DCT
0:24-cv-60449
Sarlas v. Atnos Nation LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: George Sarlas (Illinois)
- Defendant: Atmos Nation, LLC (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fisherbroyles, LLP
- Case Identification: 0:24-cv-60449, S.D. Fla., 03/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s principal place of business being located in the Southern District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Greedy" line of portable vaporizers infringes a patent related to atomizer design, specifically concerning airflow systems and component assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to electronic atomizers used for vaporizing concentrates, a significant segment of the e-cigarette and legal cannabis consumption market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventor, Plaintiff's stepson, notified Defendant of the provisional patent application in 2017 and of the issued patent in 2020 and 2023. It further alleges that Defendant's product is manufactured by the same Chinese company that originally manufactured the inventor's own product, using the same computer-aided design (CAD) files. The patent's priority claim to a 2016 provisional application was restored by the USPTO in 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-02-01 | Inventor began marketing the "Saionara" atomizer |
| 2016-05-25 | Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application filed) |
| 2017-05-26 | Non-provisional application filed |
| 2017-01-01 | Approximate date Defendant was notified of provisional application |
| 2020-06-11 | '573 Patent assigned to Plaintiff George Sarlas |
| 2020-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,779,573 issues |
| 2020-09-29 | Defendant notified that its "Greedy" product allegedly infringes |
| 2023-04-04 | USPTO granted petition to restore benefit of provisional application |
| 2023-09-06 | Defendant again notified of alleged infringement |
| 2024-03-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,779,573 - “Conjunctive airflow atomizer for concentrates,” issued September 22, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve several problems with prior art vaporizers: the need for improved airflow control, the ability to pre-condition air temperature to enhance the user experience, and a way to capture and reuse heated substance "splatter" that would otherwise be wasted or create a safety issue ('573 Patent, col. 1:59 - col. 2:7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular atomizer with a "conjunctive airflow" system that uses two chambers to warm incoming ambient air before it reaches the heating coil ('573 Patent, col. 2:58-65). It also includes a "reclaim safety cap" with a recessed cup-like structure to capture splatter and an adjustable air ring to control airflow ('573 Patent, col. 3:51-64, col. 12:4-19). The components are designed to be connectable via an industry-standard "510 threaded" connector ('573 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide users with greater control over vapor temperature and density, reduce waste, and improve safety, which are key differentiators in the portable vaporizer market ('573 Patent, col. 4:5-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A multi-component atomizer comprising a "mouthpiece drip tip", a "reclaim safety cap", a "replacement atomizer module", a "conjunctive airflow base", and a "510 threaded deck".
- The "reclaim safety cap" has a "recessed cup-like structure" and is seated on the airflow base by O-rings.
- The "conjunctive airflow base" has multiple O-ring grooves and supports an "adjustable air ring".
- The "replacement atomizer module" contains a "ceramic heating chamber", a "heating coil", and a "positive metal pin".
- The "conjunctive airflow base" comprises "two chambers" with multiple holes and an interior female 510 threaded connection to accept the atomizer module.
