DCT

1:23-cv-16181

CKnapp Sales v. Manehu Product Alliance LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16181, N.D. Ill., 11/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, the accused products are shipped into the district, and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its motorized television wall mounts do not infringe Defendant’s patent, following Defendant’s infringement allegations made through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) procedure.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns articulating wall mounts that allow a television to be stored in a high position (e.g., over a fireplace) and lowered to an ergonomic viewing height.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint’s primary non-infringement theory is grounded in the prosecution history of the patent-in-suit. During prosecution, the patent applicant responded to a USPTO restriction requirement by electing to pursue claims readable on a specific embodiment ("Species 6," shown in Figures 41-55 of the patent) without traversing the examiner's finding that the various species were patentably distinct. This election is central to the Plaintiff's argument that the patent's claims should be narrowly construed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-06-04 '703 Patent Priority Date
2023-02-13 Preliminary Amendment filed during '703 patent prosecution
2023-02-17 USPTO issued Restriction Requirement for '703 patent
2023-04-24 Applicant elected "Species 6" in response to Restriction
2023-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,781,703 Issued
2023-11-03 Amazon informed Plaintiff of Defendant's infringement report
2023-11-21 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,781,703 - “Adjustable Mounting Systems for Televisions”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,781,703, issued October 10, 2023 (’703 Patent). (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that televisions mounted high on a wall, such as above a fireplace, may be uncomfortable to watch because the viewer must look up, which can strain the neck. ('703 Patent, col. 2:37-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mounting apparatus that holds a television in a raised, "low-profile stowed configuration" and allows it to be moved to different, lower viewing positions. ('703 Patent, Abstract). The system uses a linkage assembly, which can be coupled with counterbalance mechanisms like gas pistons, to facilitate smooth, controlled movement between the raised and lowered positions. ('703 Patent, col. 2:1-14, 56-65).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enables the aesthetic placement of large televisions in high locations while preserving the ability to reposition them to an ergonomically comfortable viewing level. ('703 Patent, col. 2:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s specific non-infringement arguments target independent claim 33. (Compl. ¶28).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 33 are:
    • a support bracket configured to couple to a wall;
    • a display bracket configured to hold a television;
    • an arm assembly pivotally coupled to the support bracket and movable between a raised and a lowered configuration, the arm assembly including an upper arm and a lower arm; and
    • a motorized actuator assembly with a support bracket end rotatably coupled to the support bracket and a display bracket end rotatably coupled to the arm assembly, where at least a portion of the actuator moves "toward and past a portion of the lower arm" when the arm assembly moves to the raised configuration. (’703 Patent, col. 25:32-47).
  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims of the patent. (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as Plaintiff's Steel Electric TV Wall Mounts, specifically model number MOUNT-E-MM070 and model number MOUNT-E-MM070W. (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are motorized television wall mounts that allow for positional adjustment. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint includes a perspective image of the MOUNT-E-MM070W product. (Compl. p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that a significant portion of its U.S. sales of the Accused Products occurs on the Amazon marketplace and that a delisting would result in "immediate and significant financial losses." (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's primary arguments for why its Accused Products do not meet the limitations of claim 33. The Plaintiff's theory hinges on construing the claims as being limited to the specific embodiment ("Species 6," shown in Figures 41-55) that the patentee elected during prosecution. (Compl. ¶¶24-26).

’703 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 33) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (Plaintiff's Position) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a motorized actuator assembly having ... a display bracket end rotatably coupled to the arm assembly Plaintiff alleges the Accused Products lack a motorized actuator assembly that is rotatably coupled to a display bracket end of the arm assembly. (Compl. ¶¶29-30). Plaintiff argues that in the patent's elected embodiment, the actuator connects to an upper link, and alleges its products lack this coupling. (Compl. ¶¶31-32). ¶¶29-32 col. 17:49-51
wherein at least a portion of the motorized actuator assembly moves toward and past a portion of the lower arm when the arm assembly moves toward the raised configuration Plaintiff alleges the Accused Products do not have this feature. (Compl. ¶33). It argues this function in the patent's elected embodiment is achieved by a lower pivot (1292) moving in a slot (1410), a mechanism the Accused Products allegedly lack. The complaint references Figures 43-45 from the patent, which show this movement. (Compl. ¶34). ¶¶33-35 col. 18:41-45

Identified Points of Contention

  • Prosecution History Estoppel: The core of the dispute appears to be the legal effect of the patentee’s election of "Species 6" without traverse during prosecution. (Compl. ¶¶25-26). This raises the question of whether the scope of the asserted claim is limited to embodiments containing the specific features of that species, such as the lower pivot movement described in the complaint.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the Accused Products contain structures that perform the functions recited in the claim. For example, what evidence will be presented to show whether or not the Accused Products have a lower pivot that "can move rearwardly to maintain an appropriate distance between pivot points," as Plaintiff alleges is required by the patent. (Compl. ¶35).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "arm assembly"

Context and Importance

Plaintiff notes that the written description for the elected embodiment ("Species 6") does not use the term "arm assembly," instead describing "a linkage assembly 1130" that includes an "upper link 1176" and a "lower link 1412." (Compl. ¶31). Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patentee’s use of different terminology was intended to impart a specific meaning or scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, and a "linkage assembly" composed of an "upper arm" and a "lower arm" could be considered a type of "arm assembly."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff's argument suggests the term should be interpreted in light of the specific "linkage assembly 1130" of the elected species, which it argues has distinct structural characteristics. (Compl. ¶31). The prosecution history may be cited to support limiting the term's scope to that specific disclosed structure. (Compl. ¶¶24-26).

The Term: "a display bracket end rotatably coupled to the arm assembly"

Context and Importance

The location and nature of this coupling is a central point of the non-infringement argument. (Compl. ¶30). The case may turn on whether this coupling can be a general connection to any part of the arm structure or if it is limited to a specific connection point disclosed in the specification.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify where on the arm assembly the coupling must occur.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff points to the description of the elected embodiment, which states, "The display bracket 1142 can be rotatably coupled to the upper link 1176 by pivot 1177 (FIG. 41)." (Compl. ¶31; '703 Patent, col. 17:49-51). This specific disclosure may be used to argue that "coupled to the arm assembly" requires the specific coupling to the upper link shown in the elected species.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. As a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, these issues would typically arise in a counterclaim by the Defendant, which has not yet been filed.

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

  • A core issue will be one of prosecution history estoppel: to what extent does the patentee's express election of "Species 6" during prosecution, without arguing against the examiner's finding of patentable distinction between species, confine the scope of claim 33 to the specific mechanical configurations and movements disclosed for that embodiment in the patent?
  • A key question of claim construction will be whether generic claim terms like "arm assembly" must be narrowly interpreted to match the more specific terminology (e.g., "linkage assembly") used in the specification to describe the single species elected for prosecution.
  • An ultimate evidentiary question will be one of technical comparison: assuming the claims are construed, does the accused VIVO mount possess the specific structural elements—such as the claimed actuator coupling and the lower arm movement mechanism—that Plaintiff argues are required by the patent's elected embodiment?