DCT
3:24-cv-00616
Defender Screens Intl LLC v. Fenetex Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Defender Screens International, LLC d/b/a Progressive Screens (Florida)
- Defendant: Fenetex Corporation (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe; Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross and Baskerville, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00616, M.D. Fla., 06/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, within the Middle District of Florida, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MagForce Screen Track System infringes two patents related to self-tensioning magnetic tracks for retractable screens.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses retractable screen systems, often used for patios and large openings, designed to automatically manage tension and withstand high wind conditions to prevent damage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had notice of the patents-in-suit as of June 1, 2023, and that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter on May 17, 2024. Although not mentioned in the complaint, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ’292 Patent was issued following a request filed on October 25, 2024, which confirmed the patentability of all original claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-08-03 | Priority Date for ’292 and ’198 Patents |
| 2017-08-01 | ’292 Patent Issued |
| 2018-07-31 | ’198 Patent Issued |
| 2023-06-01 | Alleged date of Defendant's actual notice of patents |
| 2024-05-04 | Alleged start date of Defendant's infringing sales |
| 2024-05-17 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2024-06-14 | Complaint Filed |
| 2024-10-25 | Ex Parte Reexamination of ’292 Patent requested |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,719,292 - “SELF-TENSIONING MAGNETIC TRACKS AND TRACK ASSEMBLIES,” issued August 1, 2017
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Conventional retractable screens use fixed tracks that hold the screen taut. In high wind, these fixed systems do not allow the screen fabric to expand or contract, which can lead to the screen being damaged or the tracks themselves twisting and warping, necessitating costly repairs. (Compl. ¶18; ’292 Patent, col. 1:21-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "self-tensioning" track assembly that uses magnets to solve this problem. It consists of a stationary outer channel containing a first magnet and a separate "screen receiver" that holds the edge of the screen and contains a second, opposing magnet. Under normal conditions, the magnetic attraction keeps the screen taut. When wind pressure becomes too high, the force overcomes the magnetic bond, allowing the screen receiver to move within a defined compartment in the outer channel, relieving the stress. Once the wind subsides, the magnets automatically pull the screen receiver back into its original, tensioned position. (’292 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-59).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for the use of very large retractable screens (e.g., 30 feet wide) in environments with high wind, increasing the product's durability and reducing maintenance compared to prior art fixed-track systems. (’292 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2, 9, and 16. (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- An elongate channel with an open side, end wall, and two parallel side walls.
- A first magnet within the channel near the end wall.
- A compartment defined within the channel.
- A screen receiver disposed in the compartment, which includes a second magnet facing the first.
- A functional requirement that the magnets have opposite polarity and the screen receiver is "loosely disposed" to allow a magnetic bond to form and break.
- A structural requirement that the compartment is defined by "interior partition walls" that extend inward less than half the distance between the side walls.
U.S. Patent No. 10,036,198 - “SELF-TENSIONING MAGNETIC TRACKS AND TRACK ASSEMBLIES,” issued July 31, 2018
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’292 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of screen and track damage in high wind conditions due to inflexible fixed-track systems. (’198 Patent, col. 1:30-43).
- The Patented Solution: The ’198 Patent describes the same self-tensioning magnetic track assembly as the ’292 Patent. A screen receiver with a magnet is held in place by a corresponding magnet in a fixed channel, but is able to break away under high wind load and then automatically re-engage. (’198 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-25).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables more robust and reliable large-format retractable screen installations. (’198 Patent, col. 2:3-11).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 2. (Compl. ¶41).
- The elements of independent Claim 1 of the ’198 Patent are substantively identical to those of Claim 1 of the ’292 Patent, including the specific limitations regarding the magnetic bond and the dimensions of the interior partition walls.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant Fenetex’s “MagForce Screen Track System.” (Compl. ¶22).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the MagForce system is a magnetic track assembly comprising an inner and outer track. (Compl. ¶23). The inner track, which holds the screen, is allegedly "loosely disposed" within a compartment in the outer track and secured by a "magnetic bond" between magnets in each component. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint presents an image from Defendant's marketing materials describing the system's "inner and outer tracks" as able to "securely lock together under pressure" and being "self-adjusting." (Compl. p. 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’292 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A magnetic track assembly, comprising: | The complaint identifies Defendant's MagForce Screen track system as the infringing assembly. A marketing image shows the overall product. (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34.a | col. 5:7-8 |
| an elongate channel having an open side, an end wall, and two parallel side walls; | The accused product's outer track is alleged to be the claimed "elongate channel," with diagrams showing the corresponding open side, end wall, and side walls. | ¶34.b | col. 5:9-12 |
| a first magnet disposed within the elongate channel near an interior side of the end wall; | The accused product is alleged to have a magnet inside its outer track, near the interior side of the end wall. | ¶34.c | col. 5:12-15 |
| a compartment defined within the elongate channel spaced from the first magnet; and | The accused product's outer track allegedly defines an interior compartment for housing the inner track. | ¶34.d | col. 5:15-19 |
| a screen receiver disposed within the compartment and including a second magnet arranged facing the first magnet; | The accused product's inner track is identified as the "screen receiver," which is allegedly disposed in the compartment and contains a second magnet. | ¶34.e | col. 5:20-23 |
