Lead Creation Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lead Creation Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MAH Advising PLLC
• Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00049, M.D. Fla., 01/17/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, namely offers for sale and sales of accused products to consumers in the district, occurred in the Middle District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of adjustable-focus flashlights infringe a patent related to the mechanism for changing the beam angle.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns LED flashlights that allow a user to adjust the focus from a wide, short-distance beam to a narrow, long-distance beam by changing the distance between the LED and a convex lens.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a "Schedule A" list of unidentified e-commerce operators, a common procedure in cases against numerous foreign online sellers. The complaint references, but does not include, an expert opinion and claims comparison chart, suggesting Plaintiff has retained an expert to support its infringement contentions.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-08-25	’706 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2009-05-12	’706 Patent Issue Date
2023-01-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,530,706 - "LED Lighting Apparatus with Fast Changing Focus," Issued May 12, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art adjustable flashlights, particularly those using LEDs. Conventional designs using reflective cones were often structurally complex, had limited adjustment range, and could produce uneven light beams with undesirable "hot spots" or dark rings, especially when switching between long-distance and short-distance use ( ’706 Patent, col. 5:12-27, 56-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a compact lighting apparatus that eliminates the reflective cone. It uses a single LED light source and a convex lens positioned in front of it. By moving a collar or housing to which the lens is attached, the user can change the distance between the stationary LED and the lens. This axial movement allows for a rapid change in the beam angle, providing either a bright, focused long-distance beam or a wide illumination scope for short-distance tasks (’706 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:35-41). The patent's Figure 1 shows an exploded view of the components, including the main body (1), the light-emitting device (2), and the housing (3) with the convex lens (5).
• Technical Importance: This design claims to offer a more convenient and effective way to adjust focus in a compact form factor, producing "optimal beams—no dark holes, rings, hot spots, or shadows" (’706 Patent, col. 5:3-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 1, as well as dependent Claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 (Compl. ¶13, ¶16-19).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A main body with a power source.
  • A light-emitting diode (LED) at the front end of the main body.
  • A collar coaxially coupled to the main body.
  • A convex lens coupled to the collar, selectively displaceable between a first and second range relative to the LED.
  • A pair of axially offset annular engagement portions for "releasably locking" the collar in the first and second ranges.
  • A functional result whereby brightness is optimally maintained for a greater illumination range in the second range than in the first.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "lighting apparatus namely flashlights" sold by Defendants on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are flashlights that infringe by incorporating the patented invention (Compl. ¶13). The accused functionality involves a convex lens that, when its distance from the LED is changed, concurrently alters the beam angle to increase brightness for long-distance use and illumination scope for short-distance use, all without a reflective cone (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes an image of the Accused Products in Exhibit-4, which depicts several models of "tactical" style LED flashlights with adjustable heads (Compl. ¶13, Exhibit-4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claims comparison chart prepared by an expert, attached as Exhibit-7, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶20). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations.

’706 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a main body having a power source;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products are flashlights, which inherently contain a main body and power source (e.g., batteries) (Compl. ¶13).	¶13, ¶15	col. 6:6-9
a light-emitting diode electrically connected with the power source and positioned at a front end of the main body...	The Accused Products are alleged to be LED flashlights (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).	¶13, ¶15	col. 6:14-18
a collar coaxially coupled to the main body;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products embody the invention, which includes a collar or housing coupled to the main body (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The visual evidence in Exhibit-4 shows flashlights with adjustable heads that correspond to the claimed collar (Compl. ¶13, Exhibit-4).	¶13, ¶15	col. 6:28-31
a convex lens coupled to the collar and optically coupled to the light-emitting diode in coaxially displaceable manner...said convex lens being selectively displaced between a first range and a second range...	The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a convex lens that is displaced to change the beam angle, which is the core of the infringement allegation (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).	¶13, ¶15	col. 6:32-34
at least one of said main body and collar having a pair of annular engagement portions axially offset from the other for releasably locking said collar to the main body to locate the convex lens respectively in said first range and second range;	The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the Accused Products include every limitation of Claim 1, but provides no specific facts describing the mechanism for "releasably locking" the collar at distinct positions (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).	¶13, ¶15	col. 6:38-42
whereby a brightness of the light is optimally maintained for a greater range of illumination when the convex lens is in said second range than in said first range.	The complaint alleges the Accused Products achieve this functional result, stating "the brightness for long distance is increased and illumination scope for short distance is increased" (Compl. ¶13).	¶13, ¶15	col. 6:50-54

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the Accused Products contain the specific locking mechanism recited in claim 1(f). The complaint provides no detail on how the accused flashlights are "releasably lock[ed]" into discrete first and second ranges, as opposed to being held by simple friction. Evidence of the internal mechanics of the accused flashlights will be necessary to substantiate this element.
• Scope Questions: The interpretation of "releasably locking" will be critical. The case may turn on whether a simple friction-fit sliding mechanism, common in adjustable-head flashlights, meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more positive locking structure with discrete engagement points.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "releasably locking" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute because it defines the specific mechanism for securing the adjustable head (the "collar") at different positions of focus. The presence or absence of a feature that meets this limitation in the Accused Products could determine the outcome of the infringement analysis for Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than a simple slidable friction fit.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might contend that "locking" does not require a specific structure and can be satisfied by any means that holds the collar in place for operation, including a high-friction engagement. The claim language itself does not specify the type of lock.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where a "switch button (32) is adapted to be received at the longitudinal groove (31)" and is "held by the first receiving groove (11) or the second receiving groove (12)" (’706 Patent, col. 6:38-42). This suggests a positive, mechanical interlock. Further, Claim 9, which depends from Claim 1, specifies "discrete operational settings" where the collar is "operably secured for stable operation exclusively at said operational settings," reinforcing an interpretation that requires distinct, stable, and non-continuous positions (’706 Patent, col. 7:34-37).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, the body of the complaint does not contain factual allegations to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for induced infringement, or the specific elements of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶B.ii). The allegations focus exclusively on direct infringement (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "wilful direct infringement" (Compl. ¶26). However, it does not plead any facts indicating that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’706 Patent. The basis for willfulness appears to be the continuation of infringing activities after the filing of the lawsuit.

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

1. A Core Evidentiary Question: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the Accused Products, sold by numerous online entities, actually contain the specific "pair of annular engagement portions" for "releasably locking" the adjustable head, as required by Claim 1? The complaint's conclusory allegations on this point will require substantial factual support.
2. A Central Claim Construction Question: The case will likely turn on the definition of "releasably locking." The key issue for the court will be whether this term can be construed broadly to cover a standard friction-fit mechanism common in adjustable flashlights, or if the patent’s specification and dependent claims demand a narrower construction requiring a distinct, positive mechanical interlock with discrete positions.