DCT

1:18-cv-01682

Rein Tech Inc v. Flo Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01682, D. Del., 10/26/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart water meter devices and associated mobile application infringe four patents related to water use monitoring, leak detection, and damage prevention systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves smart water meters designed for residential or commercial use that monitor water flow, detect leaks, and communicate data wirelessly to remote devices for analysis and control.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on June 22, 2018, the inventor of the patents-in-suit filed a Third Party Submission in Defendant’s own patent application, citing three of the four patents-in-suit. This event is cited as establishing Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge for allegations of indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-10-04 ’427 Patent Priority Date
2012-11-26 ’150 Patent Priority Date
2013-01-08 ’427 Patent Issued
2014-12-05 ’480 Patent Priority Date
2014-12-21 ’792 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-29 ’150 Patent Issued
2016-11-15 ’480 Patent Issued
2017-08-29 ’792 Patent Issued
2018-06-22 Defendant allegedly became aware of ’150, ’480, and ’792 Patents
2018-10-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,347,427 - “Water Use Monitoring Apparatus,” issued January 8, 2013 (’427 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that primary residential and commercial water meters are often in inconvenient locations, provide only simple cumulative data, and lack the ability to wirelessly transfer detailed information for analysis. This prevents effective monitoring for water conservation purposes (’427 Patent, col. 2:20-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus affixed to a water supply line that continuously monitors water use. It incorporates sensors and wireless communication capabilities to transmit detailed water parameter data to a remote display, allowing a property owner or municipal agency to review consumption patterns and distinguish between indoor, outdoor, hot, or cold water usage (’427 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-35).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a secondary monitoring system that gives consumers and utilities granular, real-time data on water consumption, which was not available from traditional primary meters, to encourage conservation and facilitate leak detection (’427 Patent, col. 2:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶19). Independent Claim 1, as corrected by a 2019 Certificate of Correction, is foundational.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A base station connected to a main water supply, installed upstream of distribution lines inside a residence or commercial building.
    • The base station includes a housing, joint means for connection, electrical circuitry with a microprocessor, a power source, and one or more flow sensors.
    • The apparatus has one or more display means programmed to visually display water parameters.
    • One or more wired or wireless communication means for securely transferring water parameter data to one or more remote monitoring apparatuses.

U.S. Patent No. 9,297,150 - “Water Use Monitoring Apparatus and Water Damage Prevention System,” issued March 29, 2016 (’150 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the "staggering" financial losses from broken water pipes, particularly when a property is unoccupied, as leaks can go undetected for long periods and cause catastrophic damage (’150 Patent, col. 2:30-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system with a remotely controllable base station that includes a "shut-off/on mechanism" (a valve) installed in the main water line. This mechanism can be activated wirelessly by a convenient controller, such as a key fob or a smartphone app, allowing a user to easily interrupt water flow to the property when it is vacant or unsupervised (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-29).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides property owners with a simple and convenient method to proactively prevent water damage by remotely shutting off the main water supply, a task that would otherwise require manual access to a potentially inaccessible main valve (’150 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶25). Independent Claim 1 is foundational.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A remotely controllable base station with a water shut-off/on mechanism interposed in a water line.
    • A "wireless chain or key fob apparatus."
    • The base station includes a "recording compliance data means."
    • The key fob apparatus has circuitry to send a wireless signal to turn the water supply on and off.
    • The key fob apparatus can receive a wireless communication and has an "indicating means" to determine the operational state of the shut-off mechanism.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,494,480 - “Water Use Monitoring Apparatus,” issued November 15, 2016 (’480 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for detailed water use monitoring beyond what traditional meters provide. The invention is a monitoring apparatus installed on water lines with sensors and multiple wireless communication options (e.g., cellular, mesh network) to transmit granular water use data to remote devices, enabling analysis by consumers or municipal operators for conservation and leak detection (’480 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-43).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶31). Independent Claim 1 is foundational.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Flo Tech’s water meter devices, which offer water usage analysis and real-time notifications via a mobile app, of infringement (Compl. ¶16, ¶31).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,749,792 - “Water Use Monitoring Apparatus,” issued August 29, 2017 (’792 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a water use monitoring apparatus designed to provide detailed, real-time consumption data. The solution is an apparatus affixed to water supply piping that includes various sensors (flow, pressure, quality) and communicates wirelessly with remote devices like smartphones, enabling features such as leak detection, usage pattern analysis, and remote control (’792 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-49).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶37). Independent Claim 1 is foundational.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Flo Tech’s water meter devices and associated mobile app, which provide usage analysis and real-time notifications, of infringement (Compl. ¶16, ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Defendant’s "Flo Tech water meter devices with a mobile app" are the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶16).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products provide "real time notifications, water usage analysis, and goal setting features" (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that Defendant received venture capital financing to assist with the making, using, and selling of these products (Compl. ¶17).
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶19, ¶25, ¶31, ¶37). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • ’427 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges that the Flo Tech water meter device constitutes a "base station" that is connected to a water supply and contains the claimed housing, circuitry, and flow sensors. It further alleges that the device communicates wirelessly with a mobile app, which functions as the claimed "remote monitoring apparatus," to display water parameters to the user (Compl. ¶16, ¶19). An identified point of contention may be whether a general-purpose smartphone running an application meets the patent's definition of a "remote monitoring apparatus," which the specification also describes as a "remote display/recorder" (’427 Patent, col. 3:24-29).

