DCT

1:25-cv-22786

Dinnteco Intl SL v. Capitol Electronics Sales Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-22786, S.D. Fla., 06/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants having offices and conducting business within the Southern District of Florida. For certain defendants, venue is also based on Florida incorporation or organization.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "CMCE Lightning Suppressor" products infringe a patent related to a "variable electric field balancing device" designed to prevent lightning strikes.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the field of atmospheric discharge protection, specifically devices that seek to prevent lightning formation rather than merely conducting a strike to the ground.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Sertec S.R.L., described as a former authorized distributor of the Plaintiff's products, began selling the accused infringing products after the termination of its distribution agreement. While Sertec is not a named defendant, this history may be relevant to the defendants' knowledge of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-03-24 ’775 Patent Priority Date
2017-06-20 ’775 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,685,775 - "VARIABLE ELECTRIC FIELD BALANCING DEVICE" (issued June 20, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section critiques conventional lightning protection systems, such as Franklin rods and early streamer emission devices, for their inability to prevent the formation of an "upward leader" from a protected structure, which is necessary for a lightning strike to occur (’775 Patent, col. 3:15-22, 3:49-54). The patent asserts that simply attracting and conducting a strike is insufficient and can still lead to damage.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device that actively "compensates" the local electric field to keep it below the threshold required for a lightning strike. It consists of a hollow assembly with an upper "capture" electrode and a lower "reception" electrode, separated by an insulator (’775 Patent, Abstract). This insulator is uniquely shaped to also act as a "skirt" shielding the lower electrode, which is a critical feature to prevent it from inducing an upward leader (’775 Patent, col. 4:50-56). A key component is an "expansion and compression valve" that manages current flow and pressure changes within the assembly to constantly balance the external electric field during a storm (’775 Patent, col. 5:5-10).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology represents a shift from a passive "capture and conduct" approach to an active "balance and prevent" strategy for lightning protection (’775 Patent, col. 3:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A variable electric field balancing device comprising conductive capture elements separated by an electrical insulator incorporated on a mast with an earth connection.
    • The device further comprises a hollow assembly with an upper passive capture element (capture electrode) and a lower passive capture element (reception electrode).
    • An insulator element is arranged between the upper and lower elements, maintaining their separation.
    • The insulator element has a geometry that "externally covers the lower element like a skirt," preventing the lower element from inducing an upward leader.
    • The device also has an "expansion and compression valve" that connects an outer portion to an inner portion of the hollow assembly.
    • This valve "expands in phases of passage of current, absorption of external induced surges, or a combination thereof and is compressed at an end of a compensation of the variable electric field."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "CMCE Lightning Suppressor" devices, sold under various model designations such as "CMCE-25," "CMCE-120," "CMCE-GOLD," and others (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17-21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as lightning protection devices sold for both land and marine applications (Compl. ¶¶ 17-21). An annotated photograph of an accused device is provided, showing a device with an upper dome, a lower base, an intermediate ring, and a mast mount. The complaint's infringement theory, detailed in an annotated diagram, is that these components correspond to the elements of the asserted patent claim (Compl. ¶16). The annotated diagram shows a component labeled "Valve" at the base of the lower element (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that the accused products are sold by a group of distributors, some of which may be connected to a former authorized distributor of the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

  • The complaint provides a visual claim chart that maps elements of Claim 1 to a photograph of an accused "CMCE" device (Compl. ¶16). The annotated diagram presents the core of the plaintiff's infringement theory.
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a hollow assembly comprising an upper passive capture element (2), which acts as a capture electrode, and a lower passive capture element (3), which acts as a reception electrode The accused device has an "Upper Passive Capture Element" and a lower element whose internal portion allegedly serves as the "Lower Passive Capture Element." ¶16 col. 5:27-32
an insulator element (4) arranged between said upper (2) and lower (3) elements The accused device has an "Insulator ring (4)" combined with the "anodized external portion of (3)" which allegedly together serve as the "Insulator Element '4'." ¶16 col. 5:32-35
the insulator element externally covers the lower element (3) like a skirt to a lower base thereof, preventing the impact of a lightning bolt on said lower element (3) from being able to induce the generation of an upward leader The combined structure of the insulator ring and the anodized external portion of the lower element allegedly covers the internal "Lower Passive Capture Element" and acts as a skirt. ¶16 col. 6:1-5
it also has an expansion and compression valve (5) that connects an outer portion to an inner portion of the hollow assembly and which expands in phases of passage of current... and is compressed at an end of a compensation of the variable electric field The accused device contains a component identified in the diagram as a "Valve," which is alleged to meet this limitation. ¶16 col. 6:5-10

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory for the "insulator element (4)" relies on combining two distinct features: a physical "Insulator ring" and the "anodized external portion" of the lower conductive element (Compl. ¶16). This raises the question of whether a surface treatment of one claimed element (the lower conductive element) can be combined with a separate physical part to satisfy a different claimed element (the insulator element).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint labels a component in the accused device as a "Valve" but provides no technical detail on how it operates (Compl. ¶16). A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that this component performs the specific dynamic functions required by the claim, namely that it "expands in phases of passage of current" and "is compressed at an end of a compensation of the variable electric field."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "insulator element (4)"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the plaintiff's infringement allegation depends on construing this single element to be a composite of two different parts of the accused device: a discrete ring and an anodized surface of a conductive element (Compl. ¶16). Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendants will likely argue that the "lower passive capture element (3)" and the "insulator element (4)" are mutually exclusive structures, and an anodized surface of the former cannot constitute part of the latter.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires a geometry where the insulator "externally covers the lower element (3) like a skirt" (ʼ775 Patent, col. 6:1-3). Plaintiff may argue that any combination of components that achieves this required geometry and insulating function meets the claim limitation, regardless of its specific construction.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description consistently treat the upper element (2), lower element (3), and insulator (4) as three distinct, separate components (ʼ775 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:38-48). Defendants may argue that the term "insulator element" must refer to a single, discrete component arranged between the conductive elements, not a feature that includes a surface treatment of one of those conductive elements.

  • The Term: "expansion and compression valve (5)"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to describe a key functional aspect of the invention. The complaint's only evidence is a label on a diagram (Compl. ¶16). Proving that the accused component meets the functional requirements of "expansion" and "compression" in response to electrical phenomena will be central to proving infringement of this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the valve "expands in phases of passage of current, absorption of external induced surges, or a combination thereof and is compressed at an end of a compensation of the variable electric field" (ʼ775 Patent, col. 6:6-10). Plaintiff may argue this language functionally defines the valve's operation, allowing for any structure that achieves this result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the valve as a "safety valve that will jump out of its location" under extreme overpressure, suggesting a specific, mechanical pressure-relief mechanism (ʼ775 Patent, col. 4:33-38). Defendants may seize on this language to argue for a narrower construction requiring a specific type of mechanical valve that physically moves or deforms, which the accused component may not be.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts that each defendant induces and contributes to infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 29, 57, 85). However, the complaint does not allege specific facts, such as citing instructional materials or marketing documents, that would show any defendant specifically intended for its customers to infringe the patent.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been and continues to be willful (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 34, 62, 90). The allegations concerning Sertec, a "former authorized distributor," may be used to argue that defendants had pre-suit knowledge of Dinnteco's technology and, by extension, its patent rights (Compl. ¶24).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "insulator element," which the patent depicts as a single discrete component, be construed to cover a composite structure comprising both a separate ring and the anodized surface of the adjacent "lower passive capture element"?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the accused device's component labeled "Valve" actually perform the dynamic "expansion and compression" in response to electrical currents as specifically required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation? The complaint's current allegations are conclusory on this point.