DCT

0:24-cv-60482

GoClips LLC v. AGM Tools Of South Florida Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:24-cv-60482, S.D. Fla., 06/20/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendants regularly conduct business from a principal place of business in Pompano Beach, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred in the district, and acts of infringement were allegedly committed within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ undermount sink anchors infringe three patents related to sink clamp devices and methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical clamps used to secure undermount sinks to the bottom of hard countertop surfaces, a common practice in the kitchen and bathroom construction and home improvement industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent Defendants a notice of the ’754 patent on November 29, 2017. Following this notice, Defendants allegedly promised to cease infringing sales and entered a distribution agreement to sell authentic GoClips® products, but later resumed the alleged infringement. This history is central to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-12-10 Priority Date for ’754, ’193, and D'447 Patents
2017-11-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,828,754 Issued
2017-11-29 Plaintiffs sent Defendants notice of the ’754 Patent
2019-08-06 U.S. Design Patent No. D855,447 Issued
2019-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,378,193 Issued
2024-06-20 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,828,754 - "Sink Clamp and Methods," issued Nov. 28, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional methods for mounting sinks under hard countertops (e.g., granite) as time-consuming, requiring difficult steps like drilling, applying epoxy, and installing threaded inserts, which carry a risk of damaging the countertop or failing over time (’754 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a clamping device that avoids drilling and epoxy. It features a "binding lip" designed to be inserted into a simple, shallow slot cut into the underside of the countertop. A screw on the clamp body is then tightened against the sink's flange. This action creates a lever force, causing the binding lip to press firmly inside the slot and securely clamp the sink to the countertop (’754 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-10).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides a method for installing undermount sinks that is potentially faster, less labor-intensive, and less likely to cause damage to expensive countertop materials compared to prior art methods (’754 Patent, col. 2:7-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, reserving the right to identify them later. Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • An undercounter sink attachment system comprising a sink and a clamping device.
    • The clamping device has a clamp body with an "insertable end" configured to go into a slot in the countertop.
    • A "clamping spring" is connected to the clamp body.
    • The spring has a deflectable portion that extends upwardly and is configured to be deflected by contact with the sink's periphery.
    • This deflection transmits an upward clamping force to the sink.
    • The spring is connected to the clamp body by a fastener that is "horizontally offset" from the insertable end.

U.S. Patent No. 10,378,193 - "Sink Clamp and Methods," issued Aug. 13, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the ’754 patent, this patent addresses the same general problems. It further identifies a specific issue where the rotating contact of a tightening screw can transmit torque to the sink flange, potentially causing the sink to shift out of alignment during installation (’193 Patent, col. 2:10-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses more refined clamp designs. A key addition is an optional "clamp screw cap," which is a separate piece (e.g., of molded plastic) that fits over the end of the clamp screw. This cap acts as a buffer between the rotating screw and the stationary sink flange, transmitting the clamping force without transmitting the problematic torque (’193 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:45-58). The patent also describes more detailed geometries for the clamping spring.
  • Technical Importance: The introduction of the screw cap is intended to improve installation reliability by isolating the sink from the rotational forces of the screw, ensuring the sink remains in its desired position throughout the tightening process (’193 Patent, col. 8:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts. Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • An undercounter sink attachment system comprising a sink and a clamping device.
    • The clamping device has a clamp body with an "insertable end."
    • A "clamping spring" connected to the clamp body, which in a relaxed state includes a "contacting portion" extending upwardly.
    • The contacting portion deflects upon contact with the sink to transmit an upward clamping force.
    • The spring is connected to the clamp body by a fastener "horizontally offset from the insertable end."

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D855,447

  • Patent Identification: D855,447, "Sink Clamp," issued Aug. 6, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the unique, ornamental, and non-functional design for the body of a sink clamp. The complaint highlights the design's "elegant, nonfunctional, uniform sloping transition from a horizontal to a vertical plane" as a key aesthetic quality (Compl. ¶31). The complaint provides figures from the 'D447 design patent to illustrate the claimed ornamental design for the clamp (Compl., p. 8, FIGS. 1 & 4).
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's figures.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "counterfeited Plaintiff's D447 design patent in one of their device offerings," meaning the overall visual appearance of the accused product is alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "knockoff devices" which are allegedly marketed, sold, and distributed by the AGM affiliates (Compl. ¶45). The complaint alleges these products are identified as "Go Clip" on sales receipts and as "Quick Clips" on their packaging (Compl. ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as slot-based sink anchors used to securely undermount sinks to hard countertop surfaces (Compl. ¶40). They are alleged to be "nearly identical in size, shape, and appearance to authentic GoClips® devices" (Compl. ¶47). The complaint alleges these products are sold through Defendants' e-commerce website and at national tradeshows, and that Defendants have contacted Plaintiffs' own customers to offer the accused products at reduced prices (Compl. ¶¶44, 54). A sales receipt is provided, allegedly showing the purchase of an item identified as "Clip STD 25 Go Clip" from Defendants (Compl., p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that a detailed comparison of the accused products to the asserted patent claims is provided in a "Claim Chart attached as EXHIBIT E" (Compl. ¶45, ¶61, ¶71). However, this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint. In the absence of claim charts, the infringement theory is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

