DCT
4:23-cv-00539
Rose v. Atmos Nation LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sai Rose (pro se) (Florida)
- Defendant: Atmos Nation, LLC (Florida), Charly Benassayag, Eli Eroche, and Yariv Alima
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: N/A (Plaintiff is proceeding pro se)
- Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00539, N.D. Fla., 01/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Florida as Defendant Atmos Nation, LLC is a Florida company, maintains a pervasive web presence, ships orders to customers within the district, and employs individuals in Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Greedy" and "Greedy M2" vaporizer atomizers infringe a patent related to a "conjunctive airflow" system for vaporizing concentrates.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves personal vaporizer devices, commonly used for e-liquids and cannabis concentrates, focusing on airflow management to improve vapor quality and device efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive pre-suit history, including multiple cease and desist communications dating back to 2016. It also notes that after the patent issued, the Plaintiff successfully petitioned the USPTO to restore the benefit of an earlier provisional application, which was granted on April 4, 2023, thereby securing an earlier priority date for the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-05-25 | Alleged U.S. Provisional Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2016-12-30 | Plaintiff allegedly sends first email notification to Defendant |
| 2017-05-26 | U.S. Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2020-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,779,573 Issues |
| 2023-04-04 | USPTO grants petition restoring benefit of provisional application date |
| 2024-01-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,779,573 - "Conjunctive Airflow Atomizer for Concentrates"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,779,573, “Conjunctive Airflow Atomizer for Concentrates,” issued September 22, 2020 (’573 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for vaporizers that offer improved safety, better efficiency in vaporizing concentrates, and greater user control over the vaping experience, particularly regarding vapor temperature and airflow ( Compl. ¶3; ’573 Patent, col. 2:58-68). The prior art allegedly suffered from issues like leakage of heated substances and inefficient heating coils that could overheat the vapor or the device ('573 Patent, col. 2:45-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "conjunctive airflow" system that uses a multi-chamber base to pre-condition ambient air (either warming or cooling it) before it reaches the heating coil. This is intended to create a more consistent and pleasant vapor ('573 Patent, col. 2:60-64). The design also incorporates a "reclaim safety cap" with a recessed cup structure designed to capture and allow for the reuse of any unvaporized, splattered material while also preventing hot splatter from reaching the user ('573 Patent, col. 2:27-30; FIG. 14).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to enhance the performance and safety of portable atomizers by actively managing airflow temperature and capturing material that would otherwise be wasted or create a hazard for the user (Compl. ¶30).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint alleges infringement of "all claims" of the ’573 patent (Compl. ¶59). The primary independent apparatus claim is Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1: An atomizer comprising the following essential elements:
- A mouthpiece drip tip.
- A "reclaim safety cap" comprising a plurality of interior vent holes adjoining a "recessed cup-like structure."
- A "replacement atomizer module" containing a ceramic heating chamber and a heating coil.
- A "conjunctive airflow base" with three O-ring grooves, which receives the reclaim safety cap and the atomizer module.
- An adjustable air ring seated on the conjunctive airflow base.
- An industry standard universal 510 threaded deck for connection to a power source.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Atmos "Greedy" and "Greedy M2" vaporizer atomizers (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are atomizers designed to be attached to a power source for vaporizing wax concentrates (Compl. p. 28). The central infringement theory is that the accused products are functionally and structurally identical copies of the Plaintiff's own "Saionara" branded device, which embodies the patented invention (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides visual evidence comparing components such as the "Conjunctive Airflow Base," "Replacement Coil," and "Reclaim Cap" of the accused Greedy product and the Saionara product to illustrate their alleged identity (Compl. pp. 28-29). The complaint alleges that Defendant acquires the parts for the accused products from the Plaintiff's manufacturer and rebrands them (Compl. ¶1G, ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for key elements of Claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative and visual evidence, which centers on the allegation that the accused product is an identical copy of the patented device.