  • ’150 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges the Flo Tech device is a "remotely controllable base station" with a shut-off mechanism that is controlled by signals from the mobile app. This suggests the infringement theory casts the mobile app as the claimed "wireless chain or key fob apparatus" (Compl. ¶16, ¶25). A primary point of contention will likely be claim scope: whether the term "wireless chain or key fob apparatus," explicitly recited in the claim, can be construed to read on a software application operating on a smartphone. The patent specification's disclosure of a cell phone as a potential controller may support an argument for a broader interpretation (’150 Patent, FIG. 8; col. 4:22-24). Another technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the mobile app includes the claimed "indicating means" for determining the valve's status.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "remote monitoring apparatus" (from ’427 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the infringement theory for the ’427 Patent appears to depend on a user's smartphone and mobile app meeting this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused system, as a whole, can meet all claim elements.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, referring to an "apparatus" without structural limitation. The specification repeatedly uses the more functional term "remote display/recorder," which could support an argument that any device performing that function, including a smartphone, is covered (’427 Patent, col. 3:24-29, col. 5:49-51).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures depict a dedicated hardware device for this purpose (e.g., item 110 in FIG. 5). An argument could be made that the invention, as disclosed, contemplated a specific piece of hardware rather than a general-purpose computing device running software.

  • The Term: "wireless chain or key fob apparatus" (from ’150 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’150 Patent. The viability of the claim against the accused product, which uses a mobile app for control, depends on construing this term to cover a smartphone.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses multiple types of remote controllers, including not only a key fob (FIG. 2) but also a garage door opener (FIG. 3) and a "typical cell phone, smart phone or similar apparatus" (FIG. 8). This disclosure suggests the term "key fob apparatus" may have been intended as an example rather than a strict structural limitation (’150 Patent, col. 4:22-24).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument could be made that by choosing the specific term "key fob apparatus" in the claim, the patentee deliberately narrowed the claim to that specific embodiment, distinguishing it from the other disclosed controllers like cell phones. This could raise questions of prosecution history estoppel if the term was added to overcome prior art.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant provides "user manuals, instructions, and technical training and assistance" that knowingly and intentionally cause its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶45, ¶54, ¶63, ¶72).
  • Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the prayer for relief seeks damages for "willful infringement" (Compl. p. 13, ¶D). Pre-suit knowledge of the ’150, ’480, and ’792 patents is alleged to have begun on June 22, 2018, based on a Third Party Submission filed in Defendant's patent application (Compl. ¶15). For the ’427 Patent, knowledge is alleged to have begun upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶44).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms drafted in the context of dedicated hardware, such as "remote monitoring apparatus" and "wireless chain or key fob apparatus," be construed to cover a software application running on a modern, general-purpose smartphone? The resolution of this claim construction question may be dispositive for several of the asserted patents.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual mapping: beyond broad allegations, what specific evidence will show that the accused Flo Tech product and its mobile app perform each of the discrete functions required by the asserted claims? The complaint’s lack of detailed technical allegations or included claim charts leaves open the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the claimed inventions and the accused system.