  • ’754 and ’193 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "knockoff devices" directly infringe the claims of the ’754 and ’193 patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶61, ¶71). The core of this allegation is the assertion that Defendants' products are "near identical copies" of Plaintiffs' GoClips® devices (Compl. ¶63, ¶73), which Plaintiffs state "duly embody the claims" of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶25, ¶29). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused product's packaging, which identifies the product as "Small Quick Clip" (Compl., p. 13). The infringement analysis will therefore depend on a direct comparison of the structure and function of these "Quick Clips" to the elements of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Factual Question: The central issue will be factual: do the accused "Quick Clip" products practice each and every limitation of the asserted patent claims? As the products are alleged to be "near identical copies," the dispute may hinge on subtle structural or functional differences that Defendants might argue exist between their products and the claim language.
    • Technical Question: A potential point of contention could be the precise manner in which the accused device's spring component deflects and transmits force, and whether this mechanism meets the specific functional language of the claims, such as transmitting an "upward clamping force to said portion of the sink when the insertable end is inserted into the slot" (’193 Patent, col. 10:56-60).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "clamping spring" (from claim 1 of both the ’754 and ’193 patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the invention's mechanism of action. Its construction will determine the scope of resilient structures covered by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either encompass a wide range of spring-like components or be limited to the specific leaf-spring-style embodiments shown in the patents.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’754 patent describes the component as potentially being made of "spring steel, or another strong but flexible material," which suggests a functional rather than a strictly structural definition (’754 Patent, col. 4:31-33).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’193 patent discloses specific embodiments of the spring having distinct "connecting segment," "downturned middle segment," and "upturned, deflectable contact segment" (’193 Patent, col. 8:55-61). A party could argue that the term should be construed to require such a multi-part structure, thereby narrowing the claim's scope.

  • The Term: "insertable end" (from claim 1 of both the ’754 and ’193 patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the portion of the clamp that interfaces directly with the countertop. Its construction is critical for determining what shapes and configurations meet the claim limitation for engaging the countertop slot.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring only that the end be "configured to insert into the slot" (’193 Patent, col. 10:43-44). This could be read to cover any shape that can fit into the slot to perform the anchoring function.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description show the "insertable end" as a distinct "binding lip" bent at "substantially a right angle" to the main clamp body (’754 Patent, col. 4:14-17; Fig. 4). An argument could be made that the term is implicitly limited to this specific right-angled, lip-like geometry shown in the preferred embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Garcia is liable for contributory infringement, asserting that the accused products are "near identical copies" of Plaintiffs' devices and have "no alternate, non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶63, ¶73). It also alleges inducement against Garcia, stating he "caused and contributed to the AGM affiliates to willfully... infringe" (Compl. ¶61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a strong claim for willful infringement based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. It states that Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a copy of the ’754 patent on November 29, 2017 (Compl. ¶49). The willfulness allegation is further supported by the claim that Defendants subsequently promised to cease infringement and entered into a distribution agreement with Plaintiffs, only to later resume selling "counterfeit knockoff products" (Compl. ¶¶50-53).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of intent and willfulness: Given the complaint's detailed allegations of prior notice, a broken promise to cease infringement, and a terminated distribution agreement, a central question for the court will be whether Defendants’ alleged conduct rises to the level of willful infringement, which could expose them to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical identity: Is the accused "Quick Clip" product structurally and functionally identical to what is required by the asserted claims of the ’754 and ’193 patents? The case may turn on a direct, element-by-element comparison of the physical product against the construed claim language.
  • A third question will be one of ornamental scope: For the design patent claim, the issue will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused "Quick Clip" believing it to be the GoClips product. This analysis will focus purely on the visual similarity of the products' non-functional aesthetic features.