Avionics Support Group Inc v. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Avionics Support Group, Inc. (Florida)
  • Defendant: Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris James LLP; FisherBroyles, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00644, D. Del., 05/26/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic flight bag mounts infringe a patent related to an adjustable mounting device for electronic displays in an aircraft cockpit.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical mounts designed to securely and adjustably position Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs)—devices that replace traditional paper flight charts—within the spatially-constrained environment of an airplane cockpit.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns the patent-in-suit by assignment. It further alleges that Defendant was placed on notice of infringement on the same day the complaint was filed, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-20	U.S. Patent No. 7,686,250 Priority Date (Application Filed)
2006-02-20	Assignment of '250 Patent to Plaintiff recorded
2010-03-30	U.S. Patent No. 7,686,250 Issued
2017-05-26	Defendant allegedly placed on notice of infringement
2017-05-26	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,686,250 - “ELECTRONIC DISPLAY MOUNT”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of finding a suitable position to mount an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) in a crowded aircraft cockpit, where it must be readily viewable by the pilot without interfering with flight controls (’250 Patent, col. 1:20-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical mount that uses a ball-and-socket style joint to allow for adjustable positioning. It comprises a base plate (“mount member”) that attaches to a surface in the cockpit, a top plate (“containment member”) that holds the EFB, and a spherical “joint member” held between them. The key inventive concept is the use of attachment members, such as screws, to compress the two plates onto the joint member, creating a variable “friction fit” that can be tightened to lock the EFB in a desired orientation or loosened to allow for repositioning (’250 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-57).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a secure and highly adjustable mounting solution for EFBs, facilitating the aviation industry's transition from cumbersome paper navigation charts to more efficient electronic systems (’250 Patent, col. 1:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of “one or more claims” without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 12 is representative of the core apparatus claimed by the patent.
• The essential elements of independent claim 12 are:
  • A "mount member" with top and bottom faces, configured to engage a mounting surface in a cockpit.
  • A "containment member" spaced from the mount member, with an "opening" through it.
  • A plurality of "attachment members" between the two, defining a "cavity".
  • A "joint member" disposed in the cavity.
  • An "elongate articulating member" extending from the joint member through the opening of the containment member.
  • A "means for selectively compressing and releasing the joint member" between the mount and containment members to cause a "friction fit" that restricts movement.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are the “navAero electronic flight bag mount with model number 14-MDU-10” (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentality simply as an “electronic flight bag mount” that Defendant sells, offers for sale, markets, and advertises in the United States (Compl. ¶11). It is alleged that Defendant acquired the rights to these devices from a company named navAerro, Inc. (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide any specific details about the mechanical structure or operation of the accused mount. It alleges that Defendant has profited from its infringement (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. The pleading makes a conclusory allegation that the accused devices infringe “one or more claims of the ‘250 Patent” either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, but it does not map any specific features of the accused product to the elements of any asserted claim (Compl. ¶14). The infringement theory is not detailed beyond this general assertion.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the "means for selectively compressing and releasing the joint member" limitation recited in claim 12. As a means-plus-function element, its scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification (screws, bolts, and bias elements) and their equivalents (’250 Patent, col. 3:48-62). The case may turn on whether the accused product contains these structures or their legal equivalents.
  • Technical Questions: A fundamental factual question will be whether the accused navAero mount employs the core mechanism of the patent: a joint member captured between two plates and locked in place by a compressive friction fit. The complaint provides no information to suggest how the accused product technically achieves its adjustability and locking functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means for selectively compressing and releasing the joint member ... to selectively cause a friction fit" (claim 12)

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Its construction will be critical because the scope of the claim element is not defined by the words alone, but by the specific structures disclosed in the patent to perform the stated function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will define the specific hardware required to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could point to language contemplating alternatives, such as the statement that "a clamp could be used between the containment member and the mount member," to argue that the "means" is not strictly limited to the primary embodiment shown in the figures (’250 Patent, col. 3:55-57).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the structure is limited to the explicitly disclosed "attachment members 200," which are described as "screws, bolts, and the like," working in concert with "bias elements 210," such as springs, to apply adjustable force (’250 Patent, col. 3:40-49, col. 3:58-62).

• The Term: "joint member" (claim 12)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this central component is key to the overall claimed structure. Infringement will depend on whether the articulating component of the accused device falls within the proper construction of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that while the primary embodiment is "substantially spherical," "other shapes for the joint member are contemplated," which could support construing the term to cover non-spherical articulating components (’250 Patent, col. 2:65-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description of how the friction fit is achieved relies heavily on the curved surface of a spherical joint. An argument could be made that the term should be limited by the functional context and the primary embodiment, which is "substantially spherical" (’250 Patent, col. 2:65-66, Fig. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment of contributory and induced infringement (Prayer ¶c). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support these claims, such as the provision of instructions to end-users or the sale of a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged notice of infringement "since at least May 26, 2017," the date the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). This asserts that any infringement continuing after the filing of the lawsuit is willful.

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

• A central issue will be one of claim construction and structural equivalence: What is the scope of the means-plus-function limitation "means for selectively compressing and releasing the joint member"? The case will depend on what specific structures are identified in the specification as corresponding to this means, and whether the accused product contains those structures or their equivalents.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational identity: Does the accused navAero mount, as a matter of technical fact, operate using a joint member held in a cavity and locked by a compressive friction fit, as claimed in the '250 Patent? Given the complaint's lack of technical specifics, discovery will be essential to establish the fundamental mechanism of the accused device.