DCT
6:24-cv-01499
Elaut NV v. Remark Industries LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Elaut N.V. (Belgium)
- Defendant: Remark Industries LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Widerman Malek, P.L.
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-01499, M.D. Fla., 08/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being a Florida corporation that has committed acts of infringement in the district and has placed its accused products into the stream of commerce through nationwide distributors with the expectation of sales within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s crane-style amusement devices infringe a patent related to game machines that use multicolor LEDs behind translucent panels to create a dynamically colored appearance.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the aesthetic design of arcade and amusement games, specifically the use of controllable, integrated lighting systems to alter the visual presentation of the game cabinet.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement on February 2, 2024, identifying the patent-in-suit and the accused products. The complaint further notes that Defendant responded to the communication and denied infringement. This alleged pre-suit notice could form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-25 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,251,369 |
| 2012-08-28 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,251,369 |
| 2024-02-02 | Plaintiff allegedly provided notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2024-08-16 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,251,369 - "Game Machine"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,251,369, "Game Machine," issued August 28, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a game machine whose appearance can be "readily modified to the wishes of the user," suggesting that static cabinet designs are inflexible for operators who may want to change aesthetics to match a venue or signal game states. (’369 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a game machine cabinet with at least one "translucent panel." Behind this panel, a pattern of "multicolor LEDs" is connected to a "control unit." This system is configured so that the control unit and panel work together to "impart a determined impression of color to the at least one panel." (’369 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:32-43). The patent emphasizes achieving a "substantially uniform impression of color" to avoid visible "light spots" from the individual LEDs. (’369 Patent, col. 2:4-6).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the dynamic and programmable customization of a game machine's appearance, enabling color changes based on user preferences, owner branding, or game events like a win or loss. (’369 Patent, col. 1:49-51; col. 7:16-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A game machine with a housing adapted to accommodate pick-up means (e.g., a crane).
- The housing's upright walls comprising at least one translucent panel.
- A pattern of multicolor LEDs provided on the inner side of the housing behind the translucent panel.
- The multicolor LEDs being connected to a control unit for controlling their emitted color.
- The control unit and translucent panel being "adapted to impart a determined impression of color" to the panel.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Crane amusement devices sold under the brands "META CLAW" and "BIG CHOICE" (the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "game machines" with "upright walls" that enclose a crane-style "pick-up means." (Compl. ¶19).
- The products are alleged to possess at least one "translucent panel" in their upright walls, behind which are "patterns of multicolor LEDs" connected to a "control unit" for controlling the color. (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint asserts that the products are sold through nationwide distributors, including Betson, Moss Distribution, and Player One Amusement Group. (Compl. ¶11).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’369 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Game machine, comprising a housing with a number of upright walls, said housing being adapted to accommodate playing means, in particular pick-up means for picking up one or more objects; | The accused "META CLAW" and "BIG CHOICE" devices are "game machines" that have a "number of upright walls" enclosing a crane device, which serves as the "pick-up means." | ¶19 | col. 4:8-16 |
| said upright walls of the housing comprising at least one translucent panel; | At least one of the upright walls of the accused devices includes a "translucent panel." | ¶20 | col. 4:42-44 |
| a pattern of multicolor LEDs being provided on the inner side of the housing behind said at least one translucent panel, | The accused devices include "patterns of multicolor LEDs" located behind the translucent panel. | ¶20 | col. 5:36-39 |
| said multicolor LEDs being connected to a control unit for controlling the color emitted by each multicolor LED, | The LEDs in the accused devices are connected to a control unit that controls the color emitted by each LED. | ¶20 | col. 7:8-13 |
| said control unit and said at least one translucent panel being adapted to impart a determined impression of color to the at least one panel. | The control unit and translucent panel of the accused devices "are adopted to impart a determined impression of color" to at least one panel. | ¶21 | col. 1:41-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of the functional limitation "adapted to impart a determined impression of color." A central question is whether this requires a specific technical configuration designed to achieve a particular visual effect (such as the "substantially uniform" color glow described in the patent's preferred embodiments), or if it reads on any system where a control unit can change the color of LEDs behind a translucent panel.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products meet the "adapted to impart" limitation. A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products' control unit and panel are specifically configured to create a "determined impression of color," rather than simply providing generic decorative illumination.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "translucent panel"
- Context and Importance: The properties of this panel are central to how the patented lighting effect is achieved. The dispute may focus on whether any semi-transparent material infringes, or if the panel must possess the specific optical properties detailed in the patent specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself simply recites a "translucent panel" without further qualification, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes preferred embodiments in detail, stating the panel is "manufactured from a material with a light transmission lying between 10% and 60%" and having "good light diffusion properties," with a diffusion factor "between 0.70 and 1.00." (’369 Patent, col. 5:15-25). Parties may argue these details inform, or even limit, the scope of the term.
The Term: "adapted to impart a determined impression of color"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is critical, as it defines the purpose and capability of the claimed system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will likely decide whether the accused products, which have colored lights, perform the specific function claimed by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any system where a controller selects the color of LEDs behind a panel is "adapted to impart a determined impression of color," as the color is "determined" by the controller.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this function to solving the problem of avoiding "light spots" and achieving a "substantially uniform impression of color." (’369 Patent, col. 2:4-6). It also discloses specific LED arrangements, such as directing their emission "substantially parallel to the translucent panel," to achieve this effect. (’369 Patent, col. 2:1-4). This may support a narrower construction requiring a configuration specifically designed to create this uniform appearance.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on the allegation that Defendant "provides instructions to configure the control modules" of the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶29). The contributory infringement claim is based on the allegation that the products are "especially made and adapted for use to infringe" and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not contain a separate count for "willful infringement," it alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’369 Patent and its infringement as of February 2, 2024. (Compl. ¶22). The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the statutory remedy for willful or egregious infringement. (Compl. p. 9, ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the functional language "adapted to impart a determined impression of color" be met by any system with controllable colored lights, or will the court construe it more narrowly to require a specific technical configuration aimed at producing the "substantially uniform" visual effect heavily emphasized in the patent's specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what proof will be offered to show that the accused "META CLAW" and "BIG CHOICE" products are not just decorated with generic LED strips, but instead contain a lighting system specifically designed and configured to achieve the particular "impression of color" as claimed in the patent?