Tzu Tech LLC v. Optim LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TZU Technologies, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Optim, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00709, D. Del., 04/18/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware entity, conducts business in the state, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s inspection scopes, specifically the Freedom View LED Videoscope, infringe a patent related to behind-wall cameras with articulating or positionable heads.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns inspection cameras, often called borescopes or videoscopes, designed to be inserted through small openings to visualize otherwise inaccessible areas, such as the space inside a wall cavity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The asserted patent is a continuation of an earlier application and claims priority to a 2008 provisional application.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,953,032 - Self Articulating Behind-Wall Camera

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 8953032, issued February 10, 2015. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for individuals performing construction or renovation to know what is behind a wall—such as electrical wiring, plumbing, or structural supports—before piercing or demolishing it, in order to avoid costly damage. (’032 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a camera system on an "elongated member" designed to be inserted through a small hole in a wall or other obstruction. (’032 Patent, col. 9:40-44, Fig. 4). A controller at the user-end of the device allows for manipulation of the camera, viewing device, or the member itself, enabling a user to inspect the hidden area. (’032 Patent, col. 3:17-21, col. 4:3-11). The system is designed to have a small cross-sectional area to minimize the size of the required entry hole. (’032 Patent, col. 1:45-48).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to reduce the uncertainty and risk associated with altering existing structures by providing a minimally invasive way to perform a visual inspection. (’032 Patent, col. 1:31-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • A camera coupled to a first end of an elongated member;
  • At least one interface for communicating with a viewing device;
  • A controller coupled to a second end of the elongated member for controlling at least one of the member, the camera, or the viewing device;
  • A light source coupled towards the first end of the elongated member for illuminating a view of the camera;
  • Wherein the elongated member has a cross sectional area of less than about one square inch at a point toward the first end of the elongated member.
• The prayer for relief requests a finding of infringement of "one or more claims," which could preserve the right to assert additional claims later in the litigation. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "inspection scopes," and specifically names the "Freedom View LED Videoscope" as an accused product. (Compl. ¶11-12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are used as inspection scopes. (Compl. ¶11). It does not provide further technical details regarding the operation, features, or market position of the Freedom View LED Videoscope. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B which was not attached to the publicly filed document; therefore, the specific factual basis for each element of the infringement read is not detailed. (Compl. ¶13). The analysis below is based on the general allegations in the complaint.

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the "controller" in the accused product performs the "controlling" function required by the claim. The scope of "controlling" may be disputed—whether it requires active positioning of the camera head or if simple functions like toggling power or light are sufficient.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific evidence mapping product features to claim limitations. A key factual question will be whether the accused videoscope’s "elongated member" has a "cross sectional area of less than about one square inch," a dispositive factual issue that will depend on direct measurement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "controller... for controlling at least one of the member, the camera, or the viewing device"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "controlling" will be critical. If construed broadly to include basic functions like power on/off, infringement may be easier to establish. If construed narrowly to require more complex actions like mechanical articulation or camera zoom, it may present a higher bar for the plaintiff. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of the accused device's controller will be a primary point of comparison.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "controlling" can encompass simple functions, stating a controller may include "controls to toggle power to the camera 102, viewing device 122, and/or the optional light source 118." (’032 Patent, col. 4:6-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same passage lists numerous more complex functions, such as to "zoom the camera," "rotate the elongated member," and "positioning the elongated member." (’032 Patent, col. 4:9-10, 4:22-25). A defendant could argue these more sophisticated actions are integral to the meaning of "controlling" in the context of the invention.

The Term: "elongated member"

• Context and Importance: The physical characteristics of this component are central to the claimed apparatus. Whether the term is limited to a specific type of member (e.g., one that is "self-articulating" like the patent title suggests) or covers any long, thin structure will be important.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the term broadly to include a "deformable, flexible (resiliently deformable), semi-rigid or rigid tube, cable, solid member, etc." (’032 Patent, col. 3:23-25). This language suggests the term is not limited to a single embodiment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be read in light of the patent's title (Self Articulating Behind-Wall Camera) and descriptions of more complex embodiments that include motors, hinges, or joints to position the camera. (’032 Patent, col. 4:51-54, col. 11:53-57).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The sole count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). (Compl. ¶10-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific allegation of willful infringement or facts that would support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• An Evidentiary Question of Fact: As the complaint is factually sparse, a primary issue will be whether discovery reveals that the accused "Freedom View LED Videoscope" in fact possesses each element of Claim 1. The "cross sectional area of less than about one square inch" limitation, in particular, will be a simple but potentially dispositive question of measurement.
• A Definitional Question of Scope: The case may turn on the construction of the term "controller ... for controlling." The central question for the court will be to define the level of functionality required to meet this limitation—does merely toggling power or light suffice, or must the controller be capable of more complex actions like positioning the member or zooming the camera? The answer will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.