DCT
1:24-cv-09718
Lovitedo LLC v. Partnership Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lovitedo, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mardison (Foreign Jurisdiction)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keener & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09718, N.D. Ill., 10/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there, specifically through targeting and completing sales to consumers in Illinois via an interactive commercial website.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s toy gun, sold through an Amazon.com webstore, infringes a patent related to a motor-driven mechanical action for loading and firing gel ball projectiles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the internal mechanisms of toy guns designed to fire water-absorbing gel balls, which are marketed as a safer alternative to traditional plastic projectiles.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, any post-grant proceedings before the USPTO, or any licensing history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-12-20 | U.S. Patent No. 11,644,271 Priority Date |
| 2023-05-09 | U.S. Patent No. 11,644,271 Issued |
| 2024-10-22 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,644,271 - "TOY GUN" (Issued May 9, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a market for toy guns where existing products are often focused on "sound diversity and loveliness" and are not mechanically capable of firing safer, water-absorbing resin projectiles known as "gel balls," thereby reducing their "playability." (’271 Patent, col. 1:18-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a toy gun mechanism that uses a motor to drive a gear set. This gear set actuates an "inflatable set" (a piston and cylinder assembly). The gear set’s design causes two distinct but coordinated movements: it drives the piston back and forth inside the cylinder to compress air, and it simultaneously drives the entire cylinder assembly back and forth within the gun's shell. This second motion of the cylinder temporarily unblocks a loading hole, allowing a gel ball to drop into the barrel before the cylinder moves forward again to seal the chamber for firing. (’271 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-41).
- Technical Importance: This mechanical arrangement claims to improve the functionality of toy guns by enabling them to reliably load and fire gel ball ammunition, which the patent asserts was a deficiency in the prior art. (’271 Patent, col. 1:21-23; col. 2:30-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A toy gun, comprising a gun shell, a driving mechanism, a gear set, an inflatable set, and a gun barrel.
- The inflatable set is arranged in the gun shell in a sliding manner.
- The driving mechanism drives the gear set to rotate.
- The inflatable set comprises a cylinder body and a piston, with the piston arranged to slide within the cylinder body.
- The cylinder body has an air nozzle at one end that is inserted into one end of the gun barrel.
- The gear set drives the piston to move reciprocally in the cylinder body and, "at the same time," drives the cylinder body to move reciprocally in the gun shell.
- The complaint generally alleges infringement of "the claims" of the patent but does not specify any dependent claims. (Compl. ¶19, ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is a toy gun sold by Defendant "Mardison" via a storefront on Amazon.com, identified by ASIN B09ZV18M73. (Compl. ¶3, ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a toy gun that incorporates the patented technology. (Compl. ¶22). To support this, the complaint provides several photographs of a disassembled accused product, showing its internal components. These include a motor (driving mechanism), a series of plastic gears (gear set), and a piston-and-cylinder assembly (inflatable set). (Compl. pp. 5-7). A photograph of the disassembled "inflatable set" shows the separate piston and cylinder components. (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges that the Defendant targets and sells these products to consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois. (Compl. ¶3, ¶8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’271 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A toy gun, comprising a gun shell... a driving mechanism, a gear set, an inflatable set and a gun barrel | The Accused Products comprise a gun shell with a gun barrel, a driving mechanism, a gear set, and an inflatable set. The complaint provides a photograph of the accused product's internal components laid out within the gun shell. (Compl. p. 5). | ¶22a-d | col. 5:8-10 |
| wherein the inflatable set is arranged in the gun shell in a sliding manner... | The complaint alleges the inflatable set is arranged in the gun shell in a sliding manner. A photograph shows the assembled mechanism, including the gear set and inflatable set, within the gun shell. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶22e | col. 5:10-12 |
| the inflatable set comprises a cylinder body and a piston...arranged in the cylinder body in a sliding manner | The complaint alleges the inflatable set comprises a cylinder body and a piston, with the piston arranged in a sliding manner. A photograph shows the distinct cylinder body and piston components, which are annotated. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶22d.i | col. 5:13-15 |
| one end of the cylinder body is fixedly provided with an air nozzle which is inserted at one end of the gun barrel | The complaint alleges one end of the cylinder body has a fixed air nozzle for insertion into the gun barrel. The annotated photograph on page 7 explicitly identifies the "Air nozzle" on the cylinder body. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶22d.i | col. 5:15-17 |
| and the gear set drives the piston to move reciprocally in the cylinder body, and at the same time drives the cylinder body to move reciprocally in the gun shell | The complaint alleges the gear set drives both the piston and the cylinder body to move reciprocally. A photograph shows the gear set engaged with the inflatable set. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶22e | col. 5:17-21 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's photographs show the existence of the claimed components in a static state. However, Claim 1 requires a specific dynamic action: that the gear set drives the piston and the cylinder body "at the same time." The complaint’s evidence does not demonstrate this simultaneous motion. A central question for the court will be whether the accused product's mechanism performs these two distinct movements concurrently, as the claim requires, or in a different temporal sequence.
- Technical Questions: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that the accused product's gear train, as pictured, actually causes the specific dual reciprocal movements required by the claim? The infringement analysis will likely depend on evidence beyond static photographs, such as operational testing or expert analysis of the device's mechanical function, to prove that the accused product operates in the manner claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at the same time"
- Context and Importance: This phrase appears in the final, and arguably most crucial, limitation of Claim 1. It defines the required temporal relationship between the movement of the piston (which compresses the air) and the movement of the cylinder (which loads the projectile). The infringement case may turn on whether the accused product’s actions are proven to be simultaneous.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term means within the same overall operational firing cycle, not necessarily in perfect, instantaneous lockstep. The specification describes a multi-stage process where the components move together during one phase of rotation. (’271 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the phrase requires true simultaneity, pointing to the patent's description of a single "fourth transmission gear" with two integrated "half gears" of different diameters that engage separate racks on the piston and cylinder. (’271 Patent, col. 2:55-62, Fig. 5). This unified mechanical driver could be argued to inherently produce simultaneous, albeit different, movements, suggesting a strict temporal requirement.
The Term: "inflatable set"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the primary functional assembly of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to the specific components shown in the patent's figures or if it can be construed more broadly.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the set as comprising "a cylinder body and a piston," suggesting these are the only required components. (’271 Patent, col. 5:13-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be interpreted more narrowly in light of the detailed description, which states that the "inflatable set 4 includes a cylinder body 41, a piston 42, a push spring 43, a guide rod 44 and a tension spring 45." (’271 Patent, col. 3:39-41). While these additional elements are not recited in Claim 1, their inclusion in the specification's definition of the "inflatable set" could be used to argue for a more limited scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin acts of inducement and contribution. (Compl. ¶23; Prayer for Relief ¶2). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support these theories, such as alleging that Defendant provided instructions to users or sold components with the knowledge and intent to cause infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful and deliberate. (Compl. ¶24). The factual basis for this claim is the allegation that the "Defendant has had full knowledge of the existence of the Asserted Patent" and that the infringement is "obvious and notorious." (Compl. ¶11, ¶24). The complaint does not specify how or when Defendant gained knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of functional proof: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence, beyond the static photographs provided, to demonstrate that the accused toy gun’s gear mechanism drives both the piston and the cylinder "at the same time," as mandated by the claim language? The case may depend heavily on the dynamic operation of the accused device, which is not established by the complaint alone.
- A second question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the scope of "at the same time"? Whether this term requires perfect, mechanically-linked simultaneity or allows for actions occurring in close succession within a single firing cycle will be a dispositive issue for the infringement analysis.
- A foundational challenge may be jurisdictional and logistical: Given that the named Defendant is identified as a foreign entity with an unknown address operating through a third-party e-commerce platform, establishing personal jurisdiction, effecting service, and obtaining discovery regarding the product's design and operation may present significant hurdles for the Plaintiff.