- The complaint states Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendant infringes "one or more claims" but only provides a detailed breakdown for claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Greedy" line of portable vaporizers and e-cigarettes (Compl. ¶5, ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused "Greedy" product is functionally and structurally a direct copy of the inventor's "Saionara" atomizer, which embodies the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 31-35). It is alleged to be manufactured by the same entity using the same CAD files that were developed for the inventor's product (Compl. ¶¶ 17-20). The complaint alleges that when disassembled, the accused product reveals components and assemblies that correspond to each element of the asserted patent claim (Compl. ¶¶ 38-48). For example, a "top view" of the disassembled product allegedly reveals a reclaim safety cap with a plurality of interior concentric vent holes (Compl. ¶38).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’573 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mouthpiece drip tip; a reclaim safety cap; a replacement atomizer module; a conjunctive airflow base; an industry standard universal 510 threaded deck | The accused "Greedy" products are alleged to include each of these five main components and are asserted to be identical to the corresponding components of the inventor's "Saionara" product. | ¶31-35 | col. 5:53-61 |
| wherein said reclaim safety cap comprises a plurality of interior concentric vent holes adjoining a recessed cup-like structure | A "top view" of the disassembled accused product is alleged to disclose these features, which are identical to the preferred embodiment. | ¶38 | col. 10:43-51 |
| wherein said conjunctive airflow base comprises three O-ring grooves to accept two upper O-rings and one lower O-ring | A "side view" of the disassembled accused product allegedly discloses an airflow base with three O-ring grooves. | ¶39 | col. 6:10-15 |
| wherein an adjustable air ring is seated by said one lower O-ring; wherein said adjustable air ring is disposed on an end of the conjunctive airflow base by friction fit | A "side view" of the disassembled accused product allegedly shows an adjustable air ring that turns to open or cover exterior holes and is secured by friction fit. | ¶40-41 | col. 12:49-54 |
| wherein the replacement atomizer module comprises: a ceramic heating chamber, a heating coil... a heating rod... an industry standard universal 510 male threaded connector, and a positive metal pin | A "top view" of the disassembled accused product is alleged to show a ceramic heating chamber with a heating coil and rod, a standard 510 connector, and a positive pin. | ¶44 | col. 6:46-54 |
| wherein the conjunctive airflow base comprises two chambers with a plurality of exterior and interior holes | Examination of the disassembled accused product allegedly shows a plurality of interior and exterior holes corresponding to the claimed two-chamber structure. | ¶46 | col. 7:62 - col. 8:10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint's core assertion is that the "Greedy" product is an identical copy of the inventor's "Saionara" product, allegedly made using the same CAD files (Compl. ¶20). A primary question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to substantiate this claim of direct copying.
- Technical Question: The complaint relies on observations of a disassembled product (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 39, 44). A potential area of dispute is whether the accused product's components, while visually similar, operate in the specific manner required by the claims, such as the airflow base performing the function of a "conjunctive airflow" system to pre-condition air.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "conjunctive airflow base"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's title and its purported novelty. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product's base performs the specific function of a "conjunctive airflow" system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a generic multi-hole base infringes, or if a specific two-chamber, air-preconditioning structure is required.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition in the claims themselves, which may support a construction based on its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes it as a "process by which incoming ambient air is temperature-increased as it fills the first or lower air chamber through a plurality of holes, with the air flow filling the second chamber and warming the air" ('573 Patent, col. 2:63-col. 3:2). This description of a two-stage process could support a narrower, more functional definition.
The Term: "reclaim safety cap"
Context and Importance: The function of this component is a key feature. A dispute may arise over whether this term requires both the safety function (blocking splatter) and the "reclaim" function (capturing substance for re-use).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be argued to cover any cap that provides safety from splatter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the "recessed cup in the reclaim safety cap is an enhancement to collect the splatter after the coil heats the substance in the reclaim cup to be reused" ('573 Patent, col. 3:60-64). This language suggests the "reclaim" function is a specific, required feature, not merely an incidental benefit.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "instruction and guidance" with knowledge and intent to encourage its customers' infringing use (Compl. ¶51). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are a material part of the invention and not a staple commodity suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶52).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported long-standing knowledge of the patent rights. The complaint alleges Defendant was made aware of the provisional application in 2017 and was sent notice of the issued patent and infringement allegations in both 2020 and 2023 (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 49, 54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central factual question will be one of provenance and copying: can the Plaintiff substantiate the allegation that the Defendant's product is manufactured by the inventor's former partner using the exact same design files? Evidence on this point could be highly influential.
- A key legal question will be one of claim scope: will the term "conjunctive airflow base" be construed to require the specific two-chamber, air-preconditioning function described in the specification, or can it read on a more generic airflow structure? The outcome of this construction will likely be determinative for infringement.
- The case will also turn on the issue of willfulness: given the detailed allegations of repeated pre-suit notice dating back to the provisional application, a significant focus will be on whether Defendant's alleged conduct, if found to be infringing, was objectively reckless.