| wherein the first and second magnets are of opposite polarity and the screen receiver is loosely disposed within the compartment such that a magnetic bond is intact... and the magnetic bond is broken when the first and second magnets are pulled apart | The complaint alleges the inner and outer tracks are held by a magnetic bond that allows for separation under force. An image from Defendant's website describes how the tracks "lock together under pressure." (Compl. p. 13). | ¶34.f | col. 5:35-43 |
| wherein the compartment is defined by interior partition walls that extend inward from their respective one of the two parallel sidewalls, and wherein each of the partition walls extend inward a distance less than half a distance between the two parallel side walls. | The complaint uses a technical drawing, allegedly of the accused product, to show interior walls that extend inward from the side walls, purportedly meeting the dimensional limitation of the claim. (Compl. p. 14). | ¶34.g | col. 5:30-33 |
’198 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A magnetic track assembly, comprising: | The complaint again identifies the MagForce Screen track system as the infringing assembly, supported by the same product image. (Compl. p. 17). | ¶43.a | col. 5:8-10 |
| an elongate channel having an open side, an end wall, and two parallel side walls; | The outer track of the accused product is alleged to be the claimed channel. | ¶43.b | col. 5:10-13 |
| a first magnet disposed within the elongate channel near an interior side of the end wall; | A magnet is allegedly disposed within the accused outer track. | ¶43.c | col. 5:13-16 |
| a compartment defined within the elongate channel spaced from the first magnet; and | The accused outer track is alleged to define a compartment. | ¶43.d | col. 5:16-20 |
| a screen receiver disposed within the compartment and including a second magnet arranged facing the first magnet; | The accused inner track is alleged to be the claimed "screen receiver" containing a second magnet. A diagram illustrates the alleged screen receiver within the compartment. (Compl. p. 20). | ¶43.e | col. 5:20-24 |
| wherein the screen receiver is loosely disposed within the compartment such that a magnetic bond is intact... and the magnetic bond is broken when the first and second magnets are pulled apart | The complaint realleges that the magnetic bond between the inner and outer tracks allows for separation and re-engagement. | ¶43.f | col. 5:38-46 |
| wherein: the compartment is defined by interior partition walls that extend inward from their respective one of the two parallel sidewalls... | The complaint again uses a technical drawing allegedly showing the accused product's interior partition walls meeting the claim's structural and dimensional requirements. (Compl. p. 23). | ¶43.g | col. 5:31-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused product's "inner track" constitutes a "screen receiver" as that term is used in the patents. The defense may argue that the MagForce system is simply a two-part track, and that its "inner track" is not a distinct "receiver" component as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies heavily on technical drawings allegedly from Defendant's own patent application to show that the MagForce system meets the specific structural limitations of the claims, such as the "interior partition walls". (Compl. ¶34, n.2). The court will need to determine if those drawings accurately depict the product sold and if that product's operation, particularly the movement of the inner track, is equivalent to the function of the claimed "loosely disposed" screen receiver.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "screen receiver"
- Context and Importance: This term identifies the core moveable component of the invention. Infringement will depend on whether Defendant's "inner track" is properly characterized as a "screen receiver." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant is likely to argue its product is a different type of assembly (e.g., a two-part track) rather than a channel-and-receiver system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating the component "is adapted to receive a screen 200 on one side of the receiver while having a magnet 113 arranged on an opposite side." (’292 Patent, col. 5:20-23). This could support construing the term to cover any component that performs these functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes and depicts a specific embodiment where the screen receiver includes a "C-shaped channel 111" to hold the screen edge. (’292 Patent, col. 5:23-29; Fig. 3). A defendant could argue this specific structure is integral to the term's meaning.
- The Term: "loosely disposed"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the functional relationship that allows for the claimed self-tensioning action. The dispute will be over how much movement and what type of connection qualifies as "loosely disposed."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains the purpose is to allow the "magnetic bond to be broken" under high wind, allowing for "screen expansion." (’292 Patent, col. 5:50-54). This suggests any arrangement that permits this breakaway-and-return function would be "loosely disposed."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 6, depict the screen receiver with considerable clearance within the compartment. (’292 Patent, Fig. 6). A defendant might argue that "loosely disposed" requires this degree of clearance and precludes more constrained or guided forms of movement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin inducing infringement, but the infringement counts do not contain specific factual allegations required to state a claim for indirect infringement, such as identifying specific acts of encouragement or providing customers with instructions to use the product in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶24, Prayer ¶2).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the asserted patents "at least since June 1, 2023" (pre-suit knowledge) and also received a cease-and-desist letter on May 17, 2024. (Compl. ¶¶25, 27). The complaint alleges that continued infringement after these dates has been willful.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how the court defines the term "screen receiver". The case's outcome may depend on whether this term is given a broad, functional definition that can encompass the accused product's "inner track," or a narrower, structural definition limited to the C-shaped channel embodiment shown in the patents.
- A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused MagForce system operates in the specific manner required by the claims? The complaint's reliance on Defendant's own marketing statements and technical drawings presents a compelling narrative, but the ultimate question will be whether the physical product functions as a "loosely disposed" component that breaks a magnetic bond to relieve wind stress, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation.
- Finally, the post-filing reexamination of the ’292 Patent, which confirmed the patentability of the claims, raises a significant question regarding validity challenges: Defendant will face a heightened burden to prove the ’292 patent is invalid, as the Patent Office has now considered the prior art and affirmed the claims, a fact that will likely feature prominently in future proceedings.