10,779,573 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a reclaim safety cap...comprises a plurality of interior concentric vent holes adjoining a recessed cup-like structure | The accused "Greedy" device includes a "Reclaim Cap" that allegedly collects splatter from the heating coil and blocks hot splatter from reaching the user. | ¶26; p. 29 | col. 13:10-14 |
| a replacement atomizer module...comprises: a ceramic heating chamber, a heating coil | The accused device includes a "Replacement Coil" assembly with a ceramic heating chamber designed to hold concentrate for vaporization. | ¶26; p. 29 | col. 13:20-24 |
| a conjunctive airflow base | The accused device includes a "Conjunctive Airflow Base" with a "plurality of holes (4) that goes into the first chamber" to control airflow. | ¶26; p. 28 | col. 13:15-19 |
| an adjustable air ring is seated by said one lower O-ring | The accused device is shown with an adjustable ring that allegedly controls the flow of air into the chambers of the airflow base. | ¶26; p. 28 | col. 13:15-19 |
| an industry standard universal 510 threaded deck | The accused product is an atomizer attachment designed to connect to standard vaporizer power supplies, which typically use a 510 threaded connection. | ¶8; p. 28 | col. 13:8-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory rests on the accused devices being direct copies. A potential point of contention may arise if any structural differences, however minor, exist between the accused products and the claim language. For example, Claim 1 requires the conjunctive airflow base to comprise "three O-ring grooves." The provided visual evidence may not be sufficient to confirm the exact number of grooves in the accused device (Compl. p. 28), raising a factual question for discovery.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the heating coil to comprise "welded wire leads." The complaint provides no direct evidence regarding the manufacturing process or internal construction of the accused product's heating coil leads. Whether the leads in the accused product are "welded," as required by the claim, or attached by another method will be a key technical question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "conjunctive airflow base"
Context and Importance: This term, which appears to be coined by the inventor, is central to the patent's novelty. The definition of what makes an airflow system "conjunctive" will be critical to both infringement and validity analyses. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether it covers any multi-chamber airflow system or is limited to the specific embodiments shown.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the base's function as allowing for "increased airflow and the ability to adjust and control the airflow into the heating coil" (’573 Patent, col. 2:25-27). This could support an argument that the term should be construed functionally.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a specific process where incoming air is "conditioned, either heated or cooled, and enters the upper chamber ... where it is conditioned a second time" (’573 Patent, col. 8:1-5). This language may support a narrower construction limited to a base that performs a two-stage air conditioning process.
The Term: "reclaim safety cap"
Context and Importance: This element is recited with structural limitations in Claim 1 and is presented as a key feature that provides both safety and efficiency benefits. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's cap contains the specific structure required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the cap's function as capturing splatter "to be re-used" and enhancing the vaping experience (’573 Patent, Abstract). This suggests a purpose-driven interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires the cap to comprise "a plurality of interior concentric vent holes adjoining a recessed cup-like structure" (’573 Patent, col. 13:10-14). This detailed structural language may support a narrower construction requiring these exact features, rather than just any cap that happens to capture splatter.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory infringement, stating that Defendants sell components known to be "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the granted patent" and that are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶45, ¶62).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of infringement dating back to 2016. It cites numerous alleged notifications to the Defendant, including emails and cease and desist letters sent in December 2016, January 2017, and again after the patent issued in September 2020 and April 2023 (Compl. ¶23, ¶53). These allegations, if proven, may support a finding of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof of identity: The complaint's core theory is that the accused product is a direct copy of the patented invention. A key question for the court will be whether a technical comparison of the commercial products confirms that the accused "Greedy" and "Greedy M2" devices practice every limitation of the asserted claims, including internal and manufacturing-specific details like the number of O-ring grooves and the use of "welded wire leads."
- A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely involve construction of the inventor-coined term "conjunctive airflow base." The outcome may depend on whether the court defines this term functionally, to mean any base that conditions and adjusts airflow, or structurally, limiting it to the specific two-chamber, two-stage conditioning system described in the patent's preferred embodiment.