DCT
1:23-cv-04865
Levitation Arts Inc v. BKST Brand Management LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Levitation Arts, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: BKST Brand Management LLC, BKST BSA Group LLC, and BKST Brand Holdings LLC (collectively "Brookstone") (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: NIRO MCANDREWS, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04865, N.D. Ill., 07/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a retail location at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of levitating decorative products, including lamps and planters, infringes a patent related to a magnetic levitation apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using a specific combination of permanent magnets and actively controlled electromagnets to achieve stable levitation of an object, a task that is non-trivial under the principles of physics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit underwent an ex parte reexamination, which concluded on October 4, 2011, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reaffirming the patentability of all claims. This history may be raised to suggest the patent's claims have already withstood scrutiny against prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-27 | '243 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/413,881) |
| 2009-03-17 | '243 Patent Issued |
| 2011-02-28 | Reexamination of '243 Patent Requested |
| 2011-10-04 | USPTO Reaffirmed Validity of All Claims of the '243 Patent |
| 2023-07-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,505,243 - "Magnetic Levitation Apparatus"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,505,243, "Magnetic Levitation Apparatus", issued March 17, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that according to Earnshaw's theorem, a magnet cannot be held in stable equilibrium by static magnetic forces alone (U.S. Patent No. 7,505,243, col. 1:21-27). It also identifies an issue in prior art systems where the control fields used for stabilization could apply undesirable torque to the levitated object, causing rotational instability ('243 Patent, col. 1:40-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus that uses a static magnetic field (e.g., from a ring magnet) to create a condition that is stable along certain axes but inherently unstable along another. A control system, comprising a position sensor and one or more electromagnets, then actively manages only the unstable axis. This control system generates a variable magnetic field to counteract any deviation along the unstable axis, thereby achieving overall stability without inducing significant torque ('243 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:8-22).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide more stable and reliable magnetic levitation with potentially simpler construction and lower cost compared to prior systems ('243 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 16 and 25, along with dependent claims 17, 19-24 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 16 requires:
- A ring magnet disposed in a plane, adapted to generate a static magnetic field at an equilibrium location.
- The static magnetic field having a "substantially minimized magnetic field gradient" in a direction orthogonal to the plane.
- A position sensor to generate a feedback signal indicating the levitated element's location.
- An electromagnet to generate a control magnetic field to control motion.
- A controller connecting the sensor and electromagnet to control the system.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims during the litigation (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Brookstone's "Levitating Lamp" (sold in Moon, Mars, Earth, Saturn, and Jupiter models) and the "Levitatepro Levitating Planter" (Compl. ¶¶ 14-16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the products as using "magnetic levitation technology" that allows an object (e.g., a 3D-printed lamp or a planter) to "float and spin all on its own above the included base" (Compl. ¶14, 19.a). The complaint includes several annotated photographs from a product teardown, which purport to show the internal components of the base, including a ring magnet, position sensor, and electromagnets (Compl. ¶¶ 19.b, 19.e, 19.f). The products are marketed as consumer electronics and sold on the defendant's website (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'243 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a ring magnet disposed in a plane having a longitudinal axis and a latitudinal axis, the ring magnet adapted to generate a static magnetic field at an equilibrium location spaced apart from the common plane | The accused products include a base with an internal ring magnet disposed in a plane. The complaint includes an annotated photograph identifying this component. (Compl. ¶19.b) | ¶19.b | col. 11:30-35 |
| wherein the static magnetic field defines a substantially minimized magnetic field gradient in a direction orthogonal to the plane | The static magnetic field created by the ring magnet is alleged to exist at an equilibrium location and have a substantially minimized magnetic field gradient orthogonal to the plane of the magnet. | ¶19.d | col. 11:35-38 |
| a position sensor adapted to generate a feedback signal indicative of the location of the magnetic element relative to the equilibrium location | The base contains a position sensor system that generates a signal indicating the location of the levitated object. The complaint provides an annotated photo of the sensor. (Compl. ¶19.e) | ¶19.e | col. 11:39-41 |
| an electromagnet connected to the position sensor and adapted to generate a control magnetic field to control motion of the magnetic element relative to the equilibrium location | The base contains four electromagnets that generate a control magnetic field to manage the object's motion. An annotated photo points out these components. (Compl. ¶19.f) | ¶19.f | col. 11:42-43 |
| and a controller connected to the position sensor and the electromagnet and adapted to receive the feedback signal from the position sensor and to control the electromagnet in response thereto | A controller within the base is connected to the sensor system and the electromagnets, receiving signals and controlling the electromagnets in response. | ¶19.g | col. 12:1-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint asserts that the accused products' static magnetic field has a "substantially minimized magnetic field gradient" orthogonal to the magnet's plane (Compl. ¶19.d). This is a highly technical assertion. A central factual dispute may be whether the accused devices, upon testing and analysis, actually exhibit this specific field characteristic as required by the claim.
- Scope Question: The claim term "substantially minimized" is a term of degree. Its interpretation will be critical. The litigation may raise the question of whether this term requires a specific, quantifiable reduction in the field gradient or if it can be satisfied by a more qualitative functional standard.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "substantially minimized magnetic field gradient"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 16 and is central to the patent's described method of stabilization. The degree to which the static field's gradient is "minimized" in one direction dictates the stability characteristics that the active control system must then manage. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it is a qualitative description or implies a quantitative threshold—will likely determine the scope of the claim and the evidence required to prove infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification often uses qualitative language to describe the invention's function. Parties advocating for a broader scope may argue that "substantially minimized" should be understood in its plain and ordinary meaning, referring to a gradient that is functionally small enough to allow the control system to operate effectively, without being tied to a specific numeric value.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope might point to other parts of the specification that provide more quantitative context. For example, in discussing an alternative embodiment with additional magnets, the patent defines "substantially no gradient" as "preferably less than 25% of, and most preferably less than 7% of, the gradient of the static magnetic field produced by magnets 14 and 16" ('243 Patent, col. 8:60-65). While this language describes a different feature ("substantially no gradient" vs. "substantially minimized") in a different embodiment, it could be used to argue that the patent contemplates specific, measurable thresholds for such terms.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations or a separate count for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or plead facts related to the defendant's knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit. The prayer for relief requests damages as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 284 but does not specifically demand enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of claim construction: how the court defines the term "substantially minimized magnetic field gradient." The case's outcome may depend on whether this is construed as a qualitative, functional requirement or a more stringent, quantitative standard that can be measured and compared against numeric thresholds.
The primary evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff demonstrate, through expert testimony and empirical testing, that the magnetic field generated by the accused products' base actually possesses the specific "substantially minimized" gradient characteristic required by the asserted claims? The complaint's teardown photos establish the presence of the claimed hardware components, but proving their precise functional operation will be a critical and contested step.