused Components," including cover assemblies and mounting plates (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "concealed" and "recessed poke-through devices" designed for installation in a hole in a floor structure to provide access to power and/or data connections (Compl. ¶29, ¶30, ¶48). The allegations describe these devices as including a body, an electrical interface, and a cover assembly, which function together to provide electrical connections that are situated below the primary floor surface (Compl. ¶33, ¶58, ¶63).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’446 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a concealed poke-through device for installation in a hole in a floor structure... | The Accused Products are concealed poke-through devices for installation in a hole in a floor structure. | ¶46 | col. 9:14-26 |
| a body having upper and lower ends and sized for insertion within said hole... | The Accused Products include a body having upper and lower ends and sized for insertion within a hole. | ¶36 | col. 9:21-22 |
| said upper end including a generally circular receptacle-mounting region... | The Accused Products include a body having an upper end including a generally circular receptacle-mounting region. | ¶37 | col. 9:22-23 |
| said mounting region defining four substantially equal-sized locating quadrants... | The mounting region of the Accused Products defines four substantially equal-sized locating quadrants. | ¶38 | col. 9:23-25 |
| at least one of said quadrants including two electrical outlets... | At least one of the quadrants of the Accused Products includes two electrical outlets. | ¶39 | col. 9:25-26 |
| and wherein said lower end communicates with said junction box whereby electrical power may be supplied to said outlets. | The lower end of the body communicates with a junction box whereby electrical power may be supplied to the outlets of the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 9:26-28 |
’446 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 15)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A recessed poke-through device for installation in a hole in a floor structure... | The Accused Products are recessed poke-through devices for installation in a hole in a floor structure. | ¶76 | col. 10:29-37 |
| a tubular body having upper and lower ends and sized for insertion within said hole... | The Accused Products include a tubular body having upper and lower ends and sized for insertion within a hole. | ¶52 | col. 10:38-41 |
| an intumescent sleeve surrounding said body; | The Accused Products include an intumescent sleeve surrounding a tubular body. | ¶57 | col. 10:44-45 |
| an electrical interface mounted in said interface mounting region, said interface having an upper surface facing said floor, said upper surface being spaced a distance below said floor; | The Accused Products include an electrical interface mounted in an interface mounting region, with the interface having an upper surface facing the floor and spaced a distance below the floor. | ¶62 | col. 10:46-50 |
| a cover assembly including a floor plate and at least one access door... | The Accused Products include a cover assembly including a floor plate and at least one access door. | ¶66 | col. 10:51-52 |
| and wherein said upper surface of said interface is recessed a distance below said plane of said door when said door is in said closed position whereby forces applied to said closed door are not transferred to said interface. | The Accused Products include an upper surface of an electrical interface recessed a distance below a plane of a door when the door is closed, whereby forces applied to the closed door are not transferred to the interface. | ¶74 | col. 10:59-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute for claim 1 may be whether the accused products' "receptacle-mounting region" can be characterized as defining "four substantially equal-sized locating quadrants." This geometric limitation is quite specific, and infringement will depend on the precise configuration of the accused devices and how broadly the term "substantially equal-sized" is construed.
- Technical Questions: For claim 15, a key factual question is whether the accused product's design satisfies the functional limitation that "forces applied to said closed door are not transferred to said interface." The complaint makes a conclusory allegation to this effect (Compl. ¶74), but the case may require technical evidence and expert testimony to establish whether this functional result is actually achieved by the accused structure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "four substantially equal-sized locating quadrants" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis of claim 1. If the accused product's mounting region is not found to have this specific geometric arrangement, it cannot literally infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could provide a clear path to a non-infringement argument for the defendant if their product deviates from this layout.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" suggests the quadrants do not need to be perfectly identical in size or shape, which may support an argument that minor variations in the accused product fall within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes embodiments based on this four-quadrant structure (e.g., ’446 Patent, Fig. 5, showing receptacles and jacks in distinct quadrants). An argument could be made that the term requires four physically distinct and functionally separate mounting areas, as depicted in the preferred embodiments.
The Term: "whereby forces applied to said closed door are not transferred to said interface" (Claim 15)
Context and Importance: This "whereby" clause defines a functional requirement for the claimed recess. The infringement analysis will depend not just on the existence of a physical recess, but on whether that recess performs the specific function of isolating the interface from forces. Proving or disproving this functional aspect will be a key evidentiary challenge.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this language covers any design where the recess is deep enough to prevent typical forces (e.g., from being stepped on) from reaching the interface, without requiring a specific mechanism or complete isolation from all possible forces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the recessed design solves the problem of prior art devices being "capable of damaging such components" (’446 Patent, col. 7:60-61). This could support an interpretation that the non-transfer of forces must be a direct and intended result of the specific recessed structure taught in the patent, not an incidental property.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Wiremold's customers and end-users using the Accused Products and Components as intended (Compl. ¶98). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the Accused Components are material parts of the invention, are "especially made or especially adapted" for an infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶100-104).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’446 Patent since at least July 6, 2005, when the patent was cited to Wiremold by the USPTO during the prosecution of its own U.S. Patent No. 7,183,503 (Compl. ¶12, ¶106).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the physical layout of the accused "Evolution Series" devices meet the specific geometric requirement of "four substantially equal-sized locating quadrants" as recited in Claim 1, or is there a material difference that places the product outside the claim's scope?
- A second central issue will be one of functional proof: can the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused devices satisfy the functional limitation of Claim 15, namely that their recessed design ensures that "forces applied to said closed door are not transferred to said interface"?
- Finally, a key question for damages will be willfulness: given the allegation that Defendant was made aware of the patent-in-suit by the USPTO more than a decade prior to the filing of the complaint, the court will have to determine whether any continued infringement was objectively reckless, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages.