DCT

0:01-cv-06973

Aspex Eyewear Inc v. Hakim Optical

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:01-cv-06973, S.D. Fla., 06/18/2001
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s residence and acts of infringement within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s magnetic eyeglass frames and clip-on attachments infringe a patent related to auxiliary lenses for eyeglasses that attach via a combination of magnetic force and physical support.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of eyewear, specifically clip-on auxiliary lenses (e.g., sunglasses) that can be removably attached to a primary pair of prescription eyeglasses.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a chain of ownership and licensing for the patent-in-suit. It alleges an initial assignment to Plaintiff Contour Optik, followed by an agreement establishing joint ownership between Contour Optik and Plaintiff Asahi Optical Co. (Pentax), and exclusive licensing agreements with Plaintiffs Aspex Eyewear and Manhattan Design Studio, which collectively grant them the exclusive rights to enforce the patent in the United States.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-11-07 U.S. Patent No. 5,568,207 Priority Date
1996-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 5,568,207 Issue Date
1997-02-07 '207 Patent assigned to Plaintiff Contour Optik
2000-04-01 Ownership agreement between Contour and Pentax
2000-05-18 Contour assigns one-half interest in '207 Patent to Pentax
2001-06-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,568,207 - "Auxiliary Lenses for Eyeglasses"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,568,207, issued October 22, 1996.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a deficiency in prior art magnetic clip-on eyeglasses where the auxiliary lenses "are simply attached to the frames by magnetic materials and have no supporting members for preventing the auxiliary lenses from moving downward relative to the frames" (’207 Patent, col. 1:22-26). This could lead to the auxiliary frame being "easily disengaged" during physical activities like jogging or jumping (’207 Patent, col. 1:27-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dual-component attachment system that combines magnetic attraction with physical, structural support. An auxiliary frame features "arms" that extend rearward to rest on top of the primary eyeglass frame, while corresponding magnets on both frames provide the securing force (’207 Patent, col. 2:42-53). The physical contact of the auxiliary arms on the primary frame is described as preventing the downward movement that plagued earlier designs, thereby creating a more stable attachment (’207 Patent, col. 2:55-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for more securely attaching auxiliary lenses to primary frames, addressing stability issues present in purely magnetic attachment systems of the time (’207 Patent, col. 3:11-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the patent generally, which by necessity includes the sole independent claim, Claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A primary spectacle frame with two rear and side portions, each having a projection.
    • A pair of first magnetic members secured in those projections.
    • An auxiliary spectacle frame with two side portions, each having an arm extended therefrom.
    • The arm is for "extending over and for engaging with" the upper side portion of the primary frame.
    • A pair of second magnetic members secured to the arms for engaging with the first magnetic members.
    • The arms are "engaged with and supported on" the upper portion of the primary frame to prevent downward movement and disengagement.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific product by name. It broadly accuses "magnetic eyeglass frames and clip on attachments" sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are "described in the '207 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). This suggests the accused products are eyeglass systems comprising a primary frame and a magnetically attachable auxiliary frame (e.g., for sunglasses). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused products or their market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. The infringement theory is articulated as a broad allegation that Defendant is "offering for sale and selling magnetic eyeglass frames and clip on attachments as described in the '207 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). Without specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim limitations, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

Figure 7 of the '207 Patent, which shows a cross-sectional view of the engagement between the primary frame's projection (13) and the auxiliary frame's arm (21), illustrates the dual support-and-attraction mechanism that would be a central point of any infringement analysis (Compl., Ex. A, p. 8; '207 Patent, FIG. 7).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the Defendant's accused products contain the specific structural combination required by Claim 1: an "arm" on the auxiliary frame that is "supported on said upper side portion" of the primary frame, in addition to the magnetic coupling. The patent emphasizes this physical support as a key element for preventing downward movement.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's lack of specificity raises the question of what evidence Plaintiffs will present to demonstrate that the accused products practice each limitation of the asserted claim, particularly the "extending over and for engaging with" function of the auxiliary frame's arms.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "arm extended therefrom for extending over and for engaging with said upper side portion of said primary spectacle frame"

Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the asserted invention, distinguishing it from prior art that relied solely on magnetic force. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine infringement. The dispute will center on what degree of physical interaction is required for an "arm" to be considered "engaging with and supported on" the primary frame.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "engaging with" does not strictly require constant, load-bearing contact, but could be satisfied by a structure that is positioned to prevent downward movement if such force were applied, even if it "hovers" slightly above the primary frame in a static state.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly states the arms are "supported on the upper portion of the primary spectacle frame" to "prevent said auxiliary spectacle frame from moving downward" (’207 Patent, col. 4:21-25). Language such as "hooking on said primary spectacle frame" in dependent claim 2 further suggests a direct, physical, and supportive contact is intended (’207 Patent, col. 4:33-35).

The Term: "projection"

Context and Importance: This term defines the structure on the primary frame where the first magnet is located. Its definition is important because if the accused primary frames lack a "projection" and instead embed a magnet flush with the frame, infringement could potentially be avoided.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "projection" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any feature that protrudes from the main surface of the eyeglass frame, regardless of its specific shape or purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates the "projection" as a distinct component (element 13) secured to the frame for the purpose of holding the magnet (14) (’207 Patent, col. 2:39-42; FIG. 7). This could support an argument that the term requires a discrete, added-on structure, not merely a thickened or raised area of the frame itself.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant infringed "well knowing of the '207 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). It also includes a prayer for relief asking the court to declare that the "infringement was willful" and to award trebled damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 2, 5). The allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural infringement: Can Plaintiffs produce evidence showing that the accused products incorporate the specific, dual-mode attachment system of Claim 1—namely, an auxiliary frame "arm" that is physically "supported on" the upper portion of the primary frame to prevent downward slippage, in addition to the magnetic coupling?
  • A central legal question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the scope of the term "arm... engaging with said upper side portion"? A narrow construction requiring direct, load-bearing contact would create a higher bar for infringement than a broader construction that includes structures merely positioned to prevent movement.
  • A key factual question will be one of knowledge and intent: What evidence can Plaintiffs provide to substantiate the allegation that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '207 patent? The answer will be determinative for the claim of willful infringement and the potential for enhanced damages.