DCT

1:17-cv-01406

Zadro Products Inc v. SDI Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01406, D. Del., 10/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iHome Vanity Mirror product line infringes two patents related to illuminated, continuously rotatable, dual-magnification mirrors.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the personal care and cosmetics device market, focusing on vanity mirrors that integrate multiple features such as lighting, magnification, and rotational capabilities.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent No. 8,356,908 is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,162,502. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant was on notice of both patents as of September 2017, one month prior to the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-05-27 Priority Date for ’502 Patent and ’908 Patent
2012-04-24 ’502 Patent Issued
2013-01-22 ’908 Patent Issued
2017-09-01 Alleged Notice of Infringement to Defendant (approximate)
2017-10-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,162,502 - "Illuminated Continuously Rotatable Dual Magnification Mirror" (Issued Apr. 24, 2012)

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a single, free-standing personal grooming mirror that offers selectable magnification (e.g., 1x and 5x), provides its own illumination, and can be rotated continuously without twisting or breaking internal electrical wires that power the light source (’502 Patent, col. 2:6-18).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a dual-sided mirror held in a frame that is pivotably mounted on a U-shaped yoke. To solve the wire-twisting problem, it uses a novel power delivery system. Electrical power from a battery in the base is transmitted to an internal LED light source through a set of "continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joints." These joints consist of conductive pins on the mirror frame that rotate within conductive cups in the yoke arms, allowing for uninterrupted 360-degree rotation while maintaining electrical contact (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-55).
    • Technical Importance: The design sought to create a cordless, battery-powered vanity mirror that combined the most desired features—dual magnification, built-in lighting, and unlimited rotation—into a single, portable unit (’502 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 22, and reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 23 (Compl. ¶18).
    • Independent Claim 1 recites:
      • A mirror assembly with a frame holding at least a first mirror plate, which has an imaging surface and an adjacent light transmissive region.
      • An electrically energizable illumination source located inside the frame.
      • A yoke with opposed arms for rotatably supporting the mirror frame.
      • An electrical power coupling mechanism with a pair of "laterally opposed continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joints," further defined as a combination of a conductive pin and a conductive cup that rotatably supports the pin.

U.S. Patent No. 8,356,908 - "Rotatable Dual Magnification Mirror with Internal Hoop Illuminator and Movable Reflector Ring" (Issued Jan. 22, 2013)

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the ’502 patent, the ’908 patent addresses the same general problem of creating an illuminated, rotatable, dual-sided mirror (’908 Patent, col. 2:1-24). It discloses alternative and potentially improved structures for the illumination system.
    • The Patented Solution: This patent introduces two key concepts. First, it describes an illumination source made from an "elongated, thin, narrow strip of flexibly curvable material" (like a flexible printed circuit board) that is bent into a "hoop-shaped" ring to hold the LEDs (’908 Patent, col. 2:48-59). Second, it discloses a "movable reflector ring" that is operated by gravity; when the mirror is tilted, this ring shifts position inside the frame to reflect otherwise wasted light from the LEDs forward and through the translucent window of the front-facing mirror plate, thereby enhancing brightness (’908 Patent, Abstract).
    • Technical Importance: This approach provided an alternative manufacturing method for the illuminator (a flexible hoop) and introduced a passive mechanical system (the movable reflector) to improve the optical efficiency of the illumination (’908 Patent, col. 4:1-6).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 9 and 28, and reserves the right to assert dependent claims 10-11 and 29-32 (Compl. ¶25).
    • Independent Claim 9 recites:
      • A mirror assembly with a frame holding at least a first mirror plate.
      • An illumination source that includes an "elongated, thin, narrow printed circuit board bent into an arcuately curved hoop-shaped band" with light emitting diodes.
      • A yoke with opposed arms supporting the frame.
      • An electrical power coupling mechanism, a support base with a power supply, and a support structure connecting the base and yoke.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are the "iHome Vanity Mirror line of products," with specific models including iCVBT7, iCVBT5, and iCVBT52 (Compl. ¶18-19, ¶25-26).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are "beauty mirrors and vanity mirrors" that directly compete with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶21, ¶28). The complaint's specific infringement allegations are contained in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint. The narrative allegations suggest the accused mirrors possess a rotatable, illuminated, dual-sided mirror structure that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement has caused it to lose market share and downstream sales (Compl. ¶21, ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) to detail its infringement contentions, but these exhibits were not provided with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). The narrative infringement theory is that the accused iHome Vanity Mirrors incorporate the patented technologies for providing illumination in a continuously rotatable, dual-sided mirror. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • For the ’502 Patent: A primary technical question will concern the specific structure of the accused mirrors' pivot and power-transfer mechanism. The dispute may focus on whether the accused products contain "continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joints" that meet the "pin" and "cup" structure required by claim 1. Evidence regarding the precise mechanical and electrical configuration of the pivot will be central.
    • For the ’908 Patent: The infringement analysis will likely raise the question of whether the illumination source in the accused mirrors is built from an "elongated, thin, narrow printed circuit board bent into an arcuately curved hoop-shaped band," as recited in claim 9. The specificity of this claim language suggests that a key point of contention could be whether the accused products use a flexible, bent PCB for their lighting array or a different structure, such as a rigid, pre-formed ring.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joints" (’502 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the ’502 patent, as it describes the solution to the problem of wire-twisting. The construction of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the required structure for the pivot mechanism.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated objectives include providing a pivot joint that "enables continuous rotation of the mirror frame" (’502 Patent, col. 2:37-39). A party might argue this supports a construction focused on the functional outcome of continuous rotation with power, rather than being limited to the exact form shown.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself further defines the joint as "comprising in combination an electrically conductive pin... and an electrically conductive cup which rotatably supports said pin" (’502 Patent, col. 8:46-51). A party could argue that this explicit recitation limits the term's scope to this specific structural arrangement, excluding other types of rotating electrical connectors.

  • Term: "elongated, thin, narrow printed circuit board bent into an arcuately curved hoop-shaped band" (’908 Patent, claim 9)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the specific structure of the illuminator, a key distinguishing feature of the invention disclosed in the ’908 patent. Whether the accused product's illuminator meets this structural definition will be a core infringement question.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the object of the invention in functional terms, such as providing peripheral illumination for circular or oval mirrors (’908 Patent, col. 2:50-59). This could be used to argue that the term should encompass any flexible lighting array formed into a hoop shape.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides significant detail about the PCB material ("fiberglass-filled epoxy") and manufacturing process (bending a flat strip and fastening the ends) (’908 Patent, col. 5:1-3; col. 11:41-49). A party may argue these details limit the claim to an illuminator made from a component that is initially flat, elongated, and flexible, and is then physically bent into its final hoop shape.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had notice of the ’502 and ’908 patents "since at least as early as September 2017" (Compl. ¶22, ¶29). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after receiving notice has been "objectively reckless and unreasonable" (Compl. ¶22, ¶29). This assertion of post-notice conduct forms the basis for the request for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural identity: does the pivot mechanism in the accused iHome mirrors contain the specific combination of a conductive "pin" rotating within a conductive "cup" as claimed in the ’502 patent, or does it use a technically distinct means to achieve continuous electrical power transfer during rotation?
  • A second key question will address component structure: does the lighting system in the accused products constitute an "elongated, thin, narrow printed circuit board bent into" a "hoop-shaped band," as recited in the ’908 patent, or is it constructed from a rigid ring or other non-flexible components, raising a direct question of literal infringement?