DCT
6:22-cv-00682
ATLeisure v. Lowes Companies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ATLeisure, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen, Dyer, Doppelt + Gilchrist, P.A.
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00682, M.D. Fla., 05/04/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district, has sold the accused products in the district, has committed tortious acts in the state, and has engaged in substantial activity in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s offset patio umbrellas infringe a patent related to an adjustable mechanism for raising, lowering, and angling an umbrella canopy.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns mechanical innovations in the consumer market for outdoor furniture, specifically offset or "cantilever" umbrellas where the support pole is not in the center.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent "cease & desist letters" to Defendant prior to the litigation, which may be used to support the willfulness allegation. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has a history of licensing its patents on numerous occasions, which could be relevant to damages calculations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-05-05 | '492 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-01-31 | '492 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-05-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,104,492 - "Adjustable Offset Umbrella" (Issued Jan. 31, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art offset umbrellas where a single crank mechanism was used for both opening/closing the canopy and for adjusting its angle relative to the main pole. This combined functionality allegedly required more winding force and used a complex rope path that could cause the rope to bind and wear out, making operation "burdensome" (’492 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention separates these two functions. It proposes a "sliding member" that can move up and down the main support pole. A "winding mechanism" (e.g., a crank) is mounted directly onto this sliding member. Operating the crank opens and closes the umbrella canopy, while physically moving the entire sliding member assembly along the pole adjusts the canopy's angle (’492 Patent, col. 1:45-68; Fig. 6). This design aims to simplify the mechanism and reduce the effort needed for each adjustment (’492 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
- Technical Importance: This approach separates the canopy deployment force from the canopy positioning force, which the patent suggests reduces operational complexity and mechanical wear (’492 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A main pole
- A sliding member movably associated with the main pole
- A locking means to secure the sliding member at a selected location
- An umbrella canopy
- An arm connecting the canopy's central region to the sliding member
- A brace pivotably attached to an upper portion of the pole and to the arm
- A winding mechanism with a winder hub, mounted to the sliding member and movable with it
- A line that winds around the winder hub and extends along the arm to engage the umbrella canopy
- The complaint states that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "11-ft Blue Solar Powered Crank Offset Patio Umbrella with Base" (Item no: 4097311, Model no: URM819003J-3), sold under the "allen + roth" brand, as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶1, ¶18). The complaint refers to this and other similar products as the "Accused Umbrellas" (Compl. ¶1, ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Umbrellas are direct competitors to Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶14). The core of the infringement allegation relies on a comparison between the patent's figures and a diagram from the accused product's instruction manual (Compl. ¶19, Ex. 2). This diagram depicts an offset umbrella with a crank mechanism on a housing that slides vertically along the main pole to adjust the canopy's angle, a function the complaint alleges is protected by the '492 Patent (Compl. ¶19). The complaint juxtaposes a figure from the patent showing the claimed mechanism with a diagram from the accused product's instructions to illustrate the alleged similarity in operation (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Umbrellas infringe at least Claim 1 of the '492 Patent, providing diagrams to support its theory (Compl. ¶19, ¶21). The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit 3, which was not included with the filed complaint document. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative and visual allegations.
'492 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a main pole having a lower end for support by a support surface and extending generally upward to an upper end | The main vertical support pole of the Accused Umbrella. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 2:44-46 |
| a sliding member associated with the main pole and selectably moveable thereon between lower and upper locations along the main pole | The housing assembly (labeled 'D' in Exhibit 2) that moves up and down the main pole to adjust the canopy angle. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 2:46-50 |
| locking means for releasably securing the sliding member to the main pole at a selected location along the main pole | An unspecified mechanism, implied by the handle on the sliding member in Exhibit 2, that allows the user to lock the sliding member's position. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 3:24-40 |
| an umbrella canopy having a central region | The fabric canopy of the Accused Umbrella. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 2:55-58 |
| an arm... operatively associated with the sliding member | The main support arm connecting the sliding member to the canopy assembly. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 2:56-58 |
| a brace having a first end pivotably attached to an upper portion of the pole... and a second end pivotably attached to the arm | The upper support brace shown connecting the top of the main pole to the main support arm. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 2:59-63 |
| a winding mechanism... mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith | The crank handle assembly shown on the sliding member ('D') in Exhibit 2. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 4:41-42 |
| a line... that engages the umbrella canopy | An internal line, inferred to be present, that is tensioned by the winding mechanism to open and close the canopy. | ¶19 | col. 3:15-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be how the accused product's "locking means" functions. The complaint provides a diagram from the user manual (Compl. Ex. 2) but no technical details on the mechanism itself. The specific operation of this lock (e.g., whether it uses a cam, pin, or pawl) will be a key factual issue for determining infringement.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of the phrase "winding mechanism... mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith." The defense could argue that its product's components are arranged in a way that is structurally or functionally distinct from the configuration described and claimed in the '492 Patent, even if the general result is similar.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sliding member"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's claimed point of novelty, which is the separation of the angle-adjustment function (moving the "sliding member") from the canopy-opening function (using the crank on that member). The definition will determine whether the accused component that moves along the pole qualifies as the claimed "sliding member".
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that while the disclosed embodiment shows a "collar that extends around the main pole," other "alternate mounting arrangements... may be employed without the requirement that the sliding member 16 completely encircle the main pole 14" (’492 Patent, col. 2:48-54). This language may support a construction that is not limited to a full collar.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the sliding member as a distinct housing or "collar" (16) that contains both the locking mechanism and the winding mechanism (’492 Patent, Figs. 4, 7, 8). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to such an integrated housing structure.
The Term: "locking means"
Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term, and its scope will be defined by the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will require the accused device to have a structure that is identical or equivalent to the specific locking mechanisms described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint asserts Claim 1, which broadly recites a "locking means." Plaintiff may argue that this covers any mechanism that performs the function of releasably securing the member.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a means-plus-function claim is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. The '492 patent discloses three specific structures: a pivoting "cam lock member" with a cam surface that clamps against the pole (’492 Patent, col. 3:24-40; Fig. 4), a "spring-loaded latch pin" that engages holes in the pole (’492 Patent, col. 4:12-21; Fig. 7), and a "pawl" that engages "ratchet teeth" on the pole (’492 Patent, col. 4:22-31; Fig. 8). Infringement analysis will require comparing the accused lock to these specific disclosed embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that a review of the "accompanying instructions (Exhibit 2)" supports its infringement claim (Compl. ¶19). This evidence could potentially be used to support an inducement theory if the complaint were amended.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful, deliberate, and knowing (Compl. ¶25). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged failure to "cease its actions in response to cease & desist letters from ATLeisure's counsel" (Compl. ¶25).
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 term "locking means"? The case will likely require a detailed factual analysis of whether the specific locking mechanism in the accused umbrella is structurally equivalent to the cam lock, pin-and-hole, or pawl-and-ratchet systems disclosed in the '492 patent specification.
A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Does the accused product's sliding housing, which contains a crank, fall within the scope of Claim 1's limitation requiring a "winding mechanism... mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith"? The resolution will depend on how the court construes the relationship between these claimed components in light of the patent's figures and description.