DCT
1:24-cv-20594
Air Esscentials Inc v. Aroma360 LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Air Esscentials, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Aroma360, LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Malloy & Malloy, P.L.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-20594, S.D. Fla., 06/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s scent diffusers infringe three U.S. patents related to fluid dispersion assemblies that atomize liquids like fragrant oils.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns devices that use compressed air to atomize and disperse fluids, such as scents or sanitizers, into an enclosed space, with a focus on designs that reduce operational noise.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant regarding one of the accused products on November 13, 2023. It also alleges that the principals of the two companies had unsuccessful business discussions around 2012-2013.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-08-29 | Earliest Priority Date for ’449, ’918, and ’094 Patents |
| 2012-2013 | Alleged business discussions between Plaintiff and Defendant principals |
| 2016-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,527,094 issues |
| 2018-10-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,092,918 issues |
| 2020-03-10 | U.S. Patent No. 10,583,449 issues |
| 2023-11-13 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2024-06-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,583,449 - Fluid Dispersion Assembly
(Issued Mar. 10, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that fluid diffusion devices utilizing compressed air for delivery of oils and other liquids "tend to make an undesirable and often... a disruptive amount of noise when in operation," which can be "unacceptably noisy" (’449 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fluid dispersion assembly that uses compressed air to create a fine mist of an operative fluid (e.g., fragrant oil). It comprises a main "diffusion unit" that connects to a fluid container, and a "diffusion assembly" with an atomizer that mixes air and fluid. To solve the noise problem, the patent discloses embodiments that include a "suppressor assembly" and/or a "silencer assembly" with internal baffles to disrupt the airflow path and dampen the associated sound waves (’449 Patent, col. 6:5-53; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide the benefits of forced-air diffusion (no heating, automated operation) while mitigating the significant drawback of operational noise, making such devices more suitable for quiet environments like offices or homes (’449 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶28).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 7:
- A fluid dispersion assembly interconnected to a container of operative fluid and a compressed air source.
- A "diffusion unit" that at least partially defines a "diffusion chamber."
- A "discharge port" for fluid communication between the chamber and the surrounding airspace.
- A "diffusion assembly" in operative engagement with the diffusion unit.
- The diffusion assembly includes an "atomizer assembly" which itself comprises an air inlet channel, a fluid inlet, a mixing chamber, and an exhaust aperture.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 4 and 8-10 (Compl. ¶28).
U.S. Patent No. 10,092,918 - Fluid Dispersion Assembly
(Issued Oct. 9, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’449 Patent: the undesirable and "often unacceptably noisy" operation of compressed-air fluid diffusers (’918 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: This patent discloses a specific structural solution to the noise problem. The invention describes a diffusion chamber that is divided into an "upper chamber" and a "lower chamber." The atomizer assembly is positioned between these two chambers. This configuration forces the fluid dispersion discharged from the atomizer to be "interrupted and redirected," which serves to "suppress or dampen sound waves generated therein" without necessarily requiring a separate suppressor part (’918 Patent, col. 11:1-10; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This design provides an alternative, potentially more integrated, method for noise reduction by shaping the primary diffusion chamber itself rather than adding separate sound-dampening components.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 5:
- A fluid dispersion assembly interconnected to a container of operative fluid and a compressed air source.
- A "diffusion unit" defining a diffusion chamber that comprises an "upper chamber" and a "lower chamber."
- A "discharge port" for fluid communication between the chamber and the surrounding airspace.
- A "diffusion assembly" comprising an atomizer assembly.
- The diffusion assembly is "disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 3-4 and 6-8 (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Patent No. 9,527,094 - Fluid Dispersion Assembly
(Issued Dec. 27, 2016)
- Technology Synopsis: The ’094 Patent addresses the problem of noise generated by compressed-air scent diffusers (’094 Patent, col. 1:22-34). The patented solution includes designs with a "suppressor assembly" and/or a "silencer assembly" to dampen sound waves. It also discloses an alternative embodiment where the diffusion chamber itself is modified into an "upside down L-shaped configuration" to interrupt airflow and reduce noise without a separate suppressor component (’094 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:4-13).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 7 and dependent claims 8-9 and 11 (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: The complaint specifically accuses the DaVinci360 Scent Diffuser of infringing the ’094 Patent by allegedly incorporating the claimed fluid dispersion assembly technology (Compl. ¶46, ¶22, ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the Museum360 HVAC Scent Diffuser, the DaVinci360 Scent Diffuser, and the VanGogh360 Scent Diffuser, collectively referred to as the "Accused Diffusers" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Diffusers are fluid dispersion assemblies sold by Defendant AROMA360 (Compl. ¶19, ¶21). The complaint describes their core technical functionality as including "a diffusion unit at least partially defining a diffusion chamber; a discharge port disposed in fluid communication between the diffusion chamber and the surrounding airspace; and a diffusion assembly comprising an atomizer assembly, the diffusion assembly disposed in an operative engagement with the diffusion unit" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific internal structure or operation of the individual accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references preliminary claim chart exhibits for each patent-in-suit; however, these exhibits were not attached to the filed complaint provided for analysis. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations.
’449 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a diffusion unit at least partially defining a diffusion chamber | The Accused Diffusers allegedly include "a diffusion unit at least partially defining a diffusion chamber." | ¶24 | col. 3:29-32 |
| a discharge port disposed in fluid communication between said diffusion chamber and the surrounding airspace | The Accused Diffusers allegedly include "a discharge port disposed in fluid communication between the diffusion chamber and the surrounding airspace." | ¶24 | col. 3:62-67 |
| a diffusion assembly disposed in an operative engagement with said diffusion unit, wherein said diffusion assembly comprises an atomizer assembly | The Accused Diffusers allegedly include "a diffusion assembly comprising an atomizer assembly, the diffusion assembly disposed in an operative engagement with the diffusion unit." | ¶24 | col. 4:57-63 |
| said atomizer assembly comprising an atomizer air inlet channel, a fluid inlet, a mixing chamber, and an atomizer exhaust aperture | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific internal components of the alleged atomizer assembly. | --- | col. 5:12-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: A primary question will be whether discovery confirms that the Accused Diffusers contain each element of the claimed "atomizer assembly" (air inlet, fluid inlet, mixing chamber, exhaust aperture). The complaint alleges the presence of the assembly in general terms but does not detail its specific sub-components (Compl. ¶24).
’918 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a diffusion unit at least partially defining a diffusion chamber, wherein said diffusion chamber comprises an upper chamber and a lower chamber | The complaint’s general description of the accused product does not specify whether the diffusion chamber is divided into an upper and lower chamber. | ¶24 | col. 11:1-4 |
| a diffusion assembly... disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber | The complaint does not allege facts regarding the specific placement of the diffusion assembly relative to any upper or lower chambers. | ¶24 | col. 11:10-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the internal structure of the Accused Diffusers can be characterized as having a "diffusion chamber" that comprises distinct "upper" and "lower" chambers as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation appears to hinge on a specific spatial relationship: the diffusion assembly being "disposed between" the upper and lower chambers. The complaint's generalized description of the accused products does not provide facts to support this specific structural limitation, raising the question of whether there is a mismatch between the claimed structure and the accused devices' actual configuration (Compl. ¶24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’918 Patent
- The Term: "a diffusion chamber comprises an upper chamber and a lower chamber"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’918 Patent depends entirely on this structural limitation, which is presented as the inventive concept for noise reduction. The construction of what constitutes distinct "upper" and "lower" chambers, as opposed to a single, undifferentiated chamber, will be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may dispute whether the terms require formally separate physical structures or if they can refer to different regions within a single, continuous cavity. The specification does not appear to provide an explicit textual definition, which may leave room for argument based on the overall disclosure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes and depicts an embodiment where the atomizer is positioned, and the "upper chamber" (115") and "lower chamber" (114") are shown as physically distinct spaces above and below the atomizer assembly, separated by the structure of the assembly itself (’918 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 10:57-65). This embodiment could be cited to argue that the terms require a clear structural division, not just functional regions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint exclusively pleads "direct infringement" in each of its counts (Compl. ¶28, ¶37, ¶44). It does not contain factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as instructing users on an infringing use or providing a non-staple component for an infringing system.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents. The basis for pre-suit knowledge is a cease-and-desist letter sent on November 13, 2023 (Compl. ¶20, ¶29, ¶38, ¶45). The complaint also asserts that its filing and service provide actual notice, making any subsequent infringement willful (Compl. ¶33, ¶40, ¶47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute between two Florida-based competitors in the scent diffuser market will likely center on the specific internal mechanics and structures of the accused devices. The key questions raised by the complaint are:
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused AROMA360 diffusers possess the specific two-part "upper chamber and a lower chamber" configuration with the atomizer "disposed between" them, as explicitly required by the claims of the ’918 patent, or is this a feature unique to the patented design? The complaint's generic technical description leaves this as a critical open question.
- A second key question will be one of evidentiary proof: While the complaint maps the accused products to the high-level elements of the ’449 patent's claims, it will be incumbent on the Plaintiff to demonstrate through discovery that the accused devices contain the specific sub-components of the claimed "atomizer assembly," a level of detail not present in the initial pleading.