DCT
1:24-cv-02270
ATLeisure LLC v. Treasure Garden Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ATLeisure, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Treasure Garden, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP; Allen, Dyer, Doppelt + Gilchrist, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02270, N.D. Ga., 05/23/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant engages in business in the district and committed alleged acts of infringement at a physical location there, specifically its corporate showroom in Atlanta.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cantilever and offset patio umbrellas infringe a patent related to an adjustable offset umbrella mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical systems for offset patio umbrellas, which are designed to suspend a canopy to the side of a main support pole, maximizing usable shaded space.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel put Defendant on notice of infringement by its ProShade-branded umbrellas in August 2023, and subsequently provided notice regarding its Allen+Roth branded umbrellas in March 2024. This history may form the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-05-05 | '492 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-01-31 | '492 Patent Issued |
| 2023-08-XX | Pre-suit notice letter sent regarding ProShade umbrellas |
| 2024-03-XX | Pre-suit notice letter sent regarding Allen+Roth umbrellas |
| 2024-05-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,104,492, "Adjustable Offset Umbrella" (Issued Jan. 31, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art offset umbrellas where the crank mechanism for opening and closing the canopy is mounted on the main pole. This arrangement creates a "complex path with many turning points" for the operating rope or line, which increases the required winding force and can cause the line to bind or wear out, making operation "burdensome" (’492 Patent, col. 1:36-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by integrating the winding mechanism directly onto the sliding member that moves up and down the main pole. By mounting the winder to the slider, the mechanism that opens/closes the canopy moves together with the mechanism that sets the canopy's angle. This approach is intended to simplify the line path, separate the functions of opening the canopy from angling the canopy, and thereby reduce operating force and wear (’492 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-12). The detailed description and Figure 4 illustrate the winding mechanism (82) mounted to the housing (70) of the sliding member (16) (’492 Patent, col. 4:41-43).
- Technical Importance: The invention purports to provide a more user-friendly and durable design for offset umbrellas by decoupling and simplifying the mechanical actions required to deploy and position the canopy (’492 Patent, col. 2:8-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- a main pole having a lower end for support by a support surface and extending generally upward to an upper end;
- a sliding member associated with the main pole and selectably moveable thereon between lower and upper locations along the main pole;
- locking means for releasably securing the sliding member to the main pole at a selected location along the main pole;
- an umbrella canopy having a central region;
- an arm associated with the central region and extending radially therefrom to an outer end operatively associated with the sliding member;
- a brace having a first end pivotably attached to an upper portion of the pole above the sliding member and a second end pivotably attached to the arm;
- a winding mechanism having a winder hub around which a line can be wound, the winder hub being mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith;
- a line having a first end that winds around the winder hub, an intermediate portion extending from the winder hub along the arm to the umbrella canopy, and a second end that engages the umbrella canopy;
- wherein rotation of the winder hub tensions or relaxes the line... wherein operation of the winding mechanism to apply tension to the line opens and closes the umbrella canopy... and wherein the angle of the umbrella canopy with respect to the main pole can be controlled by moving the sliding member along the main pole.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but it alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies several of Defendant’s patio and outdoor umbrellas, including the "Starlux AKZ Plus Cantilever," the "AKZP13 Plus Cantilever," and umbrellas sold under the "ProShade" and "Allen + Roth" brand names (Compl. ¶20-22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are cantilever-style patio umbrellas that Defendant manufactures, advertises, and sells through various channels, including its own website, retailers like Costco and Lowe's, and its corporate showroom in Atlanta (Compl. ¶9, ¶19-22). The complaint provides an image from a virtual tour of Defendant’s Atlanta showroom depicting the "Starlux AKZ Plus Cantilever" on display (Compl. p. 4, ¶10). The complaint asserts that all accused umbrellas infringe in the same manner (Compl. ¶25), but does not provide a detailed technical description of their operation outside the context of the infringement allegations.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s umbrellas infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’492 Patent and states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶24). That exhibit was not included with the public filing. The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 1 as can be inferred from the complaint's narrative and claim language.
’492 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a main pole having a lower end for support by a support surface and extending generally upward to an upper end | The accused umbrellas allegedly include a vertical main support pole mounted on a base | ¶24 | col. 2:45-46 |
| a sliding member associated with the main pole and selectably moveable thereon | The accused umbrellas allegedly have a sliding member or collar that moves up and down the main pole to adjust the canopy angle | ¶24 | col. 2:46-49 |
| locking means for releasably securing the sliding member to the main pole at a selected location | The accused umbrellas are alleged to possess a mechanism to lock the sliding member at a desired height on the main pole | ¶24 | col. 2:51-53 |
| an arm associated with the central region [of an umbrella canopy]... operatively associated with the sliding member | The accused umbrellas allegedly utilize a main support arm that connects the canopy structure to the sliding member | ¶24 | col. 2:54-57 |
| a winding mechanism having a winder hub... being mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith | The complaint alleges the accused umbrellas have a winding mechanism (e.g., a crank) that is mounted on the sliding member itself and moves with it along the main pole | ¶24 | col. 3:59-62 |
| a line having a first end that winds around the winder hub, an intermediate portion extending... to the umbrella canopy... to open and close | The accused umbrellas allegedly use a line or cord that runs from the winder on the sliding member, along the support arm, and into the canopy mechanism to extend or retract the canopy ribs | ¶24 | col. 3:62-65 |
| wherein the angle of the umbrella canopy... can be controlled by moving the sliding member along the main pole | The complaint alleges that moving the sliding member on the accused umbrellas up or down the main pole changes the angle of the canopy, as depicted in Figure 6 of the patent | ¶24 | col. 4:1-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products' winding mechanisms are "mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith" as claimed. The analysis may turn on the precise structural relationship between the winder, the slider, and the main pole in the accused products compared to the patent's teachings and claim language.
- Functional Questions: The court may need to determine if the "locking means" in the accused products operates in a manner consistent with the scope of that term in the patent, which discloses a cam latch, a latch pin, and a pawl-and-ratchet system as potential embodiments (’492 Patent, Figs. 4, 7, 8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a winding mechanism... mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the central novel feature of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art where the winder was fixed to the main pole. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products' structures fall within the scope of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core point of departure from the prior art and is thus critical to both infringement and validity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the method of mounting, which may support a construction that covers any form of attachment where the winder is affixed to the slider and travels with it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where the winding mechanism (82) is mounted inside the housing (70) of the sliding member (16) (’492 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 4:41-43). A defendant could argue this disclosure limits the term to a configuration where the winder is integrated directly into the slider's main body, rather than being attached as a separate component.
The Term: "locking means for releasably securing the sliding member"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine what types of locking mechanisms are covered by the claim. If the accused products use a locking mechanism that differs from those shown in the patent, the construction of this term could be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the general term "locking means" could support a broad interpretation covering any structure that performs the recited function of "releasably securing the sliding member." The patent itself discloses three distinct embodiments for this function: a cam lock, a spring-loaded pin, and a pawl-and-ratchet (’492 Patent, col. 4:12-31). This disclosure of multiple, distinct structures may suggest the patentee did not intend to limit the claim to any single one.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which would limit its scope to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification (the cam lock, pin, and pawl systems) and their structural equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶28).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and continues to be "deliberate, knowing, and willful" (Compl. ¶29). This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit notice provided by Plaintiff’s counsel in August 2023 and March 2024, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on the mechanical configuration of Defendant's offset umbrellas. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of two primary questions:
A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: Does the accused umbrellas' assembly of a winder and a slider meet the claim requirement of a "winding mechanism... mounted to the sliding member and movable therewith"? The case may turn on the specific physical attachment and integration of these components in the accused products.
A secondary but potentially dispositive question will be one of claim scope: Will the term "locking means" be construed broadly to cover any mechanism that performs the locking function, or will it be interpreted more narrowly as a means-plus-function term, limiting its scope to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patent and their equivalents?