DCT

8:19-cv-01731

Delta T LLC v. Dan's Fan City Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01731, M.D. Fla., 08/05/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Vogue" line of ceiling fans infringes two design patents covering the overall ornamental appearance of a minimalist fan and the specific design of its center rotor.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the aesthetic design of residential ceiling fans, focusing on a minimalist, modern style characterized by seamlessly integrated components.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. D808,004 is a continuation of an earlier application and includes a terminal disclaimer, potentially limiting its term. Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. D614,757 was the subject of a Certificate of Correction to replace the original drawing sheets. The complaint alleges Defendants received actual pre-suit notice of infringement for the '757 patent and constructive notice via marking for the '004 patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-09-30 '757 Patent Priority Date
2009-03-26 '757 Patent Application Filed
2010-04-27 '757 Patent Issued
2012-05-01 Plaintiff's "Haiku" fan (embodying '757 patent) Rollout
2015-06-30 '004 Patent Priority Date (based on parent application)
2016-04-26 '004 Patent Application Filed
2018-01-16 '004 Patent Issued
2019-08-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D614,757 - "FAN," issued April 27, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that prior to the invention, the ceiling fan market was saturated with "clunky models" having an "unattractive industrial appearance" with features like "exposed rivets" and "heavy steel hardware" used to attach blades to a central hub (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The '757 Patent protects the ornamental design for a fan. The complaint characterizes this design as a "minimalist" and "organic construction" that avoids the problems of the prior art by featuring "three (3) airfoils [that] seamlessly blend into the center of the fan in a compact, horizontal plane" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 19). The design aims to be a "functional yet minimalist work of art" (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that this design approach sought to "revolutionize this antiquated yet practical and popular home accessory" (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a fan, as shown and described" (’757 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶26).
  • The core visual elements protected by this claim, as depicted in Figures 1-5 of the patent, include:
    • The overall configuration of a ceiling fan.
    • A design with three thin, curved blades.
    • A seamless, blended transition between the blades and the central rotor and mounting structure.

U.S. Patent No. D808,004 - "FAN," issued January 16, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This design was developed for a "less costly" fan that would still retain the "modern and fluid form" of the original Haiku fan (Compl. ¶16).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’004 Patent protects the ornamental design for a fan, with the patent figures using broken lines to disclaim the fan blades and focus protection on the central rotor assembly ('004 Patent, Description, Figs. 1-6). The complaint describes the claimed design as a "unique, remarkably striking, and easily recognizable" center rotor featuring "a circle in the center... that delineates three equally spaced curved outer segments" from which the unclaimed airfoils extend (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this rotor design is visually distinct when "compared to the other residential ceiling fans available on the market" (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a fan, as shown and described" (’004 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶30).
  • The core visual elements protected by this claim, as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-6 of the patent, are limited to the fan's central rotor and do not include the blades. These elements include:
    • The overall shape of the rotor housing.
    • A central circular feature.
    • Three curved segments radiating from the center, which form the attachment points for the fan blades.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Vogue 60 in. Indoor/Outdoor Ceiling Fan," and related fans, collectively referred to as the "Vogue fan" (Compl. ¶3).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Vogue fan is a residential ceiling fan allegedly manufactured by Defendant TroposAir for Defendant Dan's Fan City (DFC) and distributed and sold by retailers including Defendant Home Depot (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 21). The complaint focuses on the fan's aesthetic appearance rather than its mechanical operation, alleging it infringes by copying Plaintiff's patented designs (Compl. ¶20). The complaint provides photographic depictions of the accused Vogue fan in an exhibit, showing its overall shape and rotor design (Compl. ¶20, Ex. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent asks whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

D614,757 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a fan, as shown and described The overall appearance of the Vogue fan is alleged to be "substantially the same as that of the '757 patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer" and to be a "mere colorable imitation of the design claimed in the '757 Patent." ¶26(a), ¶34(c), ¶42 Claim; Figs. 1-5

D808,004 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a fan, as shown and described The Vogue fan is alleged to incorporate "a center rotor that is substantially identical in appearance to the design claimed in the ‘004 Patent" and is a "mere colorable imitation of that claimed in the ‘004 Patent." ¶30(a), ¶38(c), ¶45 Claim; Figs. 1-6
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely involve the scope of the patented designs in light of the prior art. The complaint characterizes the prior art as "clunky" and "industrial" (Compl. ¶10). The court will have to determine if the accused Vogue fan is similar enough to the patented designs to deceive an ordinary observer, or if any differences are significant enough to avoid infringement when viewed against the backdrop of the relevant prior art.
    • Technical (Visual) Questions: For the '757 patent, the analysis may focus on whether the visual impression of the Vogue fan's blade-to-hub transition is the same as the "seamlessly blend[ed]" feature described in the complaint (Compl. ¶11). For the '004 patent, the question will be whether the accused fan's rotor creates the same visual impression as the claimed design, which is limited by the patent's broken lines to the rotor itself, excluding the blades ('004 Patent, Description).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction involves describing the visual appearance of the claimed design rather than defining textual terms. The "claim" is understood to be the design depicted in the drawings.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a fan" (as depicted in the figures of each patent).
  • Context and Importance: The scope of what is protected by the drawings is the central issue. Practitioners may focus on this because the infringement analysis depends entirely on a visual comparison between the claim (the drawings) and the accused product. For the '004 patent, the scope is particularly critical, as the claim is expressly limited to the fan's rotor.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the overall visual impression or "gestalt" of a minimalist, three-bladed fan with integrated blades is the core of the '757 patent's design. This is supported by the complaint's narrative contrasting the design with the "unattractive industrial appearance" of prior art fans (Compl. ¶10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that protection is limited to the exact proportions, curvatures, and surface transitions shown in the patent figures. For the '004 patent, the use of broken lines to show the fan blades is explicit intrinsic evidence that the claim's scope is limited to the central rotor assembly ('004 Patent, Description). The terminal disclaimer filed for the '004 patent may also be used in arguments concerning the patent's scope and relationship to its parent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants DFC and TroposAir actively induced infringement by causing others, such as retailers and end-users, to make, use, or sell the Vogue fan (Compl. ¶¶ 26(b), 30(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was willful. For the '757 patent, the basis is alleged pre-suit actual notice, where "Delta T notified DFC (and TroposAir through DFC) that its unauthorized manufacture and sale of the Vogue fan infringed" (Compl. ¶22). For the '004 patent, the basis is alleged constructive notice through Plaintiff "marking the L-Series fans with the number of the ‘004 Patent" (Compl. ¶31, ¶46).

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

  1. A central question will be one of design scope versus prior art: To what extent do the specific visual features of the patented designs differ from the prior art of "clunky" fans, and are the accused "Vogue" fans close enough to the patented designs to confuse an ordinary observer in that context?
  2. A key evidentiary issue will be the application of the ordinary observer test to a component part. For the '004 patent, which disclaims the fan blades, the court’s analysis will be confined to comparing the accused fan’s central rotor with the claimed rotor design, raising the question of whether similarity in that component alone is sufficient for a finding of infringement.
  3. A significant question for damages will be culpability and willfulness. The complaint alleges pre-suit, actual notice of infringement for the '757 patent, which will require the court to examine whether Defendants' alleged continuation of sales after such notice constituted a deliberate disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights warranting enhanced damages.