DCT
1:11-cv-00248
Good Nite Lite LLC v. Gro Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Good Nite Lite LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: The Gro Company (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sentry Law Group
- Case Identification: The Good Nite Lite LLC v. The Gro Company, 1:11-cv-00248, N.D. Ga., 01/26/2011
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s regular and systematic business contacts with Georgia, purposeful direction of activities at residents of the state, and the cause of action arising from these activities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GRO-CLOCK™ product infringes a patent related to a night light that uses changing visual cues to indicate to a child whether it is time to wake up or stay in bed.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the market for children's sleep training aids, which aim to help young children regulate their sleep schedules through behavioral modification techniques.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is related to two U.S. Design Patents filed on the same day. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative challenges involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,683,763 Priority Date |
| 2010-03-23 | U.S. Patent No. 7,683,763 Issued |
| 2011-01-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,683,763, "Night Light Wake Up Indicator," issued March 23, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty parents face when trying to communicate to very young children, who lack a concept of time, when it is appropriate to get out of bed, leading to disruptive early wake-ups (ʼ763 Patent, col. 1:24-41). The patent identifies a need for a technique that delivers a simple, clear, and repeatable message to a child that it is time to stay in bed and sleep (ʼ763 Patent, col. 2:1-2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a dual-mode night light that transitions between a “wake up state” and a “stay in bed state” based on pre-set times, providing a non-verbal, visual cue to the child (ʼ763 Patent, Abstract). The device uses a single face but changes the illuminated portions around it—for example, showing an illuminated sun for the “wake up state” and an illuminated moon for the “stay in bed state”—by activating different sets of colored lights behind different regions of the display (ʼ763 Patent, col. 4:36-50, Fig. 1A-1B).
- Technical Importance: The invention combines the function of a conventional night light with a programmable timer and a behavioral modification system to help reinforce a regular sleep pattern in young children (ʼ763 Patent, col. 2:41-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," with specific allegations mapping to elements found in independent claims 1, 6, and 9 (Compl. ¶12, ¶14-25).
- Independent Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes the following essential elements:
- A display device that "consists only of a facial region, a border region..., a fringe region..., and a plurality of light sources" configured to illuminate these regions with different colors.
- A user interface for receiving start times for a first state and a second state.
- An interface for receiving a current time.
- A comparator for comparing the current time to the state start times.
- Logic to enter a "first state" (wake up) by illuminating lights of a first color in the fringe and facial regions.
- Logic to enter a "second state" (stay in bed) by illuminating lights of a second color in the border and facial regions.
- A requirement that the same facial region is illuminated in both states, but with different colored lights.
- The complaint’s general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" may be read to reserve the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant’s GRO-CLOCK™ night light and wake up indicator (Compl. ¶13).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the GRO-CLOCK™ is a night light that comprises a display device with a facial region, a border region, a fringe region, and light sources of different colors (Compl. ¶14).
- It is alleged to have a user interface for setting a "first state starting time" and a "second state starting time," as well as an interface for receiving the current time (Compl. ¶15-16).
- The product allegedly contains a "comparator" to compare times and trigger a transition into a "first state" (wake up) or a "second state" (stay in bed) by illuminating different colored lights (Compl. ¶17-19).
- The complaint also alleges the product includes a "take-a-nap button" feature (Compl. ¶21).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’763 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a display device that consists only of a facial region, a border region surrounding the facial region, a fringe region surrounding the border region, and a plurality of light sources... configured such that lights of a first color... and, lights of a second color... | Defendant's indicators comprise a display device with a facial region, border region, fringe region, and light sources of first and second colors positioned to illuminate these regions. | ¶14 | col. 4:36-50 |
| a user interface for receiving a first state starting time and information related to a second state starting time; | Defendant's indicators comprise a user interface for receiving a first state starting time and information related to a second state starting time. | ¶15 | col. 5:44-48 |
| an interface for receiving a current time; | Defendant's indicators comprise an interface for receiving a current time. | ¶16 | col. 6:45-46 |
| a comparator for comparing a current time to the first state starting time and at least the information related to the second state starting time; | Defendant's indicators comprise a comparator for comparing a current time to the state starting times. | ¶17 | col. 6:9-12 |
| upon determining that the current time has reached the first state starting time, causing a display to enter a first state wherein the light sources of the first color are illuminated and the light sources of the second color are turned off... | Upon reaching the first state start time, the device enters a first state where first color lights are on and second color lights are off, indicating it is time to wake up. | ¶18 | col. 6:18-22 |
| upon determining that conditions are met for entering a second state, causing the display to enter a second state wherein the light sources of the first color are turned off and the light sources of the second color are illuminated... | Upon meeting conditions for a second state, the device enters that state where first color lights are off and second color lights are on, indicating it is time to stay in bed. | ¶19 | col. 6:22-27 |
| wherein in the first state and the second state, the same facial region is illuminated but using light sources of different colors. | In both states, the same facial region is illuminated but with different colored light sources. | ¶20 | col. 4:48-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a display device that "consists only of" a facial, border, and fringe region, plus light sources. This transitional phrase is highly restrictive, excluding any unrecited structural elements. This raises the question of whether the accused GRO-CLOCK™ display includes other components, such as a digital time-telling screen, which could place it outside the literal scope of the claim.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific lighting configuration where first-color lights illuminate both the fringe and facial regions, and second-color lights illuminate both the border and facial regions. The complaint alleges this configuration (Compl. ¶14), but what evidence exists to show the accused product's internal lighting hardware operates in this precise manner will be a key factual question for the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "consists only of"
- Context and Importance: This term, used in Claim 1, is a closed-ended transition phrase. Its construction is critical because if the accused GRO-CLOCK™'s display is found to contain any structural element not explicitly recited in the claim (e.g., a digital clock face), a finding of non-infringement may be supported.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broader interpretation. A plaintiff might argue in later proceedings that the phrase should not be read to exclude minor or unrelated components that do not materially alter the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The standard legal definition of "consisting of" or "consists only of" closes the claim to any elements not specified. The patent’s detailed description and figures consistently depict the display as being composed of the three distinct regions: facial region 110, border region 120, and fringe region 130, with no other structures shown (ʼ763 Patent, col. 4:38-40; Fig. 1A). This suggests the patentee deliberately chose this restrictive language.
The Term: "facial region"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this region is central to the infringement analysis, as it must be illuminated in both the "wake up" and "stay in bed" states. Practitioners may focus on this term because its boundaries will determine what is, and is not, part of the claimed display device, which is directly relevant to the "consists only of" limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the region as including a "smiling face on the sun" or "moon," suggesting it is the central character depiction (ʼ763 Patent, col. 4:33-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "facial region 110" as a distinct, self-contained circular area without any other functional components like a digital clock display inside it (ʼ763 Patent, Fig. 1A, 1B). This could support an argument that any such additional component in an accused device is not part of the "facial region" and is therefore an unrecited element.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (induced or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 (Compl. ¶12).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Defendant's infringement "has been, and continues to be, willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶26). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the phrase "consists only of," as used in Claim 1, be interpreted to read on an accused device that may contain additional structural elements in its display, such as a digital clock? The resolution of this question will likely determine the viability of the infringement case for the broadest apparatus claim.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused GRO-CLOCK™'s internal lighting system function in the specific manner required by Claim 1, where one set of lights illuminates both the fringe and facial regions and another set illuminates both the border and facial regions? The plaintiff will need to provide evidence to substantiate this asserted